HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/04/13
Tuesday, April 13, 1993
6:00 p.m.
"I declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the Citv Clcr~( ~n.1 that I posted
this Agenda/No,i:e ",.:,e Julletin B~ard at
the pUb\i.::~r~e~ BuL.in: ond at tty all-o
DATED'~ SIG,~ED
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
ResruIar Meetinl!: of the City of Chula VISta City Council
CAll. TO ORDER
Councilmembers Fox -' Horton -' Moore -' Rindone -' and Mayor
Nader _
1.
ROll. CAU.:
2. PLEDGE OF AlLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 22, 1993 (Special Meeting), March 23, 1993 and March 30, 1993.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Proclaiming the month of April 1993 as "Community Services Month" - The proclamation
will be presented by Mayor Nader to Sharon Morioka, Human Services Coordinator for the
City.
b. Introduction of "WOMEN'S LEADERSHIP EXCHANGE REPRESENTATIVES" - Eileen Sutcliffe,
Assistant Principal, head of faculty of Business and Management of Nelson & Colne College,
Nelson, Lancashire, England and Christine Keogh, Deputy Head of General Education
Department, Burnley College, Burnley, England will be introduced by Maryellene Deason
and Trish Axsom.
c. Proclamation commending "Project Compassion" for their assistance in relief efforts to the
people of the City of Tijuana - The proclamation will be presented by Mayor Nader to Becky
Lucero.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 24)
The staff recommendJJtions regarding the foUowing items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the
CoundI by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the publU: or City staff requests
that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Requut to
Speak Form" avaiJJlble in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the staff recorlll1ll!lUlJ2tion; complete the pink form to speak in opposiJion to the staff
recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Caleruior will be discussed after Board and Commission
Recommendations and Action Items- Items puUed by the publU: will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. ClainlS against the City: Claimant Number 1 - Leslie Grace Stevenson, c/o Beth S. Schiralli,
Esq., Berger, Halm, Shafton, Moss, Figler, SiDlon & Gladstone, 101 West Broadway, Suite
1950, San Diego, CA 92101; and Claimant Number 2 - Colleen Quinn, c/o Samuel Jefferson
Frazier, III, Attorney at Law, 8950 Villa La Jolla Drive, Suite 2212, La Jolla, CA 92037. It
is the recommendation of the City's claims adjustors, Carl Warren & Company, and Risk
Management staff that the claims be denied.
Agenda
6.
-2-
April 13, 1993
b. Letter of complaint regarding a Housing Inspector - Tom B. Arena, P. O. Box 530004, San
Diego, CA 92153. It is recommended that the letter be referred to the Director of Building
and Housing for investigation and a subsequent report back to Council.
c. Letter recommending tbat the miniature rose be proclaimed as the City's officialllower and
one month each year as "Miniature Rose Month" - Susan O'Brien, Tiny Petal's Nursery, 489
Minot Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. It is recommended that the City flower remain the
geranium. Council, may, however, wish to consider proclaiming this month "Miniature Rose
Month" as was done in April 1991.
d. Letter requesting the City join with San Diego City and County Governments in contnbuting
to the financial support of the Regional Task Force on the Homeless - Mayor Susan Golding,
City of San Diego, Supervisor Leon L. Williams, County of San Diego, and Supervisor John
MacDonald, County of San Diego, Regional Task Force on the Homeless, 655 Fourth
Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101. It is recommended that the request be deferred for
consideration in the 1993-94 Block Grant Budget, at which time a recommedation for
funding will be made.
e. Letter of resignation from the Growth Management Oversight Commission - Harold
Coleman, Jr., Mcinnis, Fitzgerald, Rees, Sharkey & Mcintyre, Attorneys at Law, 1230
Columbia Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101. It is recommended that the resignation
be accepted with regret and that the City Clerk be directed to post the vacancy immediately
in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library in accordance with the Maddy Act.
f. Letter seeking support and requesting the City adopt a resolution supporting the position
of the City of Imperial Beach that interim ordinances are not subject to Coastal Commission
review as they are temporary in nature - Diane Rose, Acting Mayor, City of Imperial Beach,
825 Imperial Beach Blvd., Imperial Beach, CA 91932. The City Attorney recommends
support and has prepared a resolution of support for Council to approve.
RESOLlTnON 17056 SUPPORTING TIiE POSITION OF TIiE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
THAT INfERlM ORDINANCES ARE NOT SUBJECf TO COASTAL
COMMISSION REVIEW AS TIlEY ARE TEMPORARY IN NATURE
ORDINANCE 2549
AMENDING SECTION 9.20.040 OF TIiE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT
TIiE POIJCE CHIEF TO OFFER A DIVERSION PROGRAM OF COMMUNITY
SERVICE WITII PARENTAL SUPERVISION TO MINORS ENGAGING IN
CRIM1N,oJ. ACTIVITY AND ADULTS COMMITTING GRAFFITI OFFENSES
(second readinR: and adoption) - All South Bay cities, the County, and the
juvenile court judges, prosecutors, and probation officers are being
encouraged to agree on a coordinated approach to solving the graffiti
problem. One significant element of the effott is to efficiently administer
rehabilitation to the graffiti violator by quickly assigning the violator to a
significant period of community service (30 hours), and requiring the
parent or guardian to be present during that community service (50% of
the assigned hours). The modification to the graffiti ordinance will
empower the Police Chief to make those offers in lieu of commencing
prosecution of the violator. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance
on second reading and adoption. (City Attorney)
Agenda
-3-
April 13, 1993
7. ORDINANCE 2545 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1S-93-17/19 AND ADDENDUM
THERETO AND ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) NUMBER
ELEVEN AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF 1HE MUNICIPAL CODE
11TLE 19, ZONING CHAPTER 19.07.035, RELATING TO 1HE BAYFRONT
SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW CERTAIN LAND USE CATEGORIES BY
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT WI1liIN 1HE INDUSTRIAL: GENERAL LAND
USE DESIGNATION WITH 1HE LCP (second readinsr and adootion) -
Amendment Number Eleven to the certified LCP is being proposed to allow
certain land uses, by conditional use permit, with the LCP's Industrial:
General land use designation in order to implement a development
proposal to allow National University to operate evening classes at 660 Bay
Boulevard and to provide for child.care facilities in the Bayfront (City
initiated proposal). The amendment proposes to allow educational
services, commercial activities and child-care civic activities within the
LCP's overall Industrial: General land use designation. Staff recommends
Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of
Community Development)
8. ORDINANCE 2547 AMENDING SECTIONS 3.44.021, 9.12.160, 9.12.280, 9.13.050, 13.14.090,
13.14.100, 13.14.110, 13.14.120 AND 13.14.150 OF 1HE MUNICIPAL
CODE AND ADDING SECTIONS 5.36.035 AND 15.36.015 OF 1HE
MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES (second
readinsr and adootion) - The ordinance provides for administrative changes
to several sections of the Municipal Code related to the assessment of fees
and service charges. Adoption of the ordinance would have no
independent effect on the level at which fees are assessed. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption.
(Director of Finance)
9.A ORDINANCE 2548 APPROVING 1HE PREZONING TO P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY (pCZ 93-H)
FOR 1HE SAN MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (second
readinsr and adootion) - Development of up to 1,619 dwelling units and
related uses is proposed on 2,590 acres. Staff recommends Council place
the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning)
B. RESOLUTION 17057 AMENDING RESOLUTION 17049 FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH REGARDING
cmZEN INPUT INTO 1HE SAM MIGUEL RANCH SPA PLAN AND
PAYMENT OF COSTS - On 3/23/93, Council added a condition of approval
to the GDP requiring citizen input at the SPA level and directed staff to
return with the composition of the committee for Council approval. If
approved, this resolution will amend condition number thirteen which
deals generally with citizen input requirement, and will specify the
committee makeup as approved by Council. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Director of Planning)
10. ORDINANCE 2550 AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF 1HE MUNI<JPAL CODE TO PERMIT 1HE
F1NAN<JNG OF PROJECTS BY TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS (first
readinsr) - The City is currently considering the institution of proceedings
to provide financing for the acquisition and construction of various projects
by organizations which are exempt from Federal income taxation pursuant
to Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by amending
Chapter 3.48 of the Municipal Code. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on first reading. (Director of Community Development)
Agenda
-4-
April 13, 1993
11. RESOLUTION 17058 AMENDING FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1992-93 BUDGET AllTIfORlZlNG AN
APPROPRIATION FROM TIlE UABllJ'lY TRUST FUND TO TIlE UABllJ'lY
INSURANCE ACCOUNT - Due to unexpected legal defense costs and claims
settlements, an appropriation from the Liability Trust Fund is needed to
cover expenses through the end of FY 1992-93. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Personnel) 4/5th's vote required.
12. RESOLUTION 17059 AllTIfORlZlNG TIlE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES OF TIlE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PURCHASE VEHICLES ON BEHALF OF TIlE
CI1Y - The Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget provides for the replacement of
nineteen vehicles in the Equipment Replacement Fund. One additional
vehicle will be purchased from the Emergency Equipment Purchase
Account. Resolution 6132 authorizes the City to participate in a
cooperative bid with the State for the purchase of the vehicles. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance)
13. RESOLUTION 17060 ALLOWING TIlE CLOSURE OF TI-IIRD AVENUE FROM "Eo TO -po STREET
IN ORDER TO CONDUCT AFESTIVALONMAY2,l993, WAIVING OF TIlE
SIDEWALK SALES ORDINANCE, AND TIlE BUSINESS UCENSE FEES FOR
TIlE CJNCOFEST 1993 - The Chula Vista Business Association is
requesting permission to close Third Avenue between "E" and "F" Street in
order to conduct CincoFest 1993 on Sunday, 5/2/93 from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. The festivities for the event will include live entertainment along with
100 arts and crafts booths. The Ronald McDonald Show will also be part
of the entertainment for the day. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Community Development)
14. RESOLUTION 17061 ACCEPTING UBRARY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ACT (LSCA), TITLE
I GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO TIlE PUBUC UBRARYFOR COMPUANCE
WIrn TIlE AMERICANS Willi DISABIUTIES ACT, APPROPRIATING
FUNDS AND AMENDING TIlE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1992-93 BUDGET - The
State Librarian has awarded Federal LSCA funds in the amount of $29,950
to the Public Library for a model library service program for people with
disabilities. The funds will be used for the installation of auxiliary aids,
adaptive technology and furnishings in compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act which must be expended by 9/30/93. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Acting Library Director) 4/5th's
vote required.
15. RESOLUTION 17040 RESCJNDING RESOLUTION 16959 WHICH CHANGED TIlE NAME OF
OTAY LAKES ROAD TO TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND WUESTE ROAD - The street name
change was approved on 1/12/93 by Council. The item was reconsidered
on 3/2/93, at which time the Council overturned their original decision.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Planning)
Continued from the meeting of 3/23/93.
16. RESOLUTION 17062 AllTIfORlZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES ON MAY 7, 1993 FOR A
PARADE SPONSORED BY PALOMAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - The
principal of Palomar Elementary School has requested permission to
conduct a school parade on 5/7/93 from 9:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. The
parade is the culminating event in the school's "Spirit Week" celebration.
Approximately 500 students from the school will participate, along with a
marching band from Castle Park Middle School. The school has conducted
this parade for several years without incident. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
Agenda
17. RESOLUTION 17063
18. RESOLUTION 17064
19. RESOLUTION 17065
20A RESOLUTION 17066
B. RESOLUTION 17067
21. RESOLUTION 17068
22. RESOLUTION 17069
23. RESOLUTION 17070
-5-
April 13, 1993
AUTIiORIZING TIm CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPUCATION FOR
FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL AN
EMERGENCY VEHICLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION SYSTEM - Staff
recommends Council authorize the City Manager to submit a grant
application for funds for the purchase and installation of an emergency
vehicle traffic signal pre-emption system within the City. Special grant
funds, administered by the California Staff Office of Traffic Safety, are
available under the National Highway Safety Act of 1966. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works and Fire
Chief)
APPROVING TEMPORARY CLOSURES ON VARIOUS STREETS IN
EASTLAKE - Kiewit Pacific Company is requesting some temporary detours
and street closures to allow for the construction of the San Diego County
Water Authority - Second San Diego aqueduct pipeline extension project.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC BEIJ.. FOR INSTALLATION
OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT OLEANDER AVENUE AND OTAYVALLEY ROAD
AND AUTIiORIZlNG TIm MAYOR TO EXEClITE ON BEHALF OF TIm CITY
Pacific Bell proposes to fund the design and construction of a traffic signal
at the intersection of Otay Valley Road and Oleander Avenue to improve
ingress and egress from Pacific Bell's site at said intersection. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF PARK ACQillSmON
AND DEVELOPMENT FEES AND AUTIiORIZING TIm MAYOR TO EXEClITE
SAID AGREEMENT - On 3/14/90, the City Planning Commission approved
the Tentative Map for Tract 90-05, Villa del Rey Condominiums. Staff
recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works and
Director of Parks and Recreation)
APPROVING TIm FINAL MAP FOR TRACf 90-05, VIIl.A DEL REV
CONDOMINIUMS
APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1993-94
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACf (TDA) ARTICLE 4.0 CLAIM - The
FY 1993-94 TDA Article 4.0 claim to fund transit operations and capital
procurements was submitted to the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) on
4/1193 as required by State law. The total claim is in the amount of
$2,176,040, consisting of $2,063,986 from the City's IDA account and
$112,054 from the County's IDA account. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH TIm COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR
PUBUC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1993-94 -
The agreement authorizes the City to claim $112,054 in County
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds for transit services
in the unincorporated areas during FY 1993-94. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1993-94
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACf (TDA) ARTICLE 4.5 CLAIM FOR
HANDYTRANS OPERATION - The claim will fund Handytrans operation for
FY 1993-94. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Public Works)
Agenda
-6-
April 13, 1993
24. RESOLunON 17071 APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF REALLOCATION WIlli 11iE CJ1Y OF
CHULA VISTA, KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS AND EASTLAKE
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - On 7/2/92, the City entered into a
Development Agreement with Kaiser Foundation Hospital. The
Development Agreement places a threshold on the buildout of the Kaiser
Hospital and also limits the amount of development permitted by EastLake
Development Company until State Route 125 is constructed. The
development deferrals were deemed necessary to mitigate traffic impacts
identified in the Kaiser Hospital Environmental Impact Report. The
Development Agreement provides that additional traffic studies of the
existing Zion Avenue Kaiser Hospital in San Diego be the basis for
establishing a traffic generation rate. Such a study was performed. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBliC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLunONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as pub/U; hearings as required by Iilw. lfyou wish to speJJk
to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speok Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speJJk in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individuaL
25.
PUBliC HEARING
CONCERNING 11iE APPEAL OF 11iE COMMUNl1Y DEVELOPMENT
DIRECfOR'S APPROVAL OF 11iE APPliCATION TO CLOSE TWIN PALMS
MOBILE HOME PARK - In November 1992, the Community Development
Director approved an application to close Twin Palms Mobile Home Park.
The approval was appealed to Council. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Community Development)
RESOLunON 17072 AFFIRMING 11iE DECJSION OF 11iE COMMUNl1Y DEVELOPMENT
DIRECfOR TO ALLOW 11iE CLOSURE OF lWIN PALMS MOBILE HOME
PARK AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT DEMONSTRATING
THAT11iE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 9.40 OF 11iE MUNlCJPAL CODE
HAVE BEEN FULFIllED
26.
PUBliC HEARING
VARIANCE ZAV-93-06; APPEAL OF 11iE DECJSION OF 11iE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO DENY A REQUEST TO REDUCE 11iE REQUIRED
SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM TEN FEET TO SIX FEET AT 140 MANKATO
STREET - GERAlD DREWETI FOR CORA MARGUIA - The proposal seeks
to reduce the sideyard setback from 10 feet to 6 feet in order to construct
a 15 foot by 33 foot (495 square feet) carport on the westerly side of the
dwelling at 140 Mankato Street in the R-l zone. The Zoning Administrator
denied the request on 12/14/92, and the Planning Commission affirmed
the decision and denied an appeal on 1/27/93. The matter has been
appealed to Council. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of 3/23/93.
RESOLunON 17073 AFFIRMING 11iE DECJSION OF 11iE PLANNlNG COMMISSION AND
TIiEREBY DENYING 11iE APPEAL ON ZAV-93-06
Agenda
-7-
April 13, 1993
27.
PUBLIC HEARING
CONSIDERING CONSOLIDATION OF OPEN SPACE DISfRlCfS 14 (BONITA
LONG CANYON SUBDMSION) AND 24 (CANYON VIEWS SUBDMSION) -
On 2123/93, Council declared the City's intent to consolidate Open Space
Districts 14 and 24 and set 4/13/93 and 4/20/93 for public hearings on
the proposed consolidation. All property owners within the two districts
have been notified by mail of the two hearings. Staff recommends Council
open and close the first public hearing pursuant to the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972. Council cannot take action until after the second
hearing which is scheduled for 4120/93. (Director of Public Works and
Director of Parks and Recreation)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject mot.teT wiIhin the Council's
jurisdiction tIult is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City Council from
taking action on any issues not im:1uded on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on sw;h a
subject, please complete the yeUow "Request to Speak Under Oral Comnwnii;ations Form" available in the lobby
and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address
for w;ord purposes and follow up oction. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council wi11 consider items whkh have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
28. BOARD OF ETI-IICS WORK PROGRAM - The Board of Ethics seeks Council direction with regard to
the future work program of the Board. They request to meet with Council in a worksession. (Board
of Ethics)
29. JOINT WORKSHOP WITIITHE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - The Parks and Recreation
Commission is requesting a joint workshop to discuss the goals and expectations for the Fiscal Year
1993-94. (Parks and Recreation Commission)
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agmdil are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the
Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternotive. Those who wish to speak, please fill out
a "Request to ~ak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public
comments are limited to five minutes.
30. RESOUmON 17074 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY TO
PREPARE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS ALONG INTERSTATE 80S NORTH OF
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO SOUTI-J OF OTAY VAlLEY ROAD - The
1992-93 Capital Improvement Program includes a design study for four 1-
80S interchanges: Telegraph Canyon Road; East Palomar Street; East
Orange Avenue; and Otay Valley Road. The purpose of the project study
report, which is required by Caltrans, is to determine what additional
improvements will be necessary at the interchanges to provide sufficient
capaciry to accommodate anticipated traffic growth from continuing land
developments in the eastern part of the City. The design study will be
performed by Caltrans since the interchanges are within the jurisdiction of
the State. Caltrans will produce a project study rel'ort describing preferred
future improvement needs and costs at the subject interchanges. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Agenda
-8-
April 13, 1993
31. RESOLtTnON 17075 APPROVING DESIGN CONCEPT FOR 1HE IMPROVEMENT OF ORANGE
AVENUE AND FOURTIlAVENUE ALONG 1HE FRONTAGE OF 1HE sourn
IJBRARY - Staff is in the process of preparing construction plans,
specifications and cost estimates for street improvements along the frontage
of the south library. The construction plans will include landscaped
medians, bus stops, curb, gutters, and sidewalks. Concept plans are hereby
presented for approval prior to the preparation of fmal construction plans.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
32. REPORT REQUESTING APPROVAL IN CONCEPT OF GRANTING AFRANCIllSE FOR
MULTI-FAMILY RECYCUNG COLLECTION SERVICES TO LAIDLAW - On
1/26/93, Council directed staff to negotiate with Laidlaw for the exclusive
franchise to collect recyclables from multi-family residences. Staff has
conducted satisfactory negotiations with Laidlaw and is ready to move
forward with the report describing Laidlaw's proposal in order to allow
staff to develop the franchise and set the public hearing. Staff recommends
approval of the report. (Administration)
ITEMS pUIJ.ED FROM 1HE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items whU:h have been rerncwed from the Consent CaIendor. Agenda
items pulled at the request of the pub/ii; will be considered prior to those pulled by Cowu:iJmembers. Pub/ii;
comments are limited to five minutes per individual
OrnER BUSINESS
33. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTrS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
34. MAYOR'S REPORTCS)
a. Ratification of appointments:
Child Care Commission - Elizabeth Stillwagen (Continued from the meeting of
3/23/93);
Housing Advisory Committee - Glen Googins (Continued from the meeting of
3/23/93) ;
Veterans Affairs - Joe A. Berlanga, Carmen A. Fedje, Agustive A. Hermes, Jr., Jeffrey
C. LaVay, and Robert L. McCauley;
Charter Review Commission - Sharon Reid (reappoint).
b. Enforcement of mobile home ordinance.
c. Update on the East" J" Street liquor store.
d. Appointment of two Council representatives to the City-wide Youth Summit focus group
meetings on 5/12/93 and 6/2/93.
Agenda
-9-
April 13, 1993
35. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilwoman Horton
a. Renaming of East Orange or Otay Lakes Road to Olympic Training Center Drive. Continued
from the meeting of 3/23/93.
b. Special Act District - Consideration by the City of San Diego to change the weighted vote
structure.
ADJOURNMENf
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9- Flores vs. the City of Chula Vista.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 . Paint Pit
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Torres vs. the City of Chula Vista.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - 19ou vs. the City of Chula Vista.
Instruction to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Executive Management,
Middle Management, Western Council of Engineers (WCE), and Chula Vista Employees Association
(CVEA)
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on April 20,
1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the
City Council meeting.
April 8, 1993
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Counci;r,.
John D. Goss, City ManagerJGt ~~l
City Council Meeting of April 13, 1993
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council
meet ing of Tuesday, Apr i 1 13, 1993. Comments regard i ng the Written
Communications are as follows:
5a. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THESE CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY FILED BY LESLIE GRACE
STEVENSON AND COLLEEN QUINN BE DENIED.
5b. This is a letter from Tom B. Arena regarding a complaint about a Building
& Housing Inspector. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE REFERRED TO
THE DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & HOUSING FOR INVESTIGATION AND A SUBSEQUENT
REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL.
5c. This is a letter from Susan O'Brien of Tiny Petals Nursery, requesting
that the miniature rose be proclaimed the City's official flower and that
one month each year be des i gnated "Mi n i ature Rose Month". I"n 1964, the
City Council, upon recommendation by the Parks & Recreation Commission,
adopted the geranium as the official City flower. Four flowers were
considered for "official flower" status -- the fuchsia, the rose, the
gladiola and the geranium. The Commission received public input and after
much consideration recommended the geranium for the following reasons:
they "grow prolifically in this area; they can be used in corsages,
boutonnieres, and potted plants as well as bouquets; bloom throughout the
year; need little maintenance; and can be hybridized, resulting in a Chula
Vista strain." Inasmuch as the reasons cited above are still valid, IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY FLOWER REMAIN THE GERANIUM, WHICH IT HAS BEEN
FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS. Council may, however, wish to consider proclaiming
this month "Miniature Rose Month" as was done in April 1991.
5d. This is a letter requesting the City to join the City and County of San
Diego in providing financial assistance to the Regional Task Force on the
Homeless. The City has in the past provided funding to the Regional Task
Force for the Homeless via Community Development Block Grant funding.
THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS REQUEST BE DEFERRED FOR
CONSIDERATION IN THE 1993-94 BLOCK GRANT BUDGET, AT WHICH TIME A
RECOMMENDATION FOR FUNDING WILL BE MADE.
5e. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT HAROLD COLEMAN, JR.'S RESIGNATION FROM THE BOARD OF
APPEALS AND ADVISORS BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THAT THE CITY CLERK BE
DIRECTED TO POST THE VACANCY IMMEDIATELY IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE
PUBLIC LIBRARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MADDY ACT.
5f. This is a letter from the City of Imperial Beach requesting the City to
support the position of Imperial Beach that interim ordinances are not
subject to Coastal Commission review due to their temporary nature. THE
CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDS SUPPORT AND HAS PREPARED A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE, IF YOU SO DESIRE, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN YOUR
PACKETS.
JDG:mab
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 'I a..
Meeting Date 4/13/93
ITEM TITLE:
PROCLAMATION: Proclaiming April as Community Services Month
('
Director of Parks and Recreatio~.v
SUBMITTED BY:
The League of California Cities, by resolution, encourages cities to declare April as
"Community Services Month", and to encourage their residents to take full advantage of the
many community services available. Community Services Month is an annual observance
designed to focus attention on the various services provided by California's cities which
include: parks and recreation, child care, libraries, arts programs, historic preservation,
health services, and many more.
The quality of life of the citizens of Chula Vista is enhanced by the variety of recreational
and social services offered by the Department. The age range of those served is from
preschoolers to seniors. The Department recognizes the needs of the many special groups
within the City and during the past year has worked to develop community partnerships to
enhance programming in the areas of latch key programs, youth-at-risk, and the Senior
Safety Net - Project Care.
The Department is also responsible for coordinating the activities of five commissions whose
main function is to advise the City on the delivery of community services which improve the
quality of life for all our citizens. They are the Commission on Aging, Child Care
Commission, Youth Commission, Cultural Arts Commission, and the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
Community services Month promotes the positive experiences vital to good physical and
mental health. Community Services facilitate intellectual, emotional and social development
and strengthen the community.
The Proclamation declaring April as Community Services Month will be presented by Mayor
Tim Nader to Sharon Morioka, Human Services Coordinator for the City of Chula Vista.
;j~ ~ J
PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF APRIL 1993 AS
"COMMUNITY SERVICES MONTH"
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Municipal Community Services Month is an annual observance
designed to focus attention on the variety of community services provided by California
cities; and
WHEREAS, community and human services play a vital role in improving the
quality of life of our cities' residents; and
WHEREAS, all citizens can fulfill their potential through the varied individual and
group opportunities provided by recreation and community services programs; and
WHEREAS, this City recognizes that the efforts of the professional recreation and
human services workers have enhanced the services available to City residents:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, TIM NADER, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista, California,
do hereby proclaim the month of April 1993 as "COMMUNITY SERVICES MONTH" in
the City of Chula Vista and urge all citizens to enjoy their City Community Services
Programs and to remember those who have contributed to enhance them.
~A;~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
~.b
Meeting Date 4/13/93
ITEM TITLE: Introduction of Women's Leadership Exchange Representatives
SUBMITTED BY: Hayor Tim Nade0r
Ms. Eileen Sutcliffe, Assistant Principal, head of faculty of business and
management of Nelson & Colne College, Nelson, Lancashire, England and
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___ No~)
Ms. Christine Keogh, Deputy Head of General Education Department, Burnley
College, Burnley, England will be introduced by Southwestern College
Counselor, Maryellene Deason and Trish Axsom.
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
tlb.,j
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
'Ie
Meet;ng Date 4/13/93
ITEM TITLE: Proclamation - COl~ffiNDING PROJECT COMPASSION
SUBMITTED BY:
Mayor Tim Nader//j
/:;-:-"/~/
'./?
'/
(4/5ths Vote: Yes NOxx )
The proclamation will be presented by Mayor Nader to Ms. Becky Lucero, Corps
Group Member of Project Compassion.
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
1/c - J
COMMENDING PROJECT COMPASSION
FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE IN RELIEF EFFORTS TO THE PEOPLE
OF THE CITY OF TIJUANA
WHEREAS, Project Compassion's spring 1993 endeavor is to facilitate the
collection of 25 tons of food for the children and families living on the Tijuana City Dump;
and
"
WHEREAS, food collected will provide an incentive for these youngsters to attend
and stay in school to learn skills necessary to open doors for new life choices and
opportunities; and
WHEREAS, Project Compassion's Plan 100 intention is to provide a model for
other relief efforts; and
WHEREAS, Plan 1 oo's aim is to inspire 100 community groups to each collect 500
pounds of food for the children and adults living on the Tijuana City Dump; and
WHEREAS, Project Compassion's Plan 100 is supported by local and national
leaders, co-sponsors and a committee core group; and
WHEREAS, Project Compassion is a specialized branch of Responsibility, Inc., a
non-profit relief agency, which has been helping the "poorest of the poor" since 1980:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, TIM NADER, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista, California,
do hereby COMMEND PROJECT COMPASSION FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE TO THE
PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF TIJUANA and encourage the efforts of Project Compassion
to facilitate turning need into self-sufficiency and encourage community leaders and
groups to consider joining in the implementation of Plan 100.
A:\projcomp
'-I c -,).
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
~
Meeting Date 4-13-93
ITEM TITLE:
Claims Aqainst the city
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Personnel ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___ N01L-)
REVIEWED BY:
ci ty Manaqer ~Gt ~ ~
Claimant No.1:
Ms. Leslie Grace stevenson
c/o Beth S. schiralli, Esq.
Berqer, Kahn, Shafton, Moss
Fiqler, Simon' Gladstone
101 West Broadway, suite 1950
San Dieqo, CA 92101
On March 3, 1993, Ms. Leslie Grace Stevenson filed a claim aqainst
the city of Chula vista for indemnity and equitable apportionment in con-
nection with a traffic collision involvinq Ms. Stevenson and Mr. Michael
Paul stephenson at the intersection of otay Lakes Road and Eastlake Parkway
on January 18, 1992. The claim seeks damaqes within the jurisdiction of
the superior Court.
The City of Chula vista previously received a Claim from Mr.
Michael Paul Stephenson which alleqed the city was responsible for the col-
lision due to neqliqent traffic control. The claim was denied by operation
of law on Auqust 31, 1992.
Due to remote liability on the part of
dation of the city's claims adjustors, Carl
Manaqement, that this claim be denied.
the City, it is the recommen-
Warren' company, and Risk
Claimant No.2:
Ms. Colleen Quinn
c/o Samuel Jefferson Frazier, III
Attorney at Law
8950 Villa La Jolla Drive, suite 2212
La Jolla, CA 92037
On February 23, 1993, Ms. Colleen Quinn filed a claim aqainst the
city for damaqes within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. She
claimed personal injuries from verbal and physical abuse by her ex-fiance,
an employee of the Chula vista Police Department. The claim was returned
as late and a corrected claim was refiled on March 24, 1993.
Due to remote liability on the part of the city, it is the recommen-
dation of our claims adjustors, Carl Warren' company, concurred in by Risk
Manaqement, that this claim be denied.
Deny the above two claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
~--/
-'!
~
.
.
.
e
(Ie:
WRllTEN COMMUNICA TIO,I-45
RECEIVED /tn '(/;'::/V
Dear Hr. Hayor,
Sir;
'93 MR 22 JIJl ;56
I take no joy inw~n~~~~~er to you
under the circumstances for which I am writing to you.
Having been a Public Servant many times in many capacities,
I know from past experience the difference between a good
public servant and One that thinks it is they that make the
world revolve around them.
I, like many other small little people rent spaces at a
public storage facility. Unlike me, however, some of these
little people operate a small, and I do mean small, little
family operation so as to earn a little money to provide for
their families rather then go on welfare.
These people are not big companies, just little fish in a
big Ocean. BUT, they are being swallowed up by Burea~cracy
that has it's priorities in complete dissaray. At a time
when Cities all across the Nation are struggling to balance
it's budget, The City of Chula Vista has an Employee who
has taken a more then casual interest in the daily lives of
some of us small fish which he is attempting to have a fish fry.
Let me use myself as just One example which is typical of
most of the other pe ople who rent space shere.
At the present moment, I am sleeping in my car, Not by choice
of enjoyment, not by a choice of adventure, I am on the H U D,
Sec #8 program. I am looking for a decent place to live.
What is available and
wst:7
with the help of H U D, I can
.
afford, is like comparing Apples and Oranges. Ny total
income is $700 a month. I won't bore you as to how I spread
it around but rest assured that even us low income people have
bills just as do wealthy people. Tax on gas, food, utilities,
goods and services, One of which is a storage space to store
what few things I have that are the summation of my adult life,
part of which was as a Teacher.
Several years ago, I was the victim of a drunk driver. I've had
7 surgeries to try to put me back together and One more to go.
I am 61 Yrs Old. When I became disabled, the State came to me,
asked me if I'd care to go to College so as to get teaching
credentials so as to help pass on my skills to kids in school.
.
I accepted the challenge and went to Napa Jr.College,
finishing 1st in my class. I was granted a scholarship to
Cal Poly ( SLO ) and then I went on to UCLA where I earned 2
'reaching credentials 1 for Sr.High & "Che o"Cher for Jr.College.
Just as my new career was getting under way, along came
Porp #13 and just as quick, I was among the unemployed.
Which now brings me "Co the present. At age 01, how many
Employers do you know who are burning rubber trying to hire me ?
How many school districts are looking for a 01 Yr Old teacher ?
e
For "Che past 15 plus Yrs, I have never ever been offered a
single teaching joS or ANY job because of my age and
over qualifications which scare most employers off as well.
So, what do I do with my time, I come
I spend my time sor"Cing ~~_:2t as
to my st orage space,
to what I want to keep
.
and what I want to discard. In between, I fix a bite to eat
f{
I watch the tv for a little while, and the get back to
sorting things out, sometimes even write to my family back East.
In other words, this place has kept me off the streets, out of
trouble which I'm sure I could allow myself to get into,
The other day, One of your Housing Inspectors came up to my
space and in a most aggressive tone of voice, in a most
hostile attitude, a most ungentlemanly fashion, AND,
without my permission, walked into my storage space,
-
eye balling all of my things. He did not have in his posession
a search warrant, he did not have the courtesy of at least
.
asking me if he could come in, he just did so on his Own.
He then started accusing me of living in my storage space,
which I tell you
as honestly as I would tell GOD HIMSELF,
I AM NOT, living in my storage space. YES, I do spend my free
time puttering around just for something to do.
What would you have me do ? Go sit on a street corner with
a homeless sign begging for food and/or money as do others?
Maybe go sit on the beach and watch the birds and people fishing ?
Is this then my reward for the many years of public service
I've rendered to my country, not to mention the 10 Yrs in
the Marines.
e
5b-,3
.
with all the homes that are sub standard, no smoke detectors,
inferior electrical systems, heating, water, sewage, to mention
just a few among which ought to include Roaches, mice,rats,
Etc,Etc,Etc, yet this Inspector has time to cane to the
storage facility to make life very unpleasant for those of us
who through Our rental fees pay taxes, some who do have a small
operation, do pay taxes to Chula Vista as well as County
and Federal taxes too.
.
What would you have us all do? stop doing what we are
doing and go down and file for welfare? Because that is what
I am telling every little person here to do if thanks to this
Inspector, he is successfull in closing down a momma Pappa
rug cleaning family Owned business, You will be as much a
looser in that they no longer will be paying taxes to the City.
Is the City that well off that it can afford that ?
e
If that is the case, If I am restricted in what I can do with
my free time, such as it is, Then I see no reason as to why the
Federal Govt should help the cities when the city is unwilling
to help it's Own Citizens. Right is right and fair is fair.
This is neither, it is wrong, it is unfair, it is dumb.
I can't believe that Chula Vista is that kind of a Community
that it can have such a vindictive person on it's payroll.
He not only is hurting us, he has already caused 15 people to
pack up and leave. That is 15 people who won't be paying
taxes to the City thanks to him. Can you afford that? Do you
want to? This smacks ~be_ Vyy thing that went on in
. Russia, the Govt tells the pe ople when to get up, when to go
to bed, when to eat and what to eat, what to listen to and not,
This is now happening right here when you start telling us
what we can and can not do with Our lives and Our Own time.
I ~hink and believe that the people involved deserve a right
to address the full council on this matter so as to get
wha~ ever rule you have on the books, changed so as to help
enhance the quality of life, not stifle it. This is supposed to
be a free democratic system we live in, this action tells
the people something different.
.
All this has done now is make a lot of good and decent, hard
working people mad at the City, do you realy need that ?
I have been asked to speak to the council for many of these
people who don't speak as good english as I do. That being the
case, I indeed request that chance to present the facts
to all the Council members.
I would humbly request a reply on this ma~ter.
The Inspector's name is; Raymond Ruiz ; Bldg Inspector 2
Code Enforcer- Chula Vista. A reply would be appreciated.
GG,~
e
iOM B. ARENA
P.O. BOX 530004
SAN DIEGO-CA92153,
fb -:.5'
18 March 1993
~!1IO' ~lAS ~ 'I/;;;-/'7}
)!i A. 1, ';iIlS ~;PETAL'SNURSERY
~ 489 MINOT AVE.
~ f/ CHULA VISTA
~< -~ CALlF,92010
O~ -
PHONE 422-0385
'-""I"M'
~,,\~-(';~7-~ . '." (";;"
.fI!','~"-">' Y.a
"~:r .Ail ,. II
~.J ti~. ..
THE HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen of the Coucil,
I am requesting permission to appear before the Council
to recommend the following action:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista currently recognizes the
geranium as the offical city flower; and
WHEREAS, the geranium and its blooms cannot be used for
official purposes/uses such as boutonnieres, corsages,
floral arrangements, and table settings due to the
fragility of the flowers and their 'unpleasant' odor; and
WHEREAS, attempts to use the geranium in public areas,
including hanging containers and gardens in local business
zones have failed, and
WHEREAS, geraniums in pots and as cut flowers are no longer
permitted in the City Council Chamber, due to complaints
from previous council members about their 'nauseating smell';
NOW, THEREFORE, I propose the following:
Let the City of Chula Vista official flower be changed.
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has been the place of
origin for more than 100 new and distinct varieties of
Miniature Rose, including the numerous award-winning
specimens; and
WHEREAS, the HIGHEST RATED ROSE IN AMERICA, th~ miniature
L'C, rose known as Jean Kenneally, was created and bloomed for
,. the first time in the City of Chula Vista, and
/~ J;?:r:i 'I)
~~ WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has for its namesake a
;I ;I beautiful red miniature rose, and
WHEREAS, miniature roses can and have been used for the
purpose of making attractive boutonnieres, corsages and
floral arrangements for many years and are greatly admired
for garden display and fr~~e.: ~nd
\ ,
I
<,
.,
\;v'
_~ \,~~~a.
~72;~f5::~J;{~?7
TINY PETAL'S NURSERY
489 MINOT AVE,
CHULA VISTA
CALlF. 9201 0
PHONE 422-0385
WHEREAS, miniature roses bloom repeatedly during the
period of March through November, making them preferred
for public areas; and
WHEREAS, miniature roses are versatile, being available
as tree roses, climbing roses, hanging plants and more
commonly as bush plants from 12 to 48 inches in height;
and
WHEREAS, no other city in America has a better right to
claim the title of the Miniature Rose Capital of America;
and
WHEREAS, no other city in America has yet to name the
Miniature Rose as its city flower;
NOW, THEREFORE, I propose that the City of Chula Vista
proclaim the MINIATURE ROSE as its official city flower
and further proclaim one month each year as "MINIATURE
ROSE MONTH".
**************
I thank you for your consideration of my proposal and
look forward to meeting with the Council to present a
more 'beautiful' demonstration of the miniature rose as
an official flower and to answer any questions that the
Council may have regarding this matter.
Respectfully,
Susan O'Brien
,09
:::i-l
-<-<
nO
.-"T1
rT1",
;:t)::x::
~c:
U)r--~
0);>0-
-no<
-nif}
0:-4
m)>
5c --eA
~
::0
J"I1
(')
J"I1
<
f11
o
~
~
;p
co
(.j
0\
[j] REGIONAL TASK FORCE ON THE HOMELESS
Mary Colacicco, Ph.D.
Travelers Aid Society Co-Chair
Supervisor Leon L. Williams
County of San Diego Co-Chair
Mayor Susan Golding
City of San Diego
Supervisor John MacDonald
County of San Diego
Dawson Dowty
United W3:Y of San Diego County
David Janssen
County of San Diego
Jack McGrory
City of San Diego
Glenn Allison
Episcopal Community Services
David Allsbrook
Centre City Development Corporation
Mary Case
St. Vincent de Paul Village
Pam Hall
San Diego Community Foundation
Larry Johnson
United Way of San Diego County
Aurelia Koby
S.D. Consortium & P.Le.
Julie Kolker
City of Escondida
Victor Kops, Ph.D.
Central City Association
Chris Kuebler
La Jolla Presbyterian Church
Tom Leslie
San Diego City Homeless Coord.
Jim Lundgren
SERjJobs For Progress, Inc.
Dan Marcus
South Bay Community Services
Dennis Martinek, Ph.D.
Professor, Palomar College
Elizabeth Morris
San Diego City Housing Commission
Larry Murnane
Attorney, Peterson & Price
Mary Niez
Interfaith Shelter Network.
Dave Owen
San Diego County Farm Bureau
Gabriel Rodriguez
S.D.County Housing & Cmnty Devl.
Art Stevens
East County Coal. for the Homeless
March 19, 1993
QS2 ~
~-i
-<-< ::tJ
no i fTI
r--n
.lTl" 0
:::tJ::r:; ~ fTI
::O::c::: -
v>r- <
ol>
""1< :>> ",
~(7: co 0
C'>--! ~
i'iJ;;o*'<, CO
The Honorable Tim Nader
Mayor
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Nader:
For eight years the Regional Task Force on the Homeless has been
engaged in a countywide effort to reduce the incidence and impact of
homelessness. We are writing this letter to identify how the Task Force
benefits us all as active partners in this important regional organization.
The Regional Task Force is a group of local government, nonprofit
service providers, and community groups concerned with
homelessness. Some examples of its work includes the countywide
Interfaith Shelter Network; a homeless day shelter; and a residential
hotel (SRD) preservation program. However, much of its day to day
work consists of important regional reports and special studies, which
are regularly incorporated into local documents such as Housing
Elements and grant proposals for federal and state funding.
Most recent examples include the Homeless Profile, which offers an
across the county look at the homeless population, and a report on The
Distribution of Public Funds for Homeless Programs and Services
throughout San Diego County. Both are clear illustrations of what can
be accomplished through regional collaboration.
Together, local government administers more than $35 million for
homelessness in this county. Regardless of the extent of homelessness
in each of our own communities, the Task Force offers us all a regional
body of knowledge and a regional point of view on what's possible with
our limited resources.
Georgia Tate
:~~,~o;::::~::;~sm;'" \VRIT'i"EN COMMUNICATIONS
;~c~;;;;~P:o~:~:::::' ('C :!BZ" . ~ (Lf) 0);. ~. VpU- , /1-1} 0
)' ' . )) ~,~ 't. }:::::.- _.4 7,)} '1'('
Robert Van Keuren ..U ~ \ . """'"~ ~
Viemam Veterans of San Diego
655 Fa Avenue Diego, CA 92101 (619) -4800 FAX (619) 239-8010
Frank Landerville
Proj,ctD;recto, SUpported through the County and City of ~..i the United Way of San Diego County
March 10, 1993
Page Two
In the past, public funding for the Task Force has been derived through the City and
County of San Diego. However, we all have a regional stake in the social, economic, and
political costs of this problem. Above all, we are universally concerned with the
unacceptable human conditions associated with homelessness.
For these reasons, we need your personal support and request your City join with San
Diego City and County Governments in contributing to the financial support of the Task
Force.
Please join us as a participant in the Regional Task Force.
Respectfully,
(/
"----
Isor John MacDonald
of San Diego
Mayor Susan G~
City of San Diego
LLW:JLS:bsh
5r/-;J.
McINNIS, FITZGERALD, REES, SHARKEY S MCINTYRE
A PROF'ESSIONAL. CORPORATION
...JOI-lN W. MCINNIS
(1910-19BO)
WIL.LJAM T. F"ITZGE.RALO
(1922-1961)
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1230 COLUMBIA STREET, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
TELEPHONE (ele) 236-1711
NOATH COUNTY OF'I'"ICE
2315 W. F'IF'TH AVENUE, SUITE 0
ESCONOIDa, CAl,.lF'OFlNIA 920215
TELEPHONE (619)480-8404
F'AX (ell.) "80'S'1iI4
F"AX (eI9) 23e-0387
HAROL.O COLEMAN, JR.
DIRECT DIAL. (619) 1595'3360
March 25, 1993
The Honorable Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
~ ~
-<-< ::u
pSf: I JTI
~n (')
;x::I: w JTI
.C 0
<.r.>r- ::<
~:; ;e 1"1
::::!i/; 0 0
D-< 0
jJ:"lp ......
Re: Board of Appeals and Advisors
Growth Manaaement Oversiaht Commission
Dear Mayor Nader:
Let me first reiterate my gratitude for the Council's
appointment of me to the Board of Appeals and Advisors. I'm
pleased to report that I've been an active, involved board member
since my appointment six months ago and haven't encountered any
circumstances precluding my participation in each regularly
scheduled meeting.
I find this board to be tremendously edifying, particularly
since it enables me to draw upon my construction and development
law expertise in deciding matters brought before our body.
Regretfully, due to teaching conflicts, I find it necessary to
resign my seat on the Growth Management Oversight Commission. As
you're probably aware, the Commission meets at 7: 00 p. m. on
alternating Thursdays during its Spring and Fall terms each year.
While I must acknowledge that staff and fellow commissioners
attempted to extend every courtesy in considering specific time
preferences when setting the meeting schedule, the fact remains
that Thursday evenings apparently work best for the majority of the
commissioners, as well as staff.
Such arrangement conflicts with teaching commitments I made to
Southwestern College prior to my appointment to the commission; a
conflict if known to me at the time I interviewed before the
Council for a commission vacancy would have caused me to remove my
name from consideration.
CC'; ~r;~.(LI) WRITTENCOMMUNICATIOI~'S
~/J ~ /J /?//' - I /pz ~y/9J
~~~w~ (/--r~ .!:J e-
The Honorable Tim Nader
March 25, 1993
Page 2
I'd prefer to meet on any day other than Thursday; however,
since I alone am faced with a scheduling dilemma, prudence would
dictate that I defer to the interests of my colleagues so as not to
impede commission progress through less than full participation by
all members.
I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the City Council
and yourself for having appointed me. I am likewise grateful to
the commission and staff for their understanding while I attempted
resolution of the issues giving rise to this resignation.
I look forward to continued service to our City through my
participation on the Board of Appeals and Advisors. Thank you for
your kind attention to this matter.
Warm7Bt regards, ~
5'/~ DI~)'
HAROLD COLEMAN, JR.
HC:jms
9999\186928
cc: Honorable Councilmembers
Will Hyde, Chairman, GMOC
Ed Bachelder, Planning Dept.
City Clerk
-
~e-~
~
! :/
J
I
> ,
O:VL
r
F <'
/ ,./
(,(--:- ,-
<...~ V' /
/
,,r 7'-r
< r.'- .... ,.
v..rr., .:--/.{~ <
/
C>
\
/
./j ~,/;, 7'
, ,Yo//,
..,:.t.._
. '--'-"'-"'''' ~'.^--.-
?~7- C'."
,.,.F
ntE CITY OF"
IMPERIAL
BEACH
(619) 423-6300
FAX (619) 429-9770
625 IMPERIAL BEACH BOULEVARD. IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 91932
"
MAR 25
March 22, 1993
"~'-""""--'.""';-". ,
Re: Interim Ordinances and the California Coastal Commission
~ ~
.....-1
-<-< ::u
~~ I fI'1
gjn (")
_._::r: ~ fI'1
~~c -
L/) r- <
0)>
-., l"~:: ;J::a fI'1
:::Ju-> co C
j"")-i 0\
"7"::1> N
City Council of the City of Chula Vista
PO Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91912
Dear City Council of the City of Chula Vista:
This letter is written to seek your support and request that you adopt the attached
resolution stating that interim ordinances are not subject to the Coastal Commission, as they are
temporary in nature.
An initiative, (proposition "P"), was adopted in Imperial Beach at the last municipal
election which limits height and density within the City. This was initiated by the public, and
was approved by approximately 70% of the voters. Its effective date was December 12, 1992.
The City of Imperial Beach has determined that it is an interim zoning ordinance under
Government Code Section 65858. As such, the City has determined that it is not subject to the
Coastal Commission process because interim ordinances do not amend local coastal programs
or land use plans, as they are temporary in nature.
We have been supported in this position by the five coastal City Attorneys in the San
Diego-Imperial County City Attorneys Association (see attached letter), and by the City Attorney
for the City of Pacifica, California (see attached letter).
The Coastal Commission is of the opinion that interim ordinances which do not
completely ban all development are subject to Coastal Commission review, and therefore has
requested that Proposition "P" be forwarded to them for review and approval.
The City Council of the City of Imperial Beach has decided to forward Proposition "P"
to the Coastal Commission for immediate review in order to preserve amicable
intergovernmental relations. However, the City is enforcing Proposition "P" as of its effective
date, and still believes interim ordinances are not subject to the Coastal Commission.
CC:
. <:;/)'. If(?~'-'''''5 ~
Page 2
Interim Ordinances and the California Coastal Commission
We, therefore, are seeking your support by asking that you adopt the enclosed form
resolution and forward it to:
Deborah Lee
California Coastal Commission
San Diego Coast Area
3111 Camino del Rio Nortl1
Suite 200
San Diego, California 92108-1725
Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated by the City of Imperial Beach.
We thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Very truly yours,
~~
Acting Mayor
SRT/t
Enclosures
5' f-.i.,
RESOLUTION NO.
/ 7t)~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING THE POSITION OF THE
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH THAT INTERIM ORDINANCES
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEW
AS THEY ARE TEMPORARY IN NATURE
WHEREAS, an initiative interim ordinance, (Proposition
"P") was approved by approximately seventy percent (70%) of the
voters in Imperial Beach, California at the last election; and
WHEREAS, it is our understanding that the Coastal
Commission has determined that interim ordinances which do not
completely ban all development are subject to Coastal Commission
review and approval as amendments to the local coastal program and
land use plan; and
WHEREAS, it is our understanding that the city of
Imperial Beach has submitted its interim ordinance to the Coastal
Commission for immediate review and approval to preserve
intergovernmental relations.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. All of the above recitations are true and correct.
2. It is the opl.nJ.on of this city that interim
ordinances are not subject to Coastal Commission review because
they are not amendments to the local coastal program or land use
plan, as they are temporary in nature.
3. The City Council of the city of Chula vista does
hereby urge the Coastal Commission to review the city of Imperial
Beach's interim ordinance as quickly as possible.
4. The
certified copy of
commission.
City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a
this resolution to the California Coastal
Jerry R. Rindone, Councilman
Approved as to form by
,~~~
Ruth M. Fritsch, Assistant
City Attorney
Presented by
F:\home\attorney\CoutCom.m
Sf-J
f""
cnv OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTOANEY
January 5, 1993
J. Matthew ROdriguez
Deputy Attorney General
2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor
Oakland, Ca, 94612
Re:
December 9. 1992 Oninion to Peter Doua;:: ~e~~~dlna the
Effect of Uraency Ordinanoes in the C~___a_ ___e
Dear Mr. Rodriguez I
I am writinq to you in my capacity as President for the San
Dieqo - Imperial Counties City Attorneys' Association reqardinq
your December g, 1992 opinion letter to Peter Douqlas, Executive
Director ot the California Coastal Commieslon, reqardlnq the ettect
of interim ordinances in the coastal zone.
It is the position of the five coastal City attorneys in the
Association that interim ordinances purauant to Government COde
Section 65858 are net subject to Coa.tal Commission proces., ..
they are not amendaents to a city'S looal coa.tal program.
We would appreoiate your Office'S recondderation of thi.
matter as interim ordinances do not permanently chanq8 land u.e
restrictions, but temporarily allow development permit. to be
issued a. long as they are not incompatible with the regula~ory
revisions under consideration for the duration of the interim
measure. Local governments need the flexibility to respond
promptly to changed circumstance. with effective land use
amendment.. Local governments must also have the authority to
suspend or modify Uses pending study of the effects of an ordinance
or regulation. The ultimate amendment of the LCP or ~UP, if any,
is the proper subjeot of Coastal Commission review, not the
temporary measure.
,.. ~OU"TH A~CHUl.A VISTA. CALIFORNIA ""0.1"" "'-$037
9~:Ol Q3K E8-9 -Nijr
".
J. Matthew Rodriquez
January 5, 1993
Page Two
Addit1onally, we are concerned that we were not notified by
the Attorney General's office that this issue was beinq considered.
We believe this opinion has a Significant impact on all coastal
e1tie., and we should have been given the opportunity to provide
comments and input reqardinq the effect of interim ordinances in
the coastal zone.
Thank you for your consideration
BMB:lqlc.
P:.....,,-~
ce: Leaque of California cities:
Joanne Speers
Don 8ennlnqhoven
Dan Hentachlc.e
~~!r xrauel
~ McDougal
Georqe Iber
ruee M. Booqaard
.San oieqo and IlIIpe hl
city Attorneys As. cia
Pre8ident
t-. ''':
...,...,.... ,..~...
CIlY OF CHULA VISTA
.. ... .._.. ............. ,It'"
'^" ..... 5" f';'~.
.
. Susan M. Schectman
City Attorney
(415) 738-7307
FAX (415) 359-6038
Office of the City Attorney
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, California 94044
&,...; , Yl"9'm
January 21, 1993
J. Matthew Rodriguez
Deputy Attorney General
2101 Webster Street, 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: December 9. 1992 Opinion to Peter Douglas. California Coastal Commission
Regarding Interim Ordinances
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
I am writing in referenoe to your December 9, 1992 opinion letter to Peter Douglas,
Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission, regarding the effect of interim
ordinances in the coastal zone.
I am conoerned that City Attorneys were not notified by the Attorney General's offioe
that this issue was being considered. I share the view that this opinion has a significant impact
on coastal cities. Although I understand it was an informal opinion. California coastal cities
should have been given the opportunity to provide some input regarding your opinion.
This is especially true sinoe the League of California Cities Coastal Cities Committee was
directly involved with the Attorney General's offioe conoerning this precise issue. I was
involved in an issue originating with the City of Morro Bay regarding interim ordinances. The
League had a very constructive dialogue wit.'1 the Attorney General's offioe and the Coastal
Commission regarding this matter.
This issue is of great practical importanoe to coastal cities as well. Interim ordinances
by their very. nature are temporary. If the Attorney General is of the opinion that such
ordinances must be approved by the Coastal Commission prior to becoming effective. an
insurmountable hurdle may be plaoed in the path of such ordinances. For example. I understand
that in the Imperial Beach situation. the Coastal Commission has declined to expedite processing
of the necessary LCP amendment. The estimated time for prooessing the amendment is six to
nine months. In many cases, by the time the prooessing has been completed, the interim
ordinanoe will have expired. thereby for all intents and purposes the interim ordinanoe will be
nullified.
.5-f- 7
\
J, Matthew Rodriguez
January 21, 1993
Page 2
Due to these and other substantive issues, I urge you to reconsider your opinion after
input from affected cities. I understand that the League of California Cities intends to re-
authorize the Coastal Cities Committee. We will contact you when this occurs, with a view to
further communication on this issue.
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the legal issues involved in this matter.
However, for the record I must express my strong disagreement with the conclusions drawn in
your opinion.
Very truly yours,
'.';. j', ~'.? I' - . I , "
c' 1\o.'t~hJl'Ll(', 11liC'!'l
SUSAN M. SCHECTMAN
City Attorney
SMS:fd
cc: JoAnne Speers
u1gue of California Cities
Susan R. Todd
City of Imperial Beach
5-r'~
S~a
ORDINANCE NO. 2549 O~D
i)>~D/,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY IV'O
OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 9.20.040 OF 4~D
THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT THE 4D
POLICE CHIEF TO OFFER A DIVERSION PROGRAM OF Op~
COMMUNITY SERVICE WITH PARENTAL SUPERVISION TO O~
MINORS ENGAGING IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND
ADULTS COMMITTING GRAFFITI OFFENSES
WHEREAS, graffiti is a major problem facing south San Diego
County cities; and,
WHEREAS, Chula vista is attempting to encourage all South Bay
cities, the county, and the juvenile court judges, prosecutors and
probation officers to agree on a coordinated approach to solving
the graffiti problem; and,
WHEREAS, one significant element of that battle is to
efficiently administer rehabilitation to the graffiti violator by
auicklv assigning the violator to a significant period of community
service (30 hours), and requiring the parent or guardian to be
present during that community service (50% of the assigned hours);
and,
WHEREAS, this modification to our graffiti ordinance will
empower the police chief to make those offers in lieu of commencing
prosecution of the violator;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 9.20.040 ("Punishment Provisions") of
Chapter 9.20 ("Property Defacement") is hereby amended as follows:
"9.20.040 Punishment provisions.
& Police Diversion Proaram: communitv Service with Minimum Hours
and Parental Involvement.
In lieu of. or as oart of. reauestina orosecution of a
oetition to declare a minor to be a ward of the court under
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 602 (includina but not
limited to. offenses which. in the ooinion of the Police
Chief. constitute a violation of this Chaoter). or in lieu of
orosecutina a violation of this Chaoter as a crime aaainst an
adult. the Police Chief with the aooroval of (or accordina to
rules and orocedures aooroved bv) the citv Manaaer. shall be
authorized to offer said minor or adult an ootion to oerform
such communitv service as the police Chief deems aoorooriate.
but which communitv service shall. if offered at all. contain
the followina minimum elements:
'-I
I
Council Agenda statement
Item:
h
~\O~ Meeting Date: April 13, 1993
<;:>O'?
Item Title: o~~~nce No. 2549 - Amending section 9.20.040 of
~~o.~e Chula Vista Municipal Code to permit the Police
5v~O\ Chief to offer a diversion program of community
<;:> ~ service with parental supervision to minors
GCJO~ engaging in criminal activity and adults committing
Sv graffiti offenses (Second Reading and Adoption)
Submitted by: Bruce M. Boogaard, city Attorne~
Agenda Classification:
( ) Consent
(XX) Action Item
( ) Public Hearing
( ) Other:
4/5ths Vote: ( ) Yes (X) No
Councilman Moore is attempting to encourage all South Bay cities,
the County, and the juvenile court judges, prosecutors and
probation officers to agree on a coordinated approach to solving
the graffiti problem. One significant element of that battle is to
efficiently administer rehabilitation to the graffiti violator by
auicklv assigning the violator to a significant period of community
service (30 hours), and requiring the parent or guardian to be
present during that community service (50% of the assigned hours).
The attached modification to our graffiti ordinance will empower
the police chief to make those offers in lieu of commencing
prosecution of the violator.
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached ordinance.
Boards and Commissions Recommendation:
None. Not applicable.
Fiscal Impact:
Some significant amount of funds will be required.
,~/
~ The minor shall perform at least 30 hours of communitv
service.
l.... At least one of the custodial parents. or if none.
quardians. shall be in attendance at least 50% of the
period of assiqned communitv service.
2.. The entire period of communitv service shall be performed
under the supervision of a communitv service provider
approved bv the Chief of Police.
~ Reasonable effort shall be made to assiqn the subiect
minor or adult to a tvpe of communitv service that is
reasonablv expected to have the most rehabilitative
effect on the minor or adult. To the extent that the
offense qivinq rise to the offer of communitv service
consti tutes a violation of this Chapter. reasonable
effort shall be made bv the Chief of Police to assiqn the
minor to communitv service which constitutes in
siqnificant part the removal of qraffiti.
A~. Mandatory Juvenile Delinquent Community Service.
Any minor determined to be a ward of the court under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 602 as a result of committing an
offense in the city shall be required, at the city's option,
to perform community service, including graffiti removal
service of not less than ~30 hours nor more than 80 hours.
BQ. Penalties for violation.
Any and all violations of this chapter shall be punishable
either as an infraction or a misdemeanor, at the discretion of
the city Attorney.
section 2. This ordinance shall take and be in full force and
effect 30 days after the final adoption hereof.
Presented and
4-- At.
Bruce M. Boogaa , City Attorney
F:\home\attorney\grafSO.wp
~*i
.
ITEM TITLE:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL JOINT AGENDA STATEMENT
Item "'f9..... 7 /
Meeting Date 3723/9J 4 / /3 '7 ~
PUBLIC HEARING: Considering Amendment No. 11 to the Certified
Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Bayfront Specific Plan to
Allow Certain Land Use Categories by Conditional Use Permit within the
Industrial: General Land Use Designation within the LCP
Resolution 1301 Adopting Negative Declaration IS-93-17/19
and Addendum Thereto and Recommending that the City Council Approve
Amendment No. 11 to the Certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program
(LCP) and Bayfront Specific Plan to Allow Certain Land Use Categories
by Conditional Use Permit within the Industrial: General Land Use
Designation within the LCP.
B. COUNCIL ~\la&>h545 Adopting Negative Declaration IS-93-17/19
, f\.t.\\) rill( Addendum Thereto and Adopting Local Coastal Program No. 11
_ \;.P'\)\~G Amending Certain Sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Title 19,
'Q~\) ~ Zoning Chapter 19.07.035 and Appendix A Relating to the Bayfront
<;>"-'" Specific Plan to Allow Certain Land Use Categories by Conditional Use
Permit within the Industrial: General Land Use Designation within the
LCP.
,11. A. AGENCY
D4-F ~ \LM"" ~ ~
~\6-~\U
.
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Executive Director\..JSI />.rz;,.9rJ
(J---
BACKGROU1\'D:
(4/Sths Vote: Yes
No ..xJ
Amendment No. 11 to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) is being proposed
to allow certain land uses, by conditional use permit, within the LCP's Industrial: General land
use designation in order to implement a development proposal to allow National University to
operate evening classes at 660 Bay Boulevard and to provide for child-care facilities in the
Bayfront (City initiated proposal). The amendment proposes to allow Educational Services
Commercial Activities and Child-care Civic Activities within the LCP's overall Industrial:
General land use designation.
Environmental revi~w of the project was conducted and completed and the Resource
Conservation Commission reviewed the environmental documents. The Child-Care Commission
and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment and provided
recommendations. If the City Council approves the project, the LCP Amendment will be
forwarded to the Coastal Commission for a public hearing.
.
~/"I
Page 2, Item fl
Meeting Date 03/23/93
""".
RECOMMENDA TION: That the Agency/City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt:
A. Agency resolution adopting Negative Declaration IS-93-17/19 and Addendum thereto and
recommending that the City Council approve Amendment No. 11 to the certified Chula
Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Bayfront Specific Plan to allow certain land use
categories by Conditional Use Permit within the Industrial: General Land Use
designation within the LCP.
B. Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Adopting Negative Declaration
IS-93-17/19 and Addendum Thereto and Adopting Local Coastal Program No. 11
. Amending Certain Sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Title 19, Zoning Chapter
19.07.035 and Appendix A Relating to the Bayfront Specific Plan to Allow Certain Land
Use Categories by Conditional Use Permit within the Industrial: General Land Use
Designation within the LCP.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMEI\'DA nONS:
Resource Conservation Commission
The minutes from the January 11, 1993, meeting of the Commission are attached as Exhibit B.
The Commission's motion to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration 15-93-17/19 failed .~
(3-1).
Child-Care Commission
At their meeting of January 19, 1993, the Child-Care Commission voted unanimously to support
the concept of child-care facilities by conditional use permit within the Industrial: Generalland
use designation of the LCP. Minutes of that meeting are attached as Exhibit B.
Planninfl Commission
On January 27, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider LCPA #11.
The Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve the LCP
amendment. Minutes of the public hearing are attached as Exhibit B.
DISCUSSION:
As proposed, Amendment No. 11 to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) will
conditionally permit colleges and universities; trade, vocational and technical schools; and child-
care centers in the Industrial: General land use designation of the LCP. Each land use is
discussed below:
-.,
r- ) 7 ,:t:.
'7 "' .)....
.
.
.
Page 3, Item ,?
Meeting Date 03/23/93
Child-Care Civic Activities
Currently, Limited Child-Care activities for less than eight children are allowed as a permitted
use within the LCP's Residential and Commercial Specialty Retail land use categories. The new
category, Child-Care Civic Activities, will conditionally permit child-care facilities and child
nurseries for eight or more children within the Industrial: General land use designation.
The Industrial: General land use designation within the LCP permits various types of light and
general industrial uses as well as many commercial, business, and service type facilities.
Currently, there is no provision for child-care for the employees who work within these areas.
Amendment No. I I will allow child-care facilities to be established within the Industrial area
after a thorough review and public hearings on the conditional use permits by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Educational Services Commercial Activities
Educational Services Commercial Activities is a new land use classification consisting of colleges
and universities and trade, vocational, and technical schools. Currently, colleges along with
public and private elementary and secondary schools are allowed in the Residential land use
classification by conditional use permit under the Community Education Civic Activities
category. Vocational and trade schools are permitted uses within the Commercial: Office Park
and Commercial: Specialty Retail land use classifications.
Amendment No. I I will combine these specific educational uses and allow them in the
Industrial: General designation within the LCP by conditional use permit only.
Conclusion
The proposed LCP amendment will not change the existing Land Use Plan designation. It will
change the Specific Plan (zoning) to conditionally allow very specific land use categories to be
added to the Industrial: General land use designation. The Conditional Use Permit process
provides the opportunity for review of proposed projects on a case-by-case basis to ensure that
conditionally permitted uses will be compatible with the area in which they are proposed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No immediate fiscal impact will result from the amendment. Specific development subsequent
to and because of the amendment will have fiscal consideration. Each development proposal will
be analyzed individually.
(IepaIIee/lepadisk)
l,J
,73-
.
TInS PAGE BlANK
.
.
~17'Y~
7"Lf
.
.
.
CIVIC
Essential Service
Electric Distribution Lines and Poles
Gas Distribution Lines
Open Space (of a passive use)
Parks, Public (passive use only)
Sewer Collection Lines
Storm Drainage Collection Lines
Telepbone Distribution Lines and Poles
Water Distribution Lines
Limited Child Care
Public Day Centers (for eight or fewer children)
Public Nurseries (for eight or fewer children)
Child Care
DaylNight Child-Care Centers {for mote than eight children)
Child Nurseries (for more than eight clrildren)
..-....... ...'.. ..-',. " ........... .... ........ .. ...... .
Communit)' Assembl)'
Amusement Parks
Aquariums
Auditoriums
Bandstands (public)
Birth Control Clinics
Botanical Gardens
Camping Areas (non-profit)
Carnivals
Churches
Circuses
Conununity Centers
Community Health Clinics
Convalescent Hospitals
Exhibition Halls
Extended Care Facilities
Fairgrounds
Golf Courses
Historic Sites
Hospitals
Marinas (public)
Meeting Halls
-Monument Sites
Neighborhood Centers
Nursing Homes
Open Space Areas (of an active use)
Parks
Picnicking Areas (public)
Places of Worship
Playgrounds and Playing Fields (of an active outdoor use)
Public Health Services
Recreation Centers
-17-
Appendix A
'1 ?{f';J ~
("(
SECTION IV: This ordinance shall take effect in full force on the 31st day after its adoption
or immediately following approval of Amendment No. 11 to the certified Chula
Vista Local Coastal Program by the California Coastal Commission, whichever
is later.
---
Presented by:
A&~:r
-C)A-- . - ~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
---
(Ba)'front/LCP AlOrd rev)
-.,
~
'I--g
EXHIBIT 1 to ORDINANCE 2545
.
Appendix A
of
certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program
Amended January 15, 1993 .
.
.
'/78 -5---,
7,,(
APPENDIX A
USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM-ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES
........
The following listing is presented as an illustrative guide to the application
of the use classifications. However, these are for administrative guidance
only, and in the event that there is a conflict between an appropriate
application of the use classification description in the text of this specific
plan and the strict application of a common name, the former shall apply.
RESIDENTIAL
F amil y
Dwellings, Multiple
Dwellings, Single-Family
Dwellings, Two-Family
Group
Apartment Hotels
Dwellings, Multiple
Dwellings, Single-Family
Dwellings, Two-Family
Group Care
Children, Boarding of (not greater than
eight)
Convalescent Homes (intermediate care
only)
Dwellings, Multiple
Dwellings, Single-Family
Dwellings, Two-Family
Family Care Homes (not greater
than eight)
Foster Homes (not greater than eight)
Group Homes (not greater than eight)
Homes for the Aged (not greater than
eight)
Nurseries (not greater than eight)
Nursing Homes (intermediate care only)
Orphanages
Resident Care Facilities (not greater
than eight)
Rest Homes (intermediate care only)
-..,
- 1 -
-..
~
,?--/I)
COf"'~ERCIAL
~ Food Sales
Bakeries, Retail
Butcher Shops
Candy Stores
Cheese Shops
Dairy Product Stores
Delicatessens
Donut Shops
Fish and Seafood Markets
Food Catering (retail)
Fruit and Vegetable Markets
Grocery Stores
Health Food Stores
Ice, Sales
Liquor Stores
Markets, Retail
Food Service
.
Bars
Cabarets
Coffee Shops
Delicatessens
Nightclubs
Parlors, Frozen Custard/Ice Cream
Refreshment Stands
Restaurants
Short-Order Eating Places
Snack Bars
Take-Out Restaurants
Taverns
Convenience Sales and Service
,
n
. ,
"1
i
, ,
Uses permitted by food sales, food service, general personal service and
general retail sales, provided it is administratively determined that they
meet the convenience description set forth in Section 19.B2.07.
Medical Service
Acupuncture Services
Blood Banks
Chiropodist Offices
Chiropractor Offices
Dental Offices, Clinics or Laboratories
Dietician and Nutritionist Offices and
Clinics
.
- 2 -
-
/ )$r 7 _
"II __
Medical Service (cont'd)
Group r~edical Centers
Health Maintenance Organizations
Home liealth and Nursing Agencies
laboratories, Biochemical, Dental,
Medical, Optometrical and X-Ray
Medical Offices, Clinics or laboratories
Medical Testing and Analysis Services
Optometrical Offices, Clinics and
labo ra tori es
Osteopath Offices
Physical Therapy Offices and Centers
Podiatrist Offices
Psychiatrist Offices and Clinics
Psychologist Offices and Clinics
Psychotherapist Offices and Clinics
General Retail Sales
Air Conditioning (auto)
Aircraft Equipment, Parts and Supplies
Antique Stores
Apparel and Accessories Stores
Appliance Stores
Art Equipment and Supplies
Art Galleries, Commercial
Athletic Goods Stores
Auction Rooms, Public
Auto Parts (tools)
Auto Uphol stery
Bait and Tackle (live)
Bicycle Stores
Bookstores
Camera and Photographic Supplies
Candle Shops
China or Glassware Shops
Cigars and Cigarettes
Cosmetics Shops
Costume Rental Establishments
Custom Shop, Including Repair, limited
as to Floor Area
Department Stores
Discount Department Stores
Drapery and Curtain Shops
Drugs tores
Dry Goods (yarn, fabrics, etc.)
Fi xtures
Floor Coverings (carpet, rug, linoleum,
etc. )
Flower Stores and Plant Shops
- 3 -
-.
.-.
.-.
~J78 ~
?;/~
.
.
.
General Retail Sales (cont'd)
Furniture and Home Appliances
Furriers and Fur Apparel
Gifts, Novelties, Souvenirs
Gourmet Shops
Greeti ng Card Shops
Ilardwa re Stores
Hearing Aid and Supply Shops
P.obby Supp 1 i es
Interior Decorating
Jewel ry Stores
Landscape Supplies and Equipment
Lawn Care Products and Garden Supplies
Leather Goods
Linen Shops
Luggage Stores
Magazine Stores or Stands
Mail Order Houses
Marine Crafts and Accessories
Medical Appl i ances
Metalware Shops
Mill inery Shops
Monuments, with Incidental Processing
to Order
Muffl ers
Newsstands
Novelty Shops
Nursery Retail
Optical Goods
Orthopedic Stores
Paint Stores
Parts for Motorcycles, Campers and
Trailers
Pet Supply Stores
Piano Stores
Picture Frames
Plant Shops
Plumbing (retail only)
Radi os
Record and Sheet Music Shops
Rubber Stamp Stores
Sewing Machines
Shoe Stores
Spice Shops
Sporting Goods Stores
Stamp and Coin Collectors
Stationery and Supplies
Stereos
Sundries
Super Drug Stores with Variety Goods
Surgical Supplies
Televisions
. ,
n
:i
n
:l
'1
,
,
I
-1
;
.1
. ,
.,
;1
'l
.J
. ]
-4-~
t';!J
General Retail Sales (cont'd)
Tires and Tubes
Tobacco Stores
Toil etry Stores
Toy Stores
Trophy Supp1 ies
Uni forms
Upholstery Shops
Vari ety Stores
Watch or Clock Stores
Wigs
Window Shades, Awnings
General Personal Service
-...
Apparel Laundering and Dryc1eaning
(self-service and drop-off)
Art Studios
Babysitting Services
Barber Shops
Beauty Shops
Body-Building Studios
Correspondence Schools
Dance Studios
Dog Grooming
Drama Studi os
Driving School s
Dryc1eaning, Pick-Up Stations
Income Tax Services
Maid and Butler Services
Photo-Finishing (drop-off only)
Photography Studios
Reducing and Weight Control Clinics
Reduci ng Salons
Schools (barber, beauty, business,
language, modeling and other
vocational or trade schools)
Service Organizations (Red Cross,
Travelers Aid, etc.)
Shoeshine Stands
Tailors (alterations and restyling)
Theatrical Agencies
Ticket Sales Offices
Travel Bureaus
-,
Consultative/Financial Service
Advertising Consulting
Architectural Services
Attorneys
Banks
Business Consulting and Research
Check-Cashing Agencies
-,
- 5 -
r J7[j-/t?
1,lf
"
Consultative/Financial Service (cont'd)
.
Clearinghouses
Commodity Brokerages
Consul tants
Credit Institutions
Currency Exchanges
Designers
Economic Consulting and Research
Educational Consulting and Research
Engineering and Surveying
Esc row Servi ces
Farm Ilanagement Offices
Holding and Investment Services
Hospital Insurance Organizations
Insurance Companies
Landscape Architects
Lending Institutions
Management Consultants
Medical Insurance Organizations
Mortgage Loan Offices
Property Management Offices
Real Estate Appraisal Firms
Real Estate Offices
Safety Deposit Companies
Savings and Loan Associations
Securities Brokerages
Security and Commodity Exchanges
Stock and Bond Brokerage Offices
Title Abstracting Services
.
Consumer Laundry & Repair Service
.
Apparel Repai rs
Bicycle Repairs
Camera Repairs
Carpet Cleaning Firms
Diaper Service Laundries
Drape Cleaning
Dryc 1 eaners
Dyeing Establishments
Electrical Appliance Repairs
Fix-It Shops
Furniture Finishing (consisting of
removing old finishes from furniture,
staining and applying new finishes)
Furniture Repairs and Cleaning
Fur Repairs and Storage
Hat Repairs
Institutional and Commercial Linen
Supply Firms
Jewel ry Repai rs
Laundries and Laundromats
Laundry Services
- 6 -
r-
i
;
17fJ4I-
"("IS-
Consumer Laundry & Repair Service
(cont'd)
Lawnmower and Tool Sharpening and
Repa i rs
Leather Item Repairs
Locksmith and Key Shops
Musical Instrument Repairs
Piano Tuning and Repairs
Plating (small household items only)
Radio and Television Repairs
Rug Cleaning Establishments
Saw, Knife, Lawnmower and Tool
Sharpening and Repairs
Self-Service Laundries or Drycleaners
Shoe Repairs
Uniform Renting and Cleaning
Establ ishments
Upholstery Shops
Watch and Clock Repairs
Welding (small articles)
Group Assembly
Amateur Baseball Fields
Amphi theaters
Archery Ranges
Arenas, Sports
Auditori urns
Ball rooms
Boat Rentals
Bowl i ng A 11 eys
Clubs (nightclubs and cabarets)
Clubs and Lodges (private and non-profit)
Clubs, Athletic
Commercial Sport and Recreational
Enterpri ses
Exhibition Halls
Fishing Areas
Gem Hunts
Golf Driving Ranges
Gun and Rifle Ranges
Health Clubs and Spas
Legitimate Theaters
Little League, Organized Baseball,
Permanent Bleachers
Meeting Halls for Rent
Miniature Golf
Motion Picture Theaters
Nature Reserves
Nature Resorts
Picnicking Areas
Riding and Hunting Areas
Rodeo Arenas
- 7 -
-."
~
-"',
---178 ../~
-r...lf,
.
.
.
Group Assembly (cont'd)
Skating Rinks
Skating Rinks (with seating areas)
Skiing
Spectator Sports Facilities
Sport Fishing
:;tadiums
Swimming Beaches
Swimming Pools
Table Tennis Halls
Tennis Courts
Tennis Courts (permanent bleachers)
Theaters (motion picture, legitimate)
Trap and Skeet Ranges
Water Sports (lake or ocean)
Wil dl ife Areas
Yacht Basins
,...
I!
"'
,j
Administrative
Accounting and Auditing Services
Administrative Offices
Business Organizations, Offices
Contractors, Offices Only
Organizations, Civic, Labor, Political,
Veterans', Welfare and Charitable
Services (offices only)
Professional Organizations, Offices
Public Utility Corporation Offices
Telegraph Offices
Telephone Company Offices
. ,
i
. ;
. j
Business and Communication Services
Addressing and I~ailing Services
Advertising Services (outdoor or aerial)
Assaying Services
Bookkeeping Services
Clerical Services
Commercial Photography {aerial and map
service}
Commercial Testing Laboratories
Common Carriers
Data Processing
Drafting Studios
Employment Agencies
Inventory Services
Messenger Services
Microfilming Services
Minor Processing Services
Multi-Copy and Blueprint Services
Protective Agencies
Radio Studios
. !
-B- -/70"/Y
t17
Business and Communication Services (cont'd)
Safe Repair Shops
Secretarial and Stenographic Services
Telecommunications Services
Telegraph Service Centers
Telephone Answering Services
Telephone Service Centers
Television Studios
-.,
Retail Business Supply
Barber Equipment and Supply Firms
Dental Equipment Supply and Service
Fi rms
Drafting Supply Firms
Engineering Supply and Service Firms
Equipment and Supplies for Service
Establishments
Hospital Equipment and Service Firms
Hotel or Office Equipment Supply and
Service Firms
Laboratory Equipment Supply Firms
Nursery Equipment Supply Firms
Office Equipment and Supply Firms
Office Equipment Repair Shops
Optical Equipment and Supply Firms
Professional Equipment and Supply Firms
Research Instruments Supply and Service
Firms
Restaurant Equipment and Service Firms
Shoe Repair Equipment Firms
Undertakers' Equipment and Supply
Firms
-.,
Research and Development
Applied Research
Electronics Research
Industrial Research
Laboratory Research, Experimental or
Testi ng
Medical Research Laboratories
Oceanographic Research
Pharmaceuti cal Researc h
Scientific Laboratories
Space Research and Development
Technical Laboratories
- 9 -
-.,
~7[! - Ii
7/f(
.
General Wholesale Sales
Markets, Wholesale
Wholesale Distributors
Wholesale Establishments
Wholesale Offices or Showrooms
Construction Sales and Services
.
Air Conditioning Equipment
Building Contractors
Building Maintenance Materials
Building Materials - Tile, Cement,
Fencing, Roofing Materials, etc.
Burglar Alarm Systems
Ca rpente rs
Conc rete Servi ces
Contractors' Equipment Storage Yard
Ditching Services
Electrical Contractors
Electrical Suppl ies
Explosive Contractors (not storage of
explosives)
Fire Fighting Equipment and Supplies
Fixture Sales (wholesale)
Floor Covering Installations
Glass and Glazing Contractors
Glass Sales
Hardware Sales (wholesale)
Heating and Air Conditioning
Contractors
Heating Equipment
House or Building Wreckers or Movers
Janitorial Supplies
Lumber (sales, yards, etc.)
Metal Works Contractors
Ornamental Ironworks
Painting Contractors
Paint Sales (wholesale)
Paving Contractors
Plumbing Equipment
Remodeling Contractors
Roofing Contractors
Sheet Metal Contractors
Sprinkler and Landscaping Contractors
Swimming Pool Equipment and Supplies
Swimming Pool Installation and Services
Tools, Rentals or Sales
Wallpaper Sales and Services
Water Well Dri 11 i ng
Transient Habitation
e
Boatels
Group Camps (overnight)
-;'ttl
- 10 -
. ,
~
Transient Habitation (cont'd)
Health Resorts
Hotels
r~otel s
Motor Lodges
Recreational Vehicle Parks
Resort Hotel s
Resort and Recreation Facilities
Retreat House s
Tourist Cabins
Trailer Round-Ups
Travel Trailer Parks
Automotive Sales, Rental & Delivery
Agricultural Equipment Dealers
Bus Sales
Camp Trailers, Sales or Rentals
Construction Material, Delivery
Farm Equipment Dealers
Fi rewood or Fuel Del i very
Forklifts, Sales or Rentals
Garden Supplies Delivery
Heavy Construction Equipment, Sales or
Rentals
Mail Order Houses
Mobile Homes, Sales
Motor Homes, Sales or Rentals
Tractors and Equipment Dealers
. Trailers, Sales or Rentals
Trucks, Sales or Rentals
Water Del i very
Automotive Servicing
Automotive Service Stations
Automotive Supply Stores
Tire Stores .
Automotive Repair and Cleaning
Aircraft Service and Maintenance
Auto Air Conditioning Equipment,
Installation and Services
Auto Alignment Services
Auto Electrical Services
Auto Glass, Installation and Services
Auto Laundri es
Auto r~ufflers, Installation and Services
Auto Repair Garages
Auto Tires, Installation and Services
Auto Upholstery, Installation and
Servi ces
Body and Paint Shops
- 11 -
.-.,
-..
-..
17lJ- J~
r, ,
7'~
.
Automotive Repair and Cleaning (cont'd)
Car Washes
Motor Freight Maintenance Garages
Motorcycle-Motor Scooter Repairs
Recreational Vehicle Repairs
Steam Cleaning Automotive
Towing Services (no storage)
Truck Equipment and Parts, Installation
and Services
Truck, Painting and Lettering
Truck, Repairs and Services
Truck, Washing
Automotive Fee Parking
Auto Parking Lot
Auto Storage Lot
Garage, Parki ng
Off-Street Parking
Boat Sales or Rental
Boat Sales
Boat Rental
Ship Chandleries
e Boat Servicing
Boat Repairs, Servicing or Cleaning
Boat Works or Yards
Drydocks
Maritime Centers
Ship Chandleries
Animal Sales
Animal Auctions
Animal Sales Yards
Livestock Auction Yards
Stoc kyards
Animal Services
Animal Hospital (large animals)
Animal Hospital (small animals)
Boarding Kennels
.
- 12 -
n
"'
I
j
'1
i
.1
~l
!
,
J
j
. .
,
,."
. j
"1
i
-J70-/r
7; ).1
Animal Services (cont'd)
Dog Bathing
Dog Clipping
Dog Training Services
Dog and Cat Hospital
Guard Dog Training
Horsetraining Services
Pet Clinics
Pet Groomi ng
Pet r~ote1 s
Publ ic Corral s
Public Stables
Riding Clubs
Veterinary Hospital (large animals)
Veterinary Hospital (small animals)
Transport and Warehousing
Auto Storage Garages
Distributing Plants
Freight Handling
Moving and Storage Firms
Parcel Delivery Truck Fleets
Private Storage
Public Warehouses
Refrigerated Warehouses
Storage Yards
Storage, Cold and Food
Trucking Terminal s
Warehouses
~
-..
- 13 -
-..
'713- J r
.. I '
7,. eJ.;).
.
.
.
Building Maintenance Services
Disinfecting and/or Exterminating
Servi ces
Gardeners (landscape maintenance)
Janitorial Services
Maintenance and Custodial Services
Sewer and Drain Cleaning
Sweeping Services
Window Cleaning Services
Funeral and Interment Services
Ci nera ri ums
Co1 umba ri ums
Crematories
Crematod urns
Funeral Parlors
r~au so 1 eurns
Mortuaries
Undertaking Establishments
- 14 -
r
, ,
--/7e~/1
7,. )..3
AGRICULTURAL
P1 ant Nursery
F10racultural Stock
Flowers, Commercial Cut and
Deco ra t i ve
Herb Growi ng
Horticultural Stock
Mushroo~ Growing
Nursery, Wholesale or Retail
Potted Plant Growing
Sod, Grass
Crop Raising
Alfalfa
Berri es
Citrus Fruit Trees or Bushes
Cotton
Field and Seed Crops
Fruit Trees
Grain
Hay (includes alfalfa)
Melons
Nut Trees
Tobacco
Truck Crops
Vegetables
Vines (grapes, etc.)
Small Animal Raising
Chinchill as
Hamsters
Poul try
Rabbits
Turkeys
Large or Specialty Animal Raising
~
~
Amphibians
Apiaries
Aviaries
Bears
Beef Cattle
Birds
Bovine Animals
Buffalo
Cougars
Dai ries
Feed Lots
Fish
Foxes
.........
- 15 -
r/7 8 -~tr
-?' .2'1'
.
e
.
Large or Specialty Animal Raising
(cont'd)
Goats
Hog Ranches
Horse Ranches
Insects
Lions
Monkeys
Mountain Lions
Ocelots
Pig Farms
Sheep
Skunks
Snakes, Venomous or dangerous
Swine
Tigers
Wi] dcats
Worm Farms
Zoos, Private
,
~
Agricultural Packing and Processing
Contract Sorting, Grading and Packaging
Egg Processi ng
Fi sheri es
Flower Packing
Grain Cleaning
Mi Hi ng
Nut Shelling and Cooking
Sheep Sheari ng
Agricultural Supplies and Services
Crop Dusti ng
Farm Advi sory
Feed and Grain
Fertil i zers
Harvesting Services and Equipment
Storage
Hay
Pesticides and Herbicides
Tree Services
Weed Control
- 16 -
I 98 ,. , J
7 ..-25 -, - , -
CIVIC
Essential Service
Electric Distribution Lines and Poles
Gas Distribution Lines
Open Space (of a passive use)
Parks, Public (passive use only)
Sewer Collection Lines
Storm Drainage Collection Lines
Telephone Distribution Lines and Poles
Water Distribution Lines
Limited Child Care
Public Day Centers (for eight or fewer
chil dren)
Public Nurseries (for eight or fewer
chil dren)
Community Assembly
Amusement Parks
Aqua ri ums
Auditoriums
Bandstands (public)
Birth Control Clinics
Botanical Gardens
Camping Areas (non-profit)
Carnivals
Churches
Circuses
Community Centers
Community Health Clinics
Convalescent Hospitals
Exhibition Halls
Extended Care Facilities
Fai rgrounds
Go1 f Courses
Historic Sites
Hospital s
Marinas (public)
Meeting Halls
Monument Sites
Neighborhood Centers
Nursi ng Homes
Open Space Areas (of an active use)
Parks
Picnicking Areas (public)
Places of Worship
Playgrounds and Playing Fields (of an
active outdoor use)
Public Health Services
Recreation Centers
- 17 -
.........,
.........,
........
.)7!J -.2~
{;'.)./.,
.
.
.
Community Assembly (cont'd)
Refreshment Buildings (in public parks,
playgrounds or golf courses)
Religious Assembly
Religious Complexes
Religious Reading Rooms
Sport Fishing (public)
Sports Arenas (public)
Stadiums
Swimming Beaches or Pools (public)
Synagogues
Temples
Universities
Zoological Gardens
Non-Assembly, Cultural
Art Galleries
Libraries (non-profit)
Private Museums
/
Community Education
Coll eges
Correspondence Schools (public)
Elementary Schools
High Schools (junior or senior)
Juni or Coll eges
Junior High Schools
Military Academies
Schools (elementary, and junior and
senior high)
Schools for the Handicapped (including
the blind)
Senior High Schools
Non-Assembly, Scientific
Observatori es
Planetariums
A~inistrative
Civic Centers
Government Centers
Government Office Buildings
Parki ng
Public Parking Garages
Public Parking Lots
- 18 -
r-
i
,
-J 7 tJ- .23
(/J..7.
Utility and Vehicular
Ai rports
Bus Stations (passenger or freight)
C i nera ri ums
Columbariums
Communication Equipment Installations
and Exchanges
Community Antenna Television Systems
Corporation Yards (public or public
util ity)
Electric Transmission Lines
Electrical Substations
Fire Stations
Funeral Parlors
Gas Substations
Heliports and Helistops
Mail Processing Centers (major)
Mortuari es
Police Stations
Post Offices
Power PI ants (steam, fossil)
Pumping Stations (sewage or water)
Radio Transmission Facilities (including
booster and relay)
Rail Stations (passenger or freight)
Reservoirs (water)
Service Buildings (in public parks,
playgrounds or golf courses)
Telephone Exchange or Switching
Facilities
Television Transmission Facilities
(including booster and relay)
Transportation Terminals
Undertaking Establishments
Water Tanks
Water Treatment Facilities
- 19 -
..-.
""""
""""
~
-; " ;.g
.
e
~
LCP AMENDMENT NO. 11
ATTACHMENTS
RA-4/ A-113
Attachment I - Land Use District Map
Attachment II - Minutes from Recommending Bodies
RCC Meeting 1/11/93
Child-Care Meeting 1/19/93
Planning Commission Meeting 1/27/93
Attachment III - Negative Declaration IS-93-17/19
~ /-=<~
~\-~-
"""'"
ThiS jitigeWenifo!iatly left blank;
"""'"
~
JJ-f]-+t'~L /'27
f.
Il.."./
I f ~ ~
~ ~. ~~
i1! d II J j
o 0008 .S8
~~
56::
/Q; ~ ~ ~
,~...~
~- 7-3; C5]
~
ThisjHiiii:l/kntlonal1i1elt bkInk:
~
~.
~f7~JJ
.
ATTACHMENT II
MINUTES:
RCC COMMITTEE MEETING 1/11/93
CHILD-CARE MEETING 1/19/93
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1/27/93
.
n /) 5-
i=-c.., --tf- 7--3:A
-."
Tliiipagli rfiililiHona1ty left blank;
.......,
""""
7---3}
.
~
.
.
.
48"Ub,," -
EXHIBIT B .
~-~~
~~\/1\/'13~
~x~~~~~ ~~C~~IH~lHC
::Jllj t-'k:].j
Page 2
1 is unclear and too wordy; Page 5, No.2, the geographical areas
be split differently with only one hauler; Page 9, one bidder to do
all the hauling; in favor with the pilot project.
Athena stated a final draft of this proposal will be redone and
sent to commissioners. Comments should go directly to her for
presentation to the council at its next meeting.
It was then moved and seconded (Hall/Kracha) to recommend
acceptance of the proposed recyoling report. An amendment was made
(Myers/Ghougassian) that there not be additional haulers than what
is presently in existenoe to single family residential areas;
motion failed 1-3 (Aye: Myers; Nos: Kracha, Ghougassian, Hall). A
vote was taken on the original motion; motion failed )-1 (Ayes:
Kracha, Ghougassian, Hall; No: Myers).
4. Review of Negative Declaration IS-93-17 and IS-93-19, the
National University/LCP Amendment No. 11. After a brief discussion
on the proposal and oonditional use permit on this item, it was
moved and seconded (Hall/Ghougassian) to recommend adoption of the
Negative Declaration; motion failed 3-1 (Ayes: Hall, Ghougassian,
Kraohaj No: Myers).
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: A workShop/training of new commissioners is
deferred until new members can be present.
Kracha requested Tony Liu, coordinator for the Earth Day event on
January 23, make a brief presentation.
STAFF REPORT: Schedule for review of the Otay Ranch project:
. January 15 - County Dept. of Land Use
. January 27 - Chula vista council Chambers, 5-7 p.m.
. January 29 - County Dept. of Land Use
. Joint Hearings (Supervisors, Planning Commission) in February
Discussion on Otay Ranch will be held at the January 25 meeting.
Meanwhile, a workshop with Baldwin and Ogden will be January 18.
A oopy of the RCC budget was handed out and briefly reviewed.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Myers commented on the amount of readinq
material presented to commissioners and insufficient time allowed
to review all doouments. suggested a new meeting time be discussed
with all members present.
ADJOURNMENT: It was MSUP (Hall/Myers) to adjourn the meeting. The
meeting was adjourned by Chairman Kracha at 7:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES
~~
Barbara Taylor
L t fJ# II - ~
-
7~3i
---..
Thispagelilie!riiditaOY left blaiik;
........,
........,
/ '" /J~,:f ~
~" 7r3!;'
EXHIBIT B
.
:~:;.3'>:-". r:.;"':;~'<'!'" ,... ~ .-,~........ ,.
~, Ei .(:'~:fl ,~r~~ ~;:';~'C;~~1"!)1
"~~,..< p~ ,." '''><<<~.. "I (114
- - .... t'...~-,'i ~ t.;i !I
CHILD CARE COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 19, 1993 MEETING
Tuesday 7:00 p.m.
January 19, 1993
Parks & Recreation
Conference Room
****************************************************
CALL MEETING TO ORDER - 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Cavanah, Commissioners Welsh, Johns, Reeves, Ex-Officio
Member Randolph
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chair Hartman, Commissioner Huston, Ex-Officio Member
Tressler
EMERGENCY ITEM
.
It was MSUC (WelSh/Reeves) to add Consideration of LCP Amendment No. 11 to the
agenda.
Pam Buchan, Community Development Department, was introduced. She explained that
the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) is a special land use plan in the Coastal Zone (this
is the land area west of 1-5 from approximately the National City border to the
southern City limit). The City is required by law to adopt such a plan. It was
a;proved by the State Coastal Commission and, when plans are developed for any
land within the LCP limits, they must be approved by both the local and state
agencies. The City is proposing to amend the plan and would like the Child Care
Commission's endorsement of the portion of the amendment that relates to child
care issues. Ms. Buchan explained the land uses currently allowed and those
allowed only through issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff's
recommendation is for the Planning Commission, the City Council, and ultimately
the State Coastal Commission, to amend the LCP to expand the currently approved
land uses in the (oastal Zone, one of which would be to allow child care
facilities to be located in an industrial zone through use of a CUP. Presently,
day care facilities are only allowed in residential zones by a CUP.
Ot was MSUC (WelSh/Reeves) to consider the LCP amendment and support the concept
of including chi ld care facil ities by Conditional Use Permit within the
Industrial: General Land Use Designation of the Local Coastal Plan.
The Commission thanked Ms. Buchan for her presentation.
~
1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
.'
It was MSUC (WelSh/Cavanah) to approve the minutes of the April 21, ~93 meeting
as submitted.
. At this time, Chair Cavanah welcomed newest Commission member Cindy Johns.
~ 7~3?
~
This pai~iiiie1l!ioftattYle/tblimk;
~
.......
!- t. fJ..//- /0
7-]7
EXHIBIT B
UN. ^~~~r'F~ /' 1""'"'''' '"10~'''''!~
"""1Il il w~J,>-_,",", ""~,,,~,,"<:i) u =;)
.
Excernt From Planninl!: Commission Minutes of 1/27/93
ITEM 2.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO THE
CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) TO
ALLOW CERTAIN LAND USE CATEGORIES BY CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL:GENERALLAND USEDESIGNA TION
WITlliN THE LCP
Sr. Community Development Specialist Buchan gave the staff report. She said the land uses
which would be conditionally allowed would include educational services entailing colleges,
universities, trade, vocational, and technical schools and also childcare facilities within the
overall Industrial: General land use of the LCP. In addition, athletic and recreational activities
within the Industrial: General land use designation of the inland parcel located at "C" Street and
Bay Boulevard would be allowed by conditional uses.
Commissioner Moot asked if the Commission should amend to allow the educational services
in light of the withdrawal of PCC-93-l8. Ms. Buchan believed they should proceed with it; it
would be needed for future uses.
Commissioner Martin asked if they were being consistent with the current Local Coastal
Program. Ms. Buchan answered affirmatively. The recently.approved Local Coastal Program
would not be effective until City Council acknowledged the Coastal Commission's action and
. suggested modifications. This would also be consistent with thenew LCP.
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 (MartinlTuchscher) 7-0 to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration under I.S.-91-50(B)
and Addendum thereto and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Negative
Declaration I.S.-93-17/19, and Addendum thereto.
t
MSC (Martin/Tuchscher) to adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt Amendment No. 11 to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program as
proposed, based on the finding set forth therein.
Commissioner Ray asked if there were any other amendments in work that the Commission may
not be aware of. Ms. Buchan said perhaps by the fall there would be a Local Coastal Program
amendment to include the South County islands specific land use plans.
Commissioner Ray asked if any of the proposed amendments would be in conflict with the
Commission actiqps. Ms. Buchan answered negatively.
VOTE: 7-0
.
7-- ;7
thiS.ii iUiieiiii'o,u,ttleijt. b14nk;
. .. p c.. . . .....Y . . .....
~
~
'"
~
7-3;
e
.
.
ATTACHMENT m
ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-93-17/19
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AND LCP AMENDMENT NO. 11
January 13, 1993
Clarifications to the Project Description for the Negative Declaration IS-93-17/19 are
summarized below and are included throughout the text of the Negative Declaration. The
Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista has allowed preparation of this
Addendum if one of the following conditions is present:
1. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion of the
Final EIR or Negative Declaration have not created any new significant environmental
impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration;
2. Additional or refined environmental data available since completion of the Final EIR does
not indicate any new significant environmental impacts .not previously addressed in the
Final EIR or Negative Declaration; and
3. Additional or refined environmental data available since completion of the Final EIR or
Negative Declaration regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or
regarding the measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental
effects of the project, does not show that the project will have one or more significant
impacts which werenot previously addressed in the Final EIR or Negative Declaration.
Condition No. I is appropriate for this Addendum. The changes occur in the Project
Description, and do not create any new significant environmental impacts not previously
addressed in the Negative Declaration. The purpose of this Addendum is, thus, to provide
additional project description information, and to clarify project issues. The conclusions of the
Negative Declaration have not changed; no significant environmental impacts would occur with
implementation of these projects.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-93-17/19
The major changes to this Negative Declaration is the deletion of utility uses from the uses
proposed to be allowed conditionally in the Industrial:GeneraI category of the LCP. The reason
for this deletion concerns the current status of the SDG&E power plant. It is currently a non-
conforming use in the Industrial:GeneraI category. In order to change this status via an LCP
amendment, comprehensive environmental review must occur. This Negative Declaration does
not include such review, and this category of use (utility) is thus deleted from this Negative
Declaration.
The second change is to the LCP Amendment No. 11 and is the addition of "Athletic and
Recreational Commercial Activities" to the Industrial:GeneraI land use category in the Inland
Parcel of the LCP area. These proposed activities were analyzed in Mitigated Negative
Declaration 91-50(B), and an LCP Amendment was a condition required to allow these uses.
This LCP Amendment is thus the fulfillment of that requirement.
Other minor clarifications occur throughout the text of the Negative Declaration. Among these
are the list of discretionary approvals in the Project Description.
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\473.93
~7~~/{)
~
This pag~ Uiteltiionally le/tb/iink;
~.
""""\
j, t&
7 ~t(/
.
.
.
negative
declaration
PROJECT NAME: National University and LCP Amendment No. 11
PROJECT LOCATION: 740 Bay Boulevard: National University
Bayfront LCP Area : LCP No. 11
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 571-170-16: National University
Not applicable: Bayfront LCP area
PROJECT APPLICANT: Bennet Greenwald, Foster Properties: National University
City of Chula Vista: LCP Amendment No. 11
CASE NO: IS-93-17 : National University
IS-93-19 : LCP Amendment No. 11
DATE: January 13, 1993
A.
Proiect Setting
The National University site is located at 740 Bay Boulevard, and is within the Chula
Vista Bayfront LCP area. The building already exists, and is located between Bay
Boulevard and 1-5 south of J Street. The project area is urbanized. The Bayfront LCP
area includes a diversity of settings, from pristine wetlands to fully urbanized. The
Industrial:General category of the LCP, which is the subject area of the proposed
Amendment No. 11, is mostly developed with uses of an industrial or business park
nature. The project area is identified on Exhibits A and B.
B.
Proiect Description
'-'.
This Negative Declaration includes two separate projects, National University and LCP
Amendment No. 11. The two projects were reviewed independently and then combined
in order to ensure that analysis of cumulative impacts occurred. Additionally,
entitlements for the National University project include the LCP Amendment. Thus, the
text of the Negative Declaration, and the Initial Study/Discussion on which the Negative
Declaration relies, includes both of these projects.
The National University project proposes to use 7,708 square feet of a 26,604 sq. ft.
existing building for 6 classrooms and associated office space. The hours of National
University would be 5:30 to 10:30 p.m. on weekdays, with some academic daytime
seminars or academic activities. This project requires the LCP Amendment, a
Conditional Use Permit, and a Coastal Development Permit.
The LCP Amendment No. 11 proposes to allow certain land uses within the
Industrial: General category. These uses include colleges and universities; trade,
vocational and technical schools; and child care centers. These uses would be allowed
conditionally, and a Conditional Use Permit would be necessary in order to permit these
land uses within this category. The proposed changes are shown on the following tables
of permitted uses.
~ ?ri J---,
<t:
l-
-
co
-
~
~
i
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
!\
ii
.\
ii
I
\\
\
\
, '
:!
._---_._----------~~---~-~=--~~.;.~;.:;...--
I r-
f
!
x
.f
]
,4) .8 l;
o .c-
l'tI.2':ii
a. Co
UJ ~ lID
C ~~
41 .c.....
a. ::l :! (I')
o Eo."Q
u E ~ c
:.: 8~~
.0 ~
"'*... <II
a. :;:
'1'1,1',1,",' m~1
il"lil/ I
".:' i i I
~j
~~
.'
~1
-:
.-
~~
.-
c-
.....:-"tJ
:: ~ 'a
;~ fa Cl
l E .. ;;
- ;;1 a: G
co d a:
-- IOS >-
U 0... ., lID
Qj~5~.s4)
E::.~ c .... -
_5 _ ., 0
E O~ I ~ :r
8Ell'JEiD
:
:
en 01
C;; Ul 1:
" ... <II -"
" <II c: ...
" c: in &.
<II ::I
, Cl a:J C;; '0
'---on' 8-
- --_....- c;; c;; :;::;
7~ ;J :s -.: c: CO
~ <II <J
en Ul " .,
::I ::I in u
~ '0 " C
<II CO
.!: .!: a: ..J
. ffi
l\L\' ,;q, :-------~ ~;=:~ UJ (J)
m_ -~ "o...<(u> <!. (J) ...J
· 12>ffi =>0
; <!.o a:
;58: 0 I- ml
, ; j; i 5;t ~ 2: 8i
--t, --~ ,I ~ --J 0 (fJ
'L]Lf-M1~,.,.,:;DW ~ () .!]
;: "JFl'::;::'::?'r:::':::-:i U
, LJl!J ; ,:-'~::;~ <l.
;; 1"">1 U
~ ]t] !,i,lu,: 9
)11'", "", '1
-- Sl~~~~~
_ _ l~ J:"__~.U
T;;-~':r;":-::1i
i ilr;u~~ ..
i,. _
..... ...--.,.-.
. ..,..-......--......-
'-_.___o.I.._......~
J
,
:1'
. i,
....-,
.
I,
, "-
I "-
\ '
I
i
m
I
')
I
I
I
I
I
I
,"",
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'~~ ~
r:
""""
II
I
J
thispag'e lilieiidof#lltlleA blank;
'}
.'")
~ 7-1(5
.
.
.
AMENDMENT NO.II TO:
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Le2end
A44W9#il!&**1
Deletisa tEl text
Amendment No. 11 consists of changes to pages 8, 11,21 and Appedix A pages 13, 14, & 17 of the Specific Plan
flUI--1f 7 ~ ~
--.
~~pqg(VJjlimJtfl9!1ll~l!tilli9ffl!
--.
.....,
~ 7-(7
.
.
.
Section 19.82.28 - Animal Services Commercial Activities
Animal Services Commercial Activities include the services relating to the storage, maintenance, grooming or
keeping of household or other animals.
Section 19.82.29 - Transport and Warehousing Commercial Activities
Transport and Warehousing Commercial Activities include the provision of warehousing and storage, freight
handling, shipping, and trucking services.
Section 19.82.30 - Building Maintenance Services Commercial Activities
Building Maintenance Services Commercial Activities include the provision of services to buildings involving
cleaning, maintenance, custodial and security.
Section 19.82.31 - Funeral and Interment Services Commercial Activities
Funeral and Interment Services Commercial Activities include the provision of undertaking and funeral services
involving the care and preparation of the human deceased prior to burial.
~~ii\i1W;l!~j~~HAlli!~li~'illii;1R~#iili1!lqiimfuilf9li)'(A~lifilii;'$
INDUSTRIAL
Section 19.82.35 - Custom Manufacturing Activities
Custom Manufacturing Activities include the following activities. They also include certain activities accessory
thereto, as specified below.
(a) Manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, treatment, or fabrication of the following
products:
Experimental, film, electronic, or testing;
Electronic instruments and devices;
Office computing and accounting machines and typewriters; and Scientific,
electric measuring and control instruments and testing equipment.
(b)
Printing, publishing, and sign-making.
(c)
Accessory uses incidental thereto. including administrative, executive and financial offices and incidental
services. such as restaurants to serve employees. when conducted on the premises; wholesale business
storage or warehousing for products of the types permitted to be manufactured in the zone; other accessory
uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use.
(d)
Retail sales of products produced or manufactured on the site.
- 8 -
~ ?-t/?'
Section 19.82.42 - Large or Specialty Animal Raising Agricultural Activities
Large or Specialty Animal Raising Agricultural Activities include the raising, keeping, grazing
or feeding of large or specialty animals for pets, zoos, animal products, animal increase, or --.,
value increase.
Section 19.82.43 - Agricultural Pac~ing and Processing Activities
. Agricultural Packing and Processing Activities include the packing, cleaning or processing of
fish, meat, eggs, dairy or produce.
Section 19.82.44 - Agricultural Supplies and Services
Agricultural Supplies and Services include the sale or services relating to agricultural operations,
typically intended to enhance crop yields through fertilization, pest control, and other treatment
or assistance.
CIVIC
Section 19.82.50 - Essential Service Civic Activities
Essential Service Civic Activities include the maintenance operations of the following
installations.
(a)
Electric, gas, and telephone distribution lines and poles, and water, storm drainage and
sewer lines, with incidental appurtenances thereto, but excluding electric transmission
lines.
.........
(b) Parks and botanical gardens, but excluding playgrounds, playing fields, bandstands,
auditoriums, and similar assembly areas.
(c) Freeways, rapid transit routes, streets, alleys, and paths, but excluding uses on, under,
or over such ways, which uses are not customarily appurtenant thereto.
Section 19.82.51 - Limited Child-Care Civic Activities
Limited Child-Care Civic Activities include the provision of day-care service for eight or fewer
children.
Section 19.82.52 - Resemd, Wfif!~?Bliffi~YfB~S!:!YJ:4~
@fiM~~&l82~YfH$if9PffiY19~9~Y{P.t$.Bt~$;~fl3~t9Im9ffiwiffi~fgtlfeqn9{~n;
Section 19.82.53 - Community Assembly Civic Activities
Community Assembly Civic Activities include the activities typically performed by, or at, the
following institutions or installations. .
.........
(a) Churches, temples, and synagogues.
~~2
?-~7
.
.
.
Section 19.84.11 - Wetlands and Buffers
The following uses shall be permitted within lands designated as Wetlands and Buffers, on Map
I, Land Use Control:
Restoration or enhancement of wetlands areas, with development or construction limited to
interpretive facilities which will preserve natural resource or habitat values.
Section 19.84.12 - Industrial: General Pennitted Uses
All land designated on Map I, Land Use Controls, as Industrial: General shall be permitted
to accommodate the following use classifications:
Food Service Commercial
Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
Business and Communication Service Commercial
Retail Business Supply Commercial
Research and Development Commercial
General Wholesale Sales Commercial
Transportation and Warehousing Commercial
Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
Custom Industrial
Light Industrial
General Industrial
Essential Service Civic
Special Signs
Development Signs
Realty Signs
Civic Signs
Business Signs
~.,-
Section 19.84.13 - Industrial General Conditionally Pennitted Uses
Pi:l!!~~Qh*$~i'Y!~{J9wm~!9iM."~CUY!@$
9h!!Pt~;Y;$~!Y;S~iM!!i~l"""" m""m,
All lands within the Inland Parcel designated on Map I, Land Use Controls, for Industrial:
General Use, shall be permitted to accommodate the following use classifications pursuant to the
Conditional Use Procedure at Chapter 19.14:
~m!~RQMg,:mmi119,I!Sl*mml,gJl~!!Xi~1J$
AutomollveSaJes (New); Rentiii & beilvery3.ii.d Accessory Commercial Activities
Automotive Servicing Commercial Activities
Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial Activities
Boat Sales or Rental Commercial Activities
Boat Servicing Commercial Activities
~
~ 7-5'0
Anima1 services, (continued)
","""
Dog Bathing Dog Clipping Dog Training Services
Dog and Cat Hospital
Guard Dog Training
Horse Training
Pet Clinics
Pet Grooming
Pet Motels
Public Corrals
Public Stables
Riding Clubs
Veterinary Hospital (large animals)
veterinary Hospital (small animals)
Transport and Warehousing
auto Storage Garages
Distributing Plants
Freight Handling
Moving and Storage Firms
Parcel Delivery Truck Fleets
Private Storage Public Warehouses
Refrigerated Warehouses
Storage Yards
Storage, Cold and Food
Trucking Terminals
Warehouses .
"""'\
~~Mif~E&g~4'..g~9$~;3't:fg#iol:')"
!~_I.li~~II~III~IIIB'.. RgeEgiitii!6h~~..f1nh$#p1ijN~~$
Iliiil~ililli~I~~~en~gBFX~.lt*g)
..:.,.;.,.;.:.:.,.:.;.:.,.:.........
'"'""'I
- 13 -
Appendix A
'j - C::-(
J.IP-/I # /:/
. ~~~~M~ld
.
.
Building Maintenance Services
Disinfecting and/or Exterminating Services
Gardeners (landscape maintenance)
Janitorial Services
Maintenance and Custodial Services
Sewer and Drain Cleaning
Sweeping Services
Window Cleaning Services
Funeral Interment Services
Cinerarium
Columbariums
Crematories
Crematoriums
Funeral Parlors
Mausoleums
Mortuaries
Undertaking Establishments
~q.iJ.,~~ig~t~,~,!$~
It~IIBltllll~ii~firnm;~Bli291~
~
Appendix A
/...-C-.I?-
7/5cJ-
CIVIC
Essential Service
Electric Distribution Lines and Poles
Gas Distribution Lines
Open Space (of a passive use)
Parks, Public (passive use only)
Sewer Collection Lines
Stann Drainage Collection Lines
Telephone Distribution Lines and Poles
Water Distribution Lines
~
Limited Child Care
Public Day Centers (for eight or fewer children)
Publiq Nurseries (for eight or fewer children)
!'\~i!i!;m~
L'I_t~~III!III~.~IIE~~t~!~i#W
Community Assembly
Amusement Parks
Aquariums
Auditoriums
Bandstands (public)
Birth Control Clinics
Botanical Gardens
Camping Areas (non-profit)
Carnivals
Churches
Circuses
Community Centers
Community Health Clinics
Convalescent Hospitals
Exhibition Halls
Extended Care Facilities
Fairgrounds
Golf Courses
Historic Sites
Hospitals
Marinas (public)
Meeting Halls
Monument Sites
Neighborhood Centers
Nursing Homes
Open Space Areas (of an active use)
Parks
Picnicking Areas (public)
Places of Worship
Playgrounds and Playing Fields (of an active outdoor use)
Public Health Services
Recreation Centers
~.
-".
~
Appendix A
~ )-5}
.
.
.
Page 2
The LCP Amendment No. 11 also proposes to conditionally permit Athletic and
Recreational Commercial Activities in the Industrial:General category of the Inland
Parcel. This project was analyzed separately by Initial Study 91-50(B), and was the
subject of Mitigated Negative Declaration 91-50(B). This Negative Declaration required
an LCP Amendment in order to conditionally permit these uses. This LCP Amendment
is proposed for this required condition.
C. Compatibility with Zoninl! and Plans
National University requires an LCP Amendment and a Conditional Use Permit to allow
. the educational uses in this Industrial:General category. The LCP Amendment No. 11
is itself a change to the permitted uses in the Industrial: General category. No change is
being proposed to the land use designation of the LCP Land Use Plan, the General Plan,
or the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. Thus, the proposed activities do not create
inconsistency with the aforementioned plans.
D. Comoliance with the City Threshold Standards
1.
Pire/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 approximately
3 miles away and would be associated with a 4 minute response time. The
proposed projects will comply with this Threshold Standard.
~.,
2.
Police
The Threshold Standards requires that police units must respond to 84 % of
Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time
to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62 %
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 projects will comply
with this Threshold Standards as the Police Department has not indicated that
their response time would be affected by these projects.
3.
Traffic
The Threshold Standards requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better, 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 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS.
No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "P" during the average weekday peak
hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this
policy. The proposed projects will not affect this Threshold Standards. See
traffic report, KMB Consulting, for detailed comments. /1 ~
~7 7~/-;
Page 3
-.,
4. Parks/Recreation
The Threshold Standards for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population.
The proposed projects do not affect this Threshold Standards as no new population
has been anticipated to be generated.
5. Drainage
The Threshold Standards requires that storm water flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineer Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The
proposed projects will comply with this Threshold Standard, as the National
University site is already adequately drained, and the LCP Amendment No. 11
does not directly affect drainage. .
6. Sewer
The Threshold Standards requires 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
proposed projects will comply with this Threshold Standard, as the National -,
University site has adequate sewer infrastructure, and the LCP Amendment does
not create Sewer impacts.
7. Water
The Threshold Standards require thafadequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed
National University project applicant must work with the City's Fire Department
and Sweetwater Authority to ensure that adequate infrastructure is available.
Proof of adequacy must be given to the City's Planning Department prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits. This is standard City procedure, and not a
mitigation measure required by this Negative Declaration. The LCP Amendment
No. 11 does not create water impacts.
8. Schools
The Threshold Standards require that the City provide the school districts with a
12 to 18 month development forecast, and request student absorption ability
information from the districts. The proposed projects do not affect this Threshold
Standard. The proposed projects do not generate students or yreate impacts on the
school districts' abilities to accommodate students. ........
~
7 -.5~
Page 4
.
9.
Libraries
The Threshold Standards require 500 square feet of libraly space per 1,000
population. The proposed projects do not generate additional population and do
not affect this threshold standard.
10. Air Quality
The Threshold Standards require that the City provide the San Diego Air Pollution
Control District with a 12 to 18 month development forecast, and request an
evaluation of its impact on air quality and management plans. The proposed
projects do not affect this threshold standard. The proposed projects were not
cited to create air quality impacts.
11.
Fiscal
.
The Threshold Standards require that the Growth Management Oversight
Committee be provided with an annual report which provides an evaluation of
fiscal impacts on the City. The proposed projects do not directly affect this
Threshold Standards, though implementation of the projects and their fiscal effects
would be included within this evaluation.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed
project will not have a 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.
The Discussion contains each of the environmental issues analyzed in the Initial Study.
As stated throughout the Discussion, no significant impacts occur from the National
University project. Also, no significant impacts occur from the allowance of certain uses
in the Industrial:General category. If projects are proposed in the future which are
consistent with conditionally permitted uses in this category, a Conditional Use Permit
would be required. Environmental analysis would also be required on this project-level
basis.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
The proposed projects are not associated with any significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation will be required.
. G.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the projects described above will
not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs
to be prepared. ? - .5?
Page 5
-..
1. The project has 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.
Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study no significant impacts were
found to occur to biological or cultural resources because the National University
project would not disturb the natural environment, and the LCP Amendment does
not directly affect resources, and requires individual project review.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The projects implements long-term goals of the City regarding development of
necessary facilities. And, the projects do not sacrifice long-term goals stated in
the City's relevant plans for short-term gain.
3.
The project has 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.
-..
The analysis contained in the Initial Study analyzed both the National University
project and the Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 11 in order to address
cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts were found by this analysis. In fact,
no individual impacts were found.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The analysis contained in the Initial Study found that no direct or indirect adverse
effects would occur to human beings from the National University project or the
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 11. Future projects proposed consistent
with the Local Coastal Program Amendment will be analyzed on a project basis
in order to determine the potential for impacts to human beings.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering
John Lippitt, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
-..
7/.5)
I t-i!.-I/ 30/
.
.
.
Page 6
Gany Williams, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Marti Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept.
Pamela Buchan, Community Development Dept.
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: National University: Mr. Bennett Greenwald, Foster
Properties
City of Chula Vista LCP Amendment No. 11: Ms. Pamela
Buchan, Community Development Dept.
2.
Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program (amended 1989)
Traffic Impact Analysis for proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 11
and National University Project (KMB Consulting, December 18, 1992)
3.
Initial Study
This environmental 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 the Negative Declaration. The report reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding
the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista
Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
J2-~t!&l:~RDrnATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 12/90)
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Site Plan
. WPC-.E'HOMElCOMMDEVlA30.92
L tJfJ- J.I.- 3/'
7r5'Y
\1 \ \ \1 \ \ \ .-..
i'l
~~ I I I I
~ I I
e - -..~ .. 0 -~ L _e_ Le
0 OC"'OIC __e 0_ r-~ 0_
-- O. _ -~ o, :;
-- e:: ... ... MO :: " -
e~ "_L L -.-; - -
0.. "0 'tg.oo - 0 _ ",e L_
-- -_.c~ -- 'E -CO ,,~
"'.....v_c X= e" 11-- ::c:_
L_ 0__..... O~ ~'"
.~ ~"'i ~ eli - -:;L - V. e .!~
-;:~ ~ _ L
e -0 0.... ...... -- - - ~>.
.- L_ ..:~ -- e o,L ~i-::
- 0 ...ti-~ ~ li- e leO -
LO ...."0.. 0 -o, " L .
OL c,,_O_ 0..::=3 e - 0
. -- > - r ~ ~
110 !! ~c:_.. v L~ V llL- L_
_u_ .v. . 0;:: -. . .
'i~ __.....0_ _:l~... ~ -~L
_.eWe .. g....i.= ~ L 0 - ~--
...U c'Q.. '" -- 0 - - i :....
e~ o ...... xi ~ ~ -- ...; ...
CI........c~_ 0 - t 0
-~ ~Oo"'..... e 0 L. !
~ - - e -~~ ,,- ..
.- ~o -- '" -~ e O~_ uOe
:. c:~c~..._ 0" '..... - 0 -- e 'L
~_o - -~ ::: eL. -
. - c 0_..... . ;: -- ~f- ~ -e_
L'; __ 0..... _u'O _L - O.
u_ --~ e t..__&I . co r - . --
c_ . - ""'E- ;~t L -- - ~ .~L
-~ O'>~....... .. qj ~ L U L~ _ "'u.
c; u 0-" Or-'Q_ -. ~ ~ ,. c.~
o, .. ..a..~'" >., Cl.CC_ '" ~~ - _L~
c_ .z;;;. Gt.. 0...... ......... ,. ~. ~ _L_ ~--
,",0 u~~Iii""~ ~-- ;,- ~'O - '"'OU "''0.
.:
L -
- ~ ~
..: .;. - .a u - -
. - '"' ~ :a - '"
e I ~
I -
'"
~
0
u - U M M
-
'"
~ -...
9 'J
00 -'l
~
\J 0 u
-<' t2. \1 \1 \,
e ~I
0 i'l
~ ~~
L
;;
~
o.
L
r ~
-
-
L
! - -o. '0 LU
e o. -~ e 0_
-;:; - ll' -~ " 8'
e f
~~ . - 1-
- ~ '" 0
..'" - u UO ll'~
c -
t;;'O - :: L -", L 'L.
e ..
- - " - ~; 0 -"
-. .3 - - -- -L >~
1:)- y. - e_ "'. 0_
~ 0_ o,- Ve
- 5.:0- ~ - _ L > ~- " .
~ r -" 0 o.
11 -- t _L o,- -
'0 'Ou L" .
;/!: - c~t
~ . :: lie > &:
Ii ~ ':l V_ 0 o "
'"' '" . 0 - 0_ ---
<J L - ~ ~~ L - t;o:
- e -~ -
i .o, L- 0 - ee-
e .u .;
~ e_ -0_
- . - - - -- ee -r M__
E: :: .. ~ _8' !!!! .~u
- - - "'--
M o o, u . -- - u_
l:. :.: 01: - - ~o e~- _u - o,
e _ i' -- .- ll'': -~
'" .. . ;a -'" -10
u ... '" - - - -~ _L
- - - - ,g:: _ 0 "''' '" L
- - M_ au_ u_ .. 0
0 0 0 . . co. ~
- - ~~ .-.
1 - ! c
- I -
~ - e .'" - .; .i .; ..; ...
t a .. co. w
<: -~ '"
~ _u ~
M 0- -
U .. -- '"
:! ..(j ..; . ..; e ~- ...
~ --
,,Ccl _/ / ~ M
7 ~S-/ -
'"
, f ,
..: .. ~
-
. 11l \, \1 \, ",1 \, \r \
~~ I I I I I I
=:l I I I I
.- . ..- _00 .. ..... 014.1 ..- _O~
-~- CO ~~e e
oe_ . e~_ . "'_c_ CO 0 e
-. . - . ~ e ....-.IC . '::!
e v_~ -.~- -
. -0- u_ :Ie:
OAO -- CIr._; :.~~.! 0 -~>
~ A oV - ~ --
-- z. -~. - e OV ~-ll
;; 0 2 .
_0. O. -- A V;:
- o...~_ -- ..~~ t _0 ~ -- ~t:;
:: ~~ o -
..~ ~-:: i~ '::;0 ; - - ~~
. ~.: ~:: i~ ~e
- _v.c_ v.o 0
. _.....e . . ... :: ~u..,,; 00
& e'" A.~ :: I:
-A . ~ - e .s; 0 "X.!.c.- e'" .~ -
~- - " e
. A 1:':: r V 0 :..~...= . C..
e > . ~~ . ~ .11 .~
-~...... c...~ - " - ao" 'i u ~'"
A "DC"- ~. " ~. .-
..~ ":i -: - .
~ ....oc: ee .
. ~. ~ ~ Oe
~ ~...-i- _0 o ...:!! _V ~ .:_1!-:;~ 0 .0
~ - ~
~O . 0.. e.A ';; _O.:!;:~ 0:: eO~
;: ~ 0..
c:...~"D . -~~ ~ O~ _
;; _..ee: e~ ~. e2 ;; .::j .:;; . _ c:: 0...
.0-. 0 ~C: t:; O~ e~ ...---
-I"g ... .- 0 - V .
~.- 15:"-" :::; .. - .- :I""'.
~c~~ U2~ 0- VU .; .. ...-- ~.- e-.-
~ 20e ;2f~ 2_ - ~c'E::~ V20 0- e
o CO ~_o ~~ 2 OS .~O
.1::.'-_1- .e_ II::COa. . '" - .. - a. 0- ~-- ~- ~
- - ,J: L..a.. L- .ee cc..~
uo_"" ~2" __eM ~. YO_La ~20 -..,Q 0
~ -;
e
0
L 0 ..; V ~ - ~ ..; "
~ 0 V
e '"
I ~
.
'"
. .; .....
'" A
~
.
0
. ~
'"
l1l
~~
~
.-
~O
;~
O2
~ll
o
.
-
.~
~e
00
~
.
e~
00
-~
~
~.
0=_
i...:::
00
e e
- .f
-
:f~
"'.0
e~_
O~~
~02
"'A_
..;
\,
-
o
t
:;:
::
~
2
o
V
.
~
~
o
~-
-
-~
c.
O~
-0
~a
t'3
~:!.
0:_
\
I
~
o
~
::
o
a
.
V
o
-
~
::
-
o
~
e
2_
i"
.l
~~
~.
~
eo
-a
...
~~
o
~e
"'-
.;
.,;
"\
\
~ _0'-
1:)0,_ 0
O~
~-
o""C C
20.
.:O':::.~
.......-.;
...._0
~~-
00
aa
1:
....:.
""4.10_
....c:o
-- -
~~ -
22 _
......."
~....~
eO .
-c t_
.OGlO=ao"
e'::=~~
."'0'-"
~...=..-
~~-;:;H
__C"::::lI
c........._
.;
\
.
~
o
~
e
o
~
v-
.-
~~
_0
~~
.
.a
:1
00
e_
00
:::1
lo:;:
~
--
0:0
..:
\
I
~
o
'Xt:~~
202
f~e=
19II"D.c::o
~V
- ~..
O.c o.Q
..g.:~
.....--
~5;&.
o 00
g ~c
~~.
.:!.~
-"'-c-
OO-
e _e
- .....0
e,,_
..0.._
ft~ t:
__-a_u
..c:"'OC:llC
"'...-.
\,
I
-~
CO
2_
i.
.:a
~o
-=
.
e>
-.
i.':;
__a
---
vf-
=-..~
.'P.~2
i:~-
0..
- -
.:!t~
~_.
.::;~
- -
~ ~
2_2
""OA
..;
\
\
.;.
0_
~-
..
-~
~u
t.2
e-
A
~i- d
00_
NO
...:;
"Q..c. . J:;
o _
1.'2~
~~
--
o-~
::0
t ~
2 _
:;k'g
e-~~
~a_
.
:!:
~
-
I
7-uO
L
'"
~
-
'"
';l:
~
~
~
'"
""""
il \ f \ \',
~~ ~ I
E I
... . . -- cc .z
- c .. 01'" Ie - - =~
- - - ..e....
0 .-~ >-
~ - ~ -~u.~ ~-
e ~J; ~o_
0 0 to;:;::.~ . .
~ > ;;::;~
. .:: ..c:;....~.... 'i
- oe-.. -
. ~ ...._0. ~ C C
- Cc --
= - - L - 0 -- -...
- 0:':_'" -C 1. ---
0 0 .~- -_0
~ g:{o:i&: V &.~c: .;.
. e c A . ~..
__ _M t.C 0.0 -;
- ~ 1; ~"'-
- ....... 0'" c:a.
~ O"'--=- .-0 A _
Lo;; . -~ - _C_ '" .-
z e-;'g~t ~ 0_ .C-
.. - .~- g ..cO.E..
Zu .. :;....... --,
.; - ~ - C.U -~ &.
~ _- C -~-
. CO ~ lC':lIE..... > ..., :::~:;
.O_O"'C . ~
I:' -. -"f-...-:::; ......
~ ~ "'-~
=- .; 0_..._ U .UU
-=~g~: _C C ::Z
. .. . .0. . .'" .
'" .~ ~ ';;f'f' ,;S
~~ ;: _E- g z
. u_ :a r .-
C. ....::I&..... V\ _ C
_C - CO~uO .... . _0_
-- 0 __ 0
~- --
, , ~ ,-.
-- ~U_ ~
-. - - ..; - 00_ -
,,~ . - - ~-~ - ~
. C C ~
I I J ~
~
0 = 0
~ U U ~
- -.
0
l;'
'"
il ~f \, \ ~I
~~ "'1
E
L = - .~
0 :: 0
- '0 0 C
~ - C ~ --
e C
. --
- > r ~ :it
.:: :. .
... > . tA
C - :: = z .
- - '0 ) - _z
- ~ 0 -- :.1
- C - - C
. t ~ '" -- ;( &---:; ."
. :. .J;. =t .U eot
-
- - ~ "'- J: A -
0_ 0 0 0 VJ ';;. lic
-- 8- ;; &
. ~ a_a
- f a .L z_
c_ to ---
O~ A :: - LO
-- 0 ~ -- .
_z a 0 ;;! ---
- ~ Q ---
!~ .. a t_ ;_:1.
0 -
- - ~o _l!
~- - t -- l!t -.
_'" ~ O. .--
-- V ~> _c .-- .
.!'i !:. .. ...~"O
...- , a
.; V =-.
-~ _c
0 iio'll l! 0 c
i 0 .0_ :;
.. 0 .. ..; -~ 0 -~- ~
- - ....~ - ....OA - ~
I J I I ~
...
.,; ~ .; ~
u u u ~
p _/I ,$1- -
J> r' 7-~1 0
. '1 - ~
. il ,,>, '>1 "'I '>1 ~ \ \
~~ I I I I '>/ I I
~ J I I I J I I
-.~ 0;; .; L
'.0 :;:;t
.e e - 0
~ ... 2 ~ e
Le - ..
_0. -::
.- ~ ~~....
t -
&~~ ~ e ~ f'o
v ~ I!~
f~: t - - 0
- - "'--
A.~ . - e
~ v ~ e ~Ll
_c' t t ~
~-~ ~ :a i
_ . 00
-- - ~ :: . :: ~
~ A -
-~- - : . ,
e 0 0;; . t.....-
-_. 0 .'" ...
;..~ - 0 -- - A
C 0- e e - ~~ f'
~~;; 0 - '" ~ :;
V . _ ~ .
~ . - . L 0 A - o.e
.0.... .. V - 00;; -~ . - ...~..
_ .~ . e V . '" 0;;
.. ..>- - . e ~ , ~ ~ ~
UCo 0 A 0;; .e 0 - - 0
_Ooocro ~ - e_ '" - '"
tOe A . .~ -- c:c::.._
~ - ~ 0 -- -~ ~ 0'" --.....
J:... ~ ~ . 0 M_ e_ . ;; eo ...._-....
~ - ~ ~u _ u ......~...
u~_ 0 V . . _e ~ .. .D_ CT~
......- - 0 ~ O~ E- <> _c :::11":"0
.............. C :>. 4n.. ... ...
-..........- ~
_.-
.., .
~ c....r. .; .; - .
_0_ . '" . .: e .; - 0
- ~ .
e - ~
I i ~
-
:!: .; ~
~
u u 0
~
. .
<>
~
il \.1 I..
~~
~
-~ - - ~~ ~ -- L L
uo ~ . 0_ 0 0
.~ - e _ e A --
- 0 M_ - 0 iE
':;-g ~M - -.
- .~ ;; fA
:;; A_ . 0-
- - A - . L _L
II - '" t -- -
. -::0 -
:~ ;; .; -.
",e e A 'f~
o. . e~ 8- - f =~
A -0 ~ _e 1:
e. - -- - ~! .~ .
A- e - - ~ ~o <>
. ! . -'" _I! -, . -:
t - Me ta - V-
-- .. V_ . --
V "'- I! . - .. ~-
- - ~e !:J' --
~~ .. -! '" o~ 0 .-
- ~V
.. eL ! _0 - -...
- ~.s -, 00 - V
.'" Oa - - c-
_",e .; -- -C1 -V _'"
.-c-:; u c .. co c_
....- OL = -- 0_ 0_ ..;
;';;:::11 I'; -.. _L --... --
~O -- -- co -.. -. -.
o~ -- ..~ -- ..A "_L .... ..-
~- -::t LV V_ -- L~O ..- t~
.- ..- _e . u.... ..
. . '1:_ C~ -V "'.. ~~'i :::.!: V~
.",c .1:~ -. ~.. c.
!,eo 8.: ~~ M_ ev.. e. -.
--
--- .0
..- eA
1-'" l:e
.'" . .. .; .; '" .. ..: . A
.. - .. Go - '"
j c ~
! -
..
::: ::: ':l:
~
~ -
C>
"\ 7~t;2- ~
,.
~ -...
i'l "'-, , '-, "'-,1
~~
a
..v .. -~- ~~
~ - '" . v.
..L L C __L -.
00 .0_ .~~ .
. >.~ c>>. '::c
cc. ~ - . ";
-~:;; .-- . .-
c-:::~ o.v .=
. ~'" ."i
.v -. ..~u
';~ - u
__u .r;;.~c --
O. .- _U= L.
t= "; L .0
~ MY':::; :-; .. -~ .s .:.
L f::;........ t ~
-;~Ct~ ..:c- ~U. ~. "':
- ~ 0;;;5:- ;.
...'" ::: _&. ~ o a
a:: ...... -..-
OL - o~ C -..
~o .....~&J :; a.=-
e_ &._gO O_v
0;;; ~ ~ .
~o 0 L 00. eLO
0 U LL 0 L U Q.O~
. v_ ~ov ~ .
~ c_," .. ~. .-
"'01-0 .--
.r=._o_ .......-
..c_01- ,/c.:;, -...... ~~.
~ ..........0 -.....=- -2:;
.0. UO. .0 _
. L_O _-v v", . ,"c
- ...... ....c.c _.....c=- - - ~ ~=~
___... U ->.....1- . ~-
- --I- ... _..c;. ..._ 800.. _.0
. :II" a._ :a a. a..... .>>> "L~
L
~
.
-
~ ..0 . ~
U . v '" . '"
c ~
I 0
'"
,; ....
0
~ U ~
- -....
0
~
,.
"'-, \.1 ,. "'.,
iI
~~ I '\,1 ~I
a I I I
... - L'" 0 ~ l-;~ c.
-'" 0; _0
. L ~ _0-
.- - ~ . >00 ...
L'" . -e.= c . ~v
.c .. . -&.,.0- -.
>. ov . =0"'_ ~-
~. NM E. . ~. ..
.~ 0;;; o. f,:: ~_ tC~
-~ - ~- =~;z ~,;
0 0
_0 ~ =-e :..._~ - .
-~ e . OL_
0_ _0 &.~::: :; u OOC
~. f. ~ ON 8.>>.~ .
OL .0 . f~j;...~ ~
L~ e. L ~
~- . ~~ i .
'i "" QU 0= g.;: &.
. ~ I- -.. ~ o~
. c. ...oc:: .~o
~- o_~ - ..c c: 00 ~a
.. .... .-~ . -
:J - .- - ~-::c:: .
;; ....~~ ...-e .c
-- :;:'0:;;::& _~o
:;:... o _ o. -.-
V) . H -c::ruo - .
,. <::S -. . aoa. . ,.cO
. ~ t;.:4C t~ - j!.. H
. -.- ~~ ......-
.~ - .c. -. .:~; ,. i.t -...
o. . ... &0;;;
~ - :! t.c ul- c.
- - u &.l .. :;':::o-~ _v,"
.!..~ ~~ .-c
.!'O-.... .t-
.vu c o _c
t-- h ... C:::I... t-::
~to ;; ............ ~C:lC
- .. .. .1-'= a....... - - ~
_0 . . _01-0 . "'.. . '"
c c I I ~
! I '"
~ - ~ .....
'" ~
... ... ... ~
~ ) -{. } -
0
'\ ~
.
.
.
il
~~
E
.
~
.
u
;:
~
M
...
o
i-
II
;;:
_......,....O_L~.....JIoo.
.,&;.c~___.. 0 0 04:...
-____... _0
... --... - ...
~ ~~~ :i...t_......:
_....::.__ c .!...O~
&. O~ JI .. ~ ~ !... ~ ....
..>o,......t-;~~~.:i.!C
~~~O .01:1; i"t
-..... ~ -....-....
= ~':.c': A _~ 0 t:;:
..O"~':""e.:ij. .::
.c __ ~ M..... COO ...
_..-:;: .. .CIl.e~~:;....
~=~...O= -2....:!~O
- .. ..--.it Q.g.....-
....0.. ......;: ~ '!:"gt'
"lg-OU "'_0
.C CC'O.. t ..~
..... OC.... .....
.c 0001 ...----- .. Clrr.-
.....C...._C.._U.... .c
~ e.:~.:',;~ iC~ ~~... t
... __U=..._ __1l00.
.. ..0.. a...._ ...~__
OOC"o.O:l_ ..C..........
C...4:,..Q...."'.......O
t-
O
~
i
~
;;
.
,,>,
";.!. ~ !..:~=
__L-..O"_"
~ ~~ &:iJl
.. . -...01:1
*"001"'_ .
&,_1:0 "'1"
~~_-;_-6
.. c ;:.._~
~ - ctl-
-~ -E~
.. 0....._-
-... ... ..0"'"
=..:.'--.... "i
",.... 0'" C
-~ ;....!=-
u" CJI C... U ..
'" --....-
0- _~ Ai~
....... ~ -....
D.:;=~CB. ~
-~IO ..
~.cC 2!:-L.
...~=o... ~::;
" ... U.c c .
.. ___U_0I0
A ....o.-....c_
O_C.4="oc
_oa._,..,..__
...
'\
Jt:._c_... .......
U::J_LY_O_
_.a g_.....
'i . i':-;...
_.....1:
.. ... ol'
-.0_ 0 .:=-- C
~~.! =:..f
i"ii~ i =z;:
-;: ~- e~.... ~
.. -.0 .... 0
:; =...ii.......:
.If:....:5 ~...:~...
...:: 4.1 i- ::: I:
~~ -~~.o
-"-';' o~.....
f- ......E~...-
Q.~~; t M_~';
.'l!:: tt i"li
~-::....:~..-~
~~~~'i_~
- i-".- MI:
.. 0. ...00.
O~ f"I:=-~_
c."O'_O,Q......
..
'\
..M
~-'"
i~j
~~ -
.. ~ ci~
c ~
.. u
.;~~
:::c~
~_o_
~- ..
~'i.:::'
f"5':=:
0._..... 4.1
'ii.t
. -
:;.::"::
u...
....."c;
A....~
.,,-
...
..;
\,
~
""
.,
g
.'0
-
1
...
~ ?--"1
-
':'
....
...
~
-
...
';l:
~
-
o
~
~
III. Determination
(To be completed by the lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.......[J(]
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect 1n
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED................................................... [ ]
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required........[ ]
12.-20 -'2-
Date
jt,.;) L"d4~
Slgnature fn~'riJt\fo4L~ ~td~- ~
foe ~ at (J." "- ii,s I.....
""""'-
- -.,
WPC 0413p/9459P
~
~
7~~5
DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION
~ (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AB 315B)
l It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for
, any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on
wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee Exemption"
shall be prepared for this project.
_ It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact
. wildl ife, individually or cumulatively and therefore fees in
accordance with Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and Game Code
shall be paid to the County Clerk.
/c~) t.dfLtdj~ -1<<-
Environmental Review Coortlinator
/;)-/(;-'12-
Date
.
~
WPC 0413p/9459P
~
~
7 r-trf,
""".
i!Jjl#lffjlg~fiJ1~ljfl/l#ll!!.yl~1i.pl![i!~;
"""
.---
,.kf!::. f) " If D ~
I ~ /(-
/ --t 7
.
.
I.
2.
DISCUSSION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Earth
The National University (740 Bay Boulevard) project would be located in a building that
is already constructed. Parking would be located on the existing parking lot. Thus, no
disturbance to the ground would be necessary to achieve this project, and no significant
impacts would occur. The LCP Amendment to allow (with a Conditional Use Permit)
educational facilities and child care facilities in the LCP Industrial-General category .
would not directly affect earth resources. Standard City of Chula Vista grading and
building permit requirements ensure that future proposed projects would not significantly
impact earth resources, nor would create erosion or sedimentation problems. However,
if the potential for impacts occurred, environmental analysis would be required on a
project-by-project basis.
Air
The National University Project would not directly produce any emISSIOns, as the
building already exists, and the uses will be classroom. Vehicles accessing the site
produce emissions, but as shown in the attached Traffic Impact Analysis, the University-
related trips are less than that associated with the commercial-office uses, and occur
during the off-peak times. Additionally, it is anticipated that this National University
location would relieve longer distance trips to other parts of the county, thereby reducing
the amount of emissions associated with these trips. No significant air quality impact is
thus expected.
The LCP Amendment to allow educational facilities and child care facilities would not
directly impact air quality. These uses would be permitted conditionally, and would
require assessment on a project level basis to determine potential impacts.
3. Water
. 4,5
The National University project would not affect, nor be affected by water movements.
The project site is already constructed, and has sufficient drainage systems to convey
runoff (see Engineering Department Routing Form). Thus, no significant impacts to
water movements would occur. The LCP Amendment would not directly affect water
resources. If future projects consistent with this proposed amendment are proposed, the
City's standard grading and building permit requirements ensure that no significant
impacts to water resources or to protection from water-related hazards, would occur.
However, if such concerns for impacts did occur, environmental analysis would be
required on a project-by-project basis.
Plant. Animal Life
7~t7
/
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\429.92
Page 1
The National University project would not affect biological resources as the facility is
already built, and no change in building structure or exterior lighting will occur. Future ~
educational or child care uses throughout the LCP Industrial:General areas may be
located in areas adjacent to sensitive biological resources associated with the wetlands of
the San Diego Bay. Potentially significant impacts to these biological resources could
occur at the project level, depending on the siting and types of uses proposed. However,
proposal of such uses would require environmental analysis on a project-by-project basis
due to the sensitive native of the biological resources in certain areas of the LCP area.
No impacts would occur at this plan level.
6. Noise
The National University project would be located in an existing building. Potential noise
impacts to students of this facility would be avoided as the classrooms are located inside,
and protected from the high noise levels associated with 1-5.
The LCP Amendment allowing educational facilities and child care facilities in the
Industrial:General area would not directly create, or be subject to, noise impacts.
However, such uses could potentially create significant noise impacts on human and/or
avian/animal resources, or be subject to high noise levels, especially considering child
care facilities. Potential future activities would be subject to environmental analysis on
a project-by-project basis due to these potential project level impact considerations.
7.
Light and Glare
-..
The National University facility would create no new exterior lighting. Vehicles,
however, would be present until 10:30 p.m., creating new lighting from vehicle
headlights. The paths of travel along Bay Boulevard to J Street are not adjacent to
residences or to wetland resources of the bay. Thus, no significant lighting impacts are
expected. The LCP Amendment would not directly produce lighting impacts; however,
uses allowed with the LCP Amendment could create lighting impacts on the sensitive
resources of the San Diego Bay. However, these potential impacts would be reviewed
on a project-by-project basis.
8. Land Use
The National University educational uses would be located in a building constructed for
office uses. Classrooms for education are different than the previously anticipated uses,
thus requiring the CUP and the LCP Amendment. The LCP Amendment, itself, is a
change which would conditionally permit certain uses in the Industrial:General category
of the LCP.
9. Natural Resources
The National University uses would not create a substantial rate of increase in the use
of natural resources. In fact, the buildings are already built, thus, occupation and use
of the structure is not a significant new source of natural resource consumption. Any
-...
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\429.92
k.. ~ /) I I 1 J .2.:.-
1- 11- {
?~~!
Page 2
.
.
.
10.
new use allowed by the LCP Amendment would be subject to the conservation
requirements which are a part of standard City permitting procedures.
Risk of Upset
National University is not expected to use hazardous substances as part of the
curriculum. However, use of such substances is regulated by the County Department of
Health Services, Hazardous Materials Management Division. Any use of such materials
requires documentation of the safe use and disposal of these materials. No other
regulation is necessary. The LCP Amendment would not directly create such risks.. Any
facility allowed by the LCP Amendment will be subject to the same standard
requirements. Thus, no significant impacts are expected.
11,12 Population. Housing
13.
14.
The location of National University in this facility would not substantially alter the
population/housing structure of the area, as this facility is being proposed to provide a
location for an existing need for educational facilities in this portion of the County. The
LCP Amendment is being proposed for the same reason - to provide an opportunity for
facilities to be located in this area to serve existing needs. Thus, no impacts to
population or housing are expected.
Transportation/ Ci rcu lation
See "Traffic Impact Analysis for Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and
National University Project," enclosed. The conclusions of this report are that no
significant traffic circulation or parking impacts would occur.
Public Services
a. Fire Protection: 1) National University building already meets requirements for
"B-1" occupancy. No additional requirements. 2) City of Chula Vista standard
fire safety/fire flow requirements to be met for any future structures allowed
under LCP Amendment, and each project will be independently reviewed. (See
Fire Department Routing forms).
b. Police Protection: Police services will be incrementally affected by the operation
of the proposed National University project; no significant impacts have been
identified by the Police Department for either project.
c.
Schools: National University and the LCP Amendment create no impact to
elementary and secondary schools because no students would be generated. Since
no new construction is associated with the National University project, no
statutory fees are required. This facility is providing educational facilities to
serve needs, resulting in beneficial school impacts. If new construction occurs
for educational/child care uses in the future as a result of the LCP Amendment,
statutory school fees would be required. (See letters from School Districts).
7 J' 7 - ~t?e 3
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\429.92
d.
Parks/Recreation: No demand for parks/recreation would be a result of these
projects, or the LCP Amendment (see Parks Department routing forms). Also,
public access to the recreational resources of the Bayfront would not be affected
by either proposal. Future proposed projects associated with the LCP
Amendment will be analyzed on a project level basis for parks, recreation and
public access issues. However, as the LCP Amendment occurs only in the
lridustrial:General category of land, these issues are not expected to be
significantly affected.
e. Public Facilities Maintenance: National University would not substantially affect
public facilities, thus not requiring additional maintenance. Future facilities
allowed under the LCP Amendment would be reviewed on a project-by-project
basis.
f. Water: Water consumption would not be substantially affected by the proposed
National University, as this use does not involve high water consumption. The
land uses to be conditionally permitted by the LCP Amendment do not directly
affect water consumption and are typically not high water users (child care and
educational facilities). Every project is subject to standard City requirements for
water conservation including facilities and landscaping. Each project would be
analyzed individually.
New water infrastructure, or substantial alteration to the eXlstmg water
infrastructure may be necessary to provide the National University site with water
for fire flow requirements. This is not considered a potential environmental
impact, rather a necessity to coordinate water planning between the City's Fire
Department and the Sweetwater Authority which provides water service. Based
on Sweetwater Authority's letter (December 2, 1992, attached), the applicant
must submit a letter to Sweetwater Authority stating Chula Vista Fire Department
fire flow requirements. Sweetwater Authority will then determine the ability of
the system to provide the required fire flow. Facility improvements may be
required, which would be the responsibility of the applicant to provide.
Occupancy permits would not be issued by the City until fire flow is assured.
This is standard City procedure, and not mitigation required as a result of any
environmental impact.
Sewer: Sewer facilities are adequate to serve the National University project (see
Engineering Department routing form). Future child care or educational
facilities, if proposed, would be subject to standard engineering review to
determine adequacy of infrastructure and potential improvements.
15. Energy
~
""""\
Substantial amounts of fuel would not be required to house the proposed educational
facility. Allowing educational or child care uses in the Industrial:General category by
Conditional Use Permit does not directly create significant impacts. However, energy """
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\429.92
7--71
Page 4
.
.
.
18.
19.
use would be analyzed on a project-by-project basis for uses proposed by the LCP
Amendment.
16.
Thresholds
The proposed educational facility does not adversely impact any of the Threshold
Standards. Future uses allowed by the LCP Amendment would be reviewed on a project-
by-project basis.
17. Human Health
No human health hazard would be created by classroom uses of National University, nor
would the students be exposed to any human health hazard in the existing 740 Bay
Boulevard building. No direct impacts would occur from the LCP Amendment, but
future uses allowed by the LCP Amendment in the Industrial:General category could be
affected by environments of a hazardous nature. Each project would be reviewed on an
individual basis, and the appropriate remediation activities must occur.
Aesthetics
Occupation of the 740 Bay Boulevard building by National University would not change
the aesthetic nature of the project area. Uses allowed by the LCP Amendment in the
Industrial:General areas of the bayfront could create aesthetic impacts. No significant
impacts would occur from the change in designation only.
Each facility would thus be analyzed individually for impacts.
Recreation
See No. 14d.
20. Cultural Resources
The National University project would be located in the existing 740 Bay Boulevard
building; no impacts to cultural resources would occur. The LCP Amendment would not
directly impact any cultural resources, and these uses would not affect resources
differently than any use allowed in the Industrial:General area. Cultural resource
potential would be examined by any proposed project in these areas.
21. Mandatory Findinl!:s of Sil!:nificance
Based on the Initial Study evaluation, no mandatory findings of significance have been
made.
-! ~-P--I /- If3 ),-?C?-
Page 5
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\429.92
~~pflg~YU~!m?rml!yl~l!g@.affl!
~
........
"""'\
fa ?~?J
.
APPLICATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS SITE PLAN
IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-1/2 X II FOLDER
FOR OFFICE USE
INITIAL STUDY
Case No. J.5.. 9.7/.7
Deposit. {-,,",c.n J)/ 97<:'
Receipt No. /.?//.; ;7/
Date Rec'd //-/.x-.7~
Accepted by {~
Project No. ~d-/"'c><;
A. BACKGROUND
City of Chula Vista
Application Form
I. PROJECT TITLE 740 Bay Boulevard
2. PROJECT lOCATION (Street address or description) 740 Bay Boulevard
Chul~ Vista, CA 91910
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. <;71-17()-lh_()()
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION An office buildinq containinq 26.604
rentable square feet.
4.
5.
Name of Applicant Foster Prooerties
Address 740 Bay Boulevard, Suite 200
City Chula Vista, State CA
Name of Preparer/Agent Bennet Greem.;ald
Address 740 Bay Boulevard, Suite 200
City Chula Vista State CA
Relation to Appl icant Partnership
Phone 427-1900
Zip 91910
.
Phone 427-1900
Zip 91910
.'1''.
6. Ind i cate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Amendment ___ Design Review Application
Rezone/Prezone ___ Tentative Subd. Map
___ Precise Plan ___ Grading Permit
___ Specific Plan ___ Tentative Parcel Map
Condo Use Permit Site Plan & Arch.Review
Variance Project Area Committee
Coastal Development Use Permit
Permit
___ Public Project
Annexation
___ Redevelopment Agency
___ O.P.A. .
___ Redevelopment Agency
D.D.A.
Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
~ Grading Plan
__ Parcel Hap
___ Precise Plan
___ Specific Plan
___ Other Agency Permit
or Approvals .Required
Arch. Elevations ___ Hydrological Study
=== landscape Plans ___ Biological Study
Tentative Subd. Hap ___ Archaeological Survey
=== Improvement Plans ___ Noise Assessment
___ Soils Report ___ Traffic Impact Report
--- Hazardous Waste f) --- Other t-I
Assessment /....t. //- If? 7~7 (
,:,\ ~);:':'I~i:I~)::
. ..":':"j.!~,?~~~~,
z n_ .
~ ' '-.:.
III 1;='::
o ,or'...
. ex: ;0..
~~i:t,
,I.
i .1,,"
17"'. .
, ,
:. .~
-,"0'
'Z ~
'5 0,
n." ,,!!.y
W :1
.1-_ 'C'/f
,,(1), ~ ~.,
" ,
~
o! .
-
......_g","".......o
W,,,.,,,. (0<1 .,,(~ '-'<J/~tv ~II 17'1: ),...,; .".~,....,..~ If!( " . . ,....)....",~.....~....-
SD3lJHJCJV NOSlIN\ ~ 3dcI3..lS ...,.,"",...."""", ~..'t
........." ........- u....O"..u........~~"..1 . flYld 31lS
...."""... ...,,- ..-
- .......1..... YS'I-).VM31.\f!) \tw~b'\'4 "
L-.. . , " .. y -' ~
.
r-~::.;J
.;'-\.:"1
.~ tJ.';''::-;
"[""71
,":". ~:-;;'I
.. ch
\
l
o
-:;
'"
\J.>
.A
"
,~
...
r.-
:.
1:~
"t"
t.~.
y',
tJ.~
.:'l~Z'__
>.+-
~:- C
j V
3 f~
+~
u- ":J
'-~ c
:Yu:>
c:. v+':;
-F '? '"
" Q,.
--l-e
". ,)
~ .0 Q,..
" '
.....'...
"
r:'",';' .
Z
.0:
0-1
P,,'
rLI
E-<
H
(J)
"
"
.;.-
'.'
'-',
,
"
..
, ,
\
Q)
r
>-
"
<;
...-J
\
--
--f i<;~
b
a...
€)
cl:
",;.
so
..J... ~ P 1/ 4R-
J
C
.+0
7_0~ ; ~
1'. 1..0J!
v
1,' ",
I ,
_ t .!
"i'; ,
\ ' "
Il.i. .i
1'" '
Ii '
.;'r ";
,(
-."
:,
. ..~:{
"
.
. ,
",
lH
If i~,
.,
.,
!:
,
.l.~
"
.' ~
I !I fl I I I I I I I 1,1 I
_.
.
.
3.
PROPOSED PROJECT
1.
land Area: sq. footage 65,557
If land area to be dedicated, state
a.
or acreage>
acreage and purpose.
No
b. Does .the project involve the construction of new buildings, or
will existing structures be utilized? Existing structure utilized
2. Complete this section if project 1s residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Total number of structures
c. Maximum height of structures
d. Number of Uni ts: I bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 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 pave& surface
Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed
use>.
a. Type(s} of land use industrial office buildinq
b. Floor area 26,604 sq ft Height of structure(s) 28 Feet
c. Type of construction used in the structure Concrete
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets See attached
Site Plan Number 2 for egress and ingress.
e.
Number of on-site parking spaces provided 80 parking spaces two handicar:
Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of
shifts Total See Attached AddendUI:I #1
Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate ___
See Attached Addendum #1
Estimated number of deliveries per day 10
I-~/i - 'fcf 7- ?j?
-
f.
g.
h.
i.
Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
South Bay Reqion
Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
""""
j.
.
n/a
k. Hours of operation B: 00 a.m to 6: 00 p.m.
1. Type of exterior lighting High Sodium 14" it pole exterior
lights, downward direction.
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facil ities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
h. Additional project characteristics ~.
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
NONE
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated NO
(If yes, complete the fo 11 owi ng: )
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
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
IliA ..~
~I-.........' - 1/- u 0
~
Uor f'll'l'",,_ In... ........"
7-77
.
.
.
3.
Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or
from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent
1 and uses? NO
4. 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.) existinq HVAC packaqe units
5. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of .the project
(sq. ft. or acres). none
6. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. 16 faculty, 8 clerical, 4 ;anitorial
Ii cm'lpllter in an area where it is economically morl.bund.
7.
Will highly
substances
site?
fl ammabl e
be used
NONE
or potentially
or stored
explosive
within
materials or
the project
8.
How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
theproject?~<? ,,"t-nm.nhilp t-rips pf'r day. 150 students x 2
16 faculty x 2 and 50 general employees x 2
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 1 imited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
~. .
9.
NONE
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geo 1 OQY
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soi 1 s Report on the project site been made? Yes, see attached
(If yes, please attach)
2.
HYdroloQY
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? ves (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? subsurface water observed at 10 feet.
b.
Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? existinq drain~e wa'6on north sid~
property. 4-1 P i/ SI '7 -7;/'
of
.-.
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly Into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
no
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? no
e.
Describe all
location.
drainage facilities to be provided and their
existinq drainaqe facilities
3. Noise
a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may
impact the project site? No
4. BloloQY
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
This is an existing project
b. If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property?
Yes
No _____ (Please attach a copy).
..-,
c. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate
location, height, diameter, and species of tree"s, and which (if
any) will be removed by the project. During construction, site
was completely graded and reveqetated w~th lawn and trees
for parkinq and access areas.
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 Land
..-,
L~P
J I ,- 02...-
({ -...J
7-71
. ,........ '" 4 ~ .... '..... _ __
.
.
.
8.
6.
Current land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. Industrial office building
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Entrance to the Chula Vista Marina
South Research ana Development Ott~ce ana warenouse building
East Vncant Land and Hiqhwav 5
West Bay
7. Social
a.
Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?)
No
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site?
how many and what type?) No
(I f so,
Please provide any other information which may assist
evaluation of the proposed project."
in the
<"I (I. e--
7 - 8'f)
t I
I {-
Sj
-.."
E. CERTIFICATION
I, Bennet B. Greenwald, President of The Greenwald Company, Authorized
agent for Foster Properties, Owner hereby affirm.
or
Owner/owner in escrow*
I,
Consultant or Agent*
-.."
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my bel ief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its ~.etting has been included in this
appl ication for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any
enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE: 11/5/92
corpor. tion, include capacity and company name.
) ~
-.."
i__~f-
II
It
ri~
"'-"
7-rgj
.
.
.
ADDENDUM #1
The amendment is sought to allow National University a not for
profit college level institution to occupy space at 740 Bay
Boulevard, Suite 200, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Classes are taught
during the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m weekdays. The maximum
number of students allowed in any classroom is 150.
The University requires 100 parking spaces in addition to the
existing parking available at 740 Bay Boulevard. See attached
Parking Plan. These 100 parking spaces will be provided on adjacent
property owned by applicant and subject to a recorded agreement for
student parking and maintenance of the student parking area
throughout the National university Lease.
Adjacent property contains 354 existing parking spaces. The
building on the adjacent property contains 50,000 square feet of
office space and 53,000 square feet of warehouse / manufacturing
space. Under the current parking regulations this building
requires 197 parking spaces. The extra parking was originally
provided because the then building occupants believed that their
manufacturing facility would require a high density of personnel,
therefore, even if National University's hours became in conflict
with the use of the adjacent property, there is enough parking to
accommodate both uses.
~5 7 -r;2...
:t>
... ~ 0[;
::s
OJ
'""'
;>>
~
OJ
'<
tI1
OJ
'<
tI1
o
C
'""'
ill
<
OJ
11
P,
w~
VI ill
"'" I
;,?(j)
11 .
;>>1
1-'-
::>
\Q
(fJ
'0
OJ
o
ill
en
.,.'.
-.J
co
o
tI1
OJ
'<
tI1
o
C 00
~ 0
<
OJ. 0
11
P,
(;
, I
I ,- <P
~ ! t
W ~
o
o
00
o
. r"
o
,/ I, ,
z
-i
m
I
i '"
~
-<
>-
-<
m
~
""""
I
I
- I
I
. 1
I
I
i
Oi
.
- I
'0
:;>
'"
~
H
"'"'
t-<
;t>
:::
(
""""
.
.
.
'.
740 BAY BOULEVARD
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910
Square footage of building to be utilized for proposed use:
. National University - 7,708 Square Feet
Explanation of Use:
Classrooms, office space and university related functions.
6 classrooms, 25 students per classroom.
Hours 5:30 p.m to 10: 30 p.m. weekdays, with some academic
daytime seminars or academic activities.
Explanation of other Uses Within the Building:
General office uses including:
Kelly Temporary Services, a temporary employment firm.
Sher-voit Commercial Brokerage, a commercial real estate
brokerage firm.
systems Engineering Solutions,
department subcontractor. .
Incorporated,
a defense
Mexico Resorts International,
Mexico.
representative for hotels in
Calbrit Design, a computer design firm.
- Building Hours:
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m Weekdays.
."l ~ f - /i' ---57
-; -yi
~
SITE PLAN CONTENTS
1. PROJECT LOCATION: 740 BAY BOULEVARD, CHULA VISTA, 91910
2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND IS DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 5 OF PARCEL MAP NO 13581, IN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER
6, 1984, AS FILE NO. 84-455741 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
3. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 571-170-16-00
4. FOSTER PROPERTIES, 740 BAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 200, CHULA VISTA,
CA 91910
5. STEPPE & WILSON ARCHITECTS, 398 SOUTH MILL AVENUE, SUITE 200,
TEMPE, ARIZONA, 85281.
DATE PLANS PREPARED: 4-22-85
DATE PLANS REVISED: 6-8-85 & 6-19-85
6. SEE PROPERTY LINE OUTLINED IN RED, 62,510 SQUARE FEET.
7.
EXISTING BUILDING DIMENSIONS: CONCRETE STRUCTURE,
32 FEET HEIGHT,
SOUTH SIDE 144 FEET
WEST SIDE 144 FEET
NORTH SIDE 196 FEET
......."
8. EXISTING ADJACENT STRUCTURE: 780 BAY BOULEVARD, CHULA VISTA,
CA 91910
.".'.
9. EXISTING LAND USE: INDUSTRIAL OFFICE SPACE
10. SQUARE FOOTAGE: 26,604
11, SEE EXHIBIT B GRADING PLAN SHOWING TOPOGRAPHY
12. EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG WEST SIDE OF PROPERTY 6 FEET,
AND EXISTING CONCRETE WALL ALONG SOUTH SIDE OF PROPERTY 6
FEET.
13 . SEE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED AREA FOR PARKING LAYOUT, PEDESTRIAN
WALK LEADING TO NORTH AND SOUTH ENTRANCE
14. EXISTING LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN THE SAME.
15. NONE
18. PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 80 ~,
19. PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 93
20. SEE DIRECTIONAL ARROWS TOP LEFT CORNER J C. ,Po II 5,tJt. ?rZS-
II 0
~
.
Cl
Z
..;
>-l
'"
riI
E-<
H
(J)
m
, r;~.qj
. lEE
""_""""'''04_
~1."o"02 UI('~'I-"U tnc ""' ___ 1_,0Ull'lS W>( " ....~_lI.."......_
-..,.3.........~
SD3.1JI-OClV NOSlIN\ '18 3dd3.1S -......... ~...l.._ 4.c..........'W\O."n...~ SlfY.l3Q 311S
,.,...,....... ".......- ..-
-. ......._~ 00' YS1-AVM3.1YD VNIl:iVW.
rri~jJ.' .)1 '"EJ" "2:.,
.1... :/ . <(! ::':~'.
r.!r ,. . ..
ill. . '. ::
, ~',
.. .
l'l'~ -.!'.
",! "1. I
x. .. ~ I..
.---").:- '-Ji~-'-')1!- -. ]'-
< ~~1 ':':;.'. .;~~ ~ .~
0,; ';'.!l t~';': j!~ ..... l,;. '1.'
"--"'4 i:u '.l~ ~ _ :-
--. k75N.:>I ~-,':-N;~, -iL
: r1; 1'/"'-1';(. l il ;~:i
':'... ~:i" .' r I . ...... i~lil
:1: f.a 1.1 <e .1 ......i~
11\ ~~ .;.....1:.. I ... :.r .
<I' _ ~ ~ .., '''-- _'I
......-..J.~\ I 'i~:l ~'i:':' ::
H .'~{J, ~~ I I II
'''' V I. .--1 . .
...... I>) j(\.;'~ . }'I'~
1'. ~., -/.' . .~:3
.;jl.- .::~~ ~':n .. m.. on
,_.tr f.......
,U
.,
.'
"
n
..
U
7
.,
.
,r
":1
h.
.u
'"
,-.--. !~i, -,."'-il-r:'
~j; . . ,t;
" .1 '''-I~()'' --r~>- ~<n
- ~,~ '~
", ,,{ \
! :i f. . : ."^II.-~~,=,,~~T~l; -~l ~J ~>>'j
;"O~"~'-:"l t1,i\} I~
;:j~:__ ~ )___ ,,:Jt.; <.I tll
i 'i' 't-- -- .r;; z
.$t= - Jr~-- .u:~ -..~! .:.. _.oj j
'eln ! .' . ~:_ tt-~:~,,- . $' .
rd~ '" ..... - ......-"1 i.~'I ('::
...... r I :._
." r'
I J~ r-!-~
dr. . l' ~~',:
1 '" J t~ ~.....
l'~ I, ,. .', :.
..i .'''' ...! ''\_'
~ i;~ ~; .~!: . .~; : if
-;;U :Lc ~+ ~~ ~i ~
.: J.l~ j~1:!r~1 :~[', tl ~
r,t. ~ll" --.:' (}
>'l," -_\'..Lj"':' . q
~--),"J..l~.'
....... . :0',';..
,
I
, '
r: rb r
'~r 9, " II",
- -" H, I-l,f;
1:1 3. {,Or.. "l.f~~
dV~f:lji .hl~m!
f ~t1 \ ~"I i-:,;"
~~ ,,~-,fi:~ n
\ ). 11""
;,1 ::..:r-..::...
~~~ri' : I ijtH;
r " 1
--;, "'I: . n
J1 r .;,~ u
.. ',-<"
:."
~I. .J
,
"".;..-
"
..
7~5?
"
,
, .
, (J
,
,
!
I 0
.
I
->: !0
I
E-< 10
H
o:l 18
H
::c
x !
w ,
,
,
/0
;
l
!
I
;.-
IJ.
\
t
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
d;)
~
~
,
).. .
-.'
\"
. '\
(....
(.,
0
~
'<
~
"
~
w
I-
z
--.
~
. ~
, I
, /
. ~
{ I
--.
,
I
\0 I
0
<Y 0 -
~ '" i " J. s r.
7-2"
( / (!,,t) /1 - 0 C) ')
,- . "
j 1.1111111111
,!'.t
IS::
...%
{,H
..:~ t:
;i!l'
:;~, \:1
"~I . 711 ,.- .,'
:f_~~. ::}:~:~ :"~:~~;,,_.; ,'~:.
};'; I.~ I \<;:;:~~
."
Z
'",0 en
a ~
(; 2 ,'.
o 0
~ ~ G>
~I~ ~
o G)
z
o "U
~ r
~-. }>
,.jA:)Z
\ II h
"I.._J
I
]
g~~;;~~~?g~~c:~ ~
~ - :I -.":";: 11 r f G: Ii
-. I; l-!'/. 4\ fI;l::;r il
~ E" : a ;.dHi I;:::.
~i r~ fEi~rij-r[~
~:::: (:::::: B.
~ : ~ : ~ : ~~ : ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~I~
~ I H ~ H LH ~ Hi. a
.............:lI
~~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -.
..............
...............
..............
. "
~ "
.
1
, j
i
~ ~ f.:!
..
- \;C
2~
~!
"'~
_t._
.":-i"
[~
E~ ..
~=
"
, FF~'
s: r'r::~i -,,<= ::
: d:;;~ ~~~! i
t t;t=A;1: ~~!,
I! ;',= 1m
~ ~:s"~ A_d
f ~~!!~a :~f~
It;i~. !;~
-. - 'I
~~,;.! f,f
~;;~( :os
=w;~.! j.~
pilei i~
~HU ~~:
f~~.l~ ~1'~
cidil c,,='
~~ Cor. ~~~ .g :" :"
e ~f~,.... nz
;~ ip ~:J ~~ !
.~i ;:E ~.:a it .-
e;
I~ ;i; 1~! i~ ;
~; i;e ~ - -- ~
:_Ji,. f:~ . '
~i E=; - ~~ _
'=5: ..
'. :" r,. " ,- I
.. ~I 1~1 =i:! _~ III
cl =h "'- =":.. 1
!= ict ii!~ ~ i
~~ .~i' ~! ~
~l I!.. ~Il ~
. e ~i ~;r ~
. i~ ~I i
; II ~. 'II
r ,
~ ~ E
,
" t ~
..3
~ ;
"
=l
,.
~i
il
,,". :'11
~I:
"
.'
5!
?i
..
PI;;:.!.ll...
/J'Wll h\y;;!/IJ
'[1111 I \ . ..,
.1:
;
..
.~
,;
;;\ ~
~ ~ t.
,
-=-=n:6nill
::.0.. .VI: ..
Fj~~:~?t3
i:J:~::i:~G
t~:ii~~lIa
~~~i~i~~
Eiln!<<d
i.i=~if::~
lii;lI~..ii
;'~h!::ne
I,e ~.. "..
~;:'~~f.:!
~~~~;~~~
~~~~~~~~
\i~;;l-ll;
i:?\l~ g~
~ :- ~ :"
!' ~ -." ,.;!~ P~.,;,
:;: ~r.1 :.- D #f ~!~:I '
i f~~ e=! ~ ~~ ~=SF-
__p,.' c~! fi ~# ;~-,--i
. ~ . i'" . PC .:>.
I ;i _~~ l r= ~!~g;
~;.r ~f: _ i; fi~~w
f ~~€ f~' ~ ~; ?qi.~
.1~.1: '~= f~:: i'l~
:~n ~6 _ ~ :~!I
g ;jl '1 ~ 6. iM
fI [::!l"f I ;;.::~.
P. 1::;:1 _~':.:.~~-; : ~::;;:
! .. i~ __ ~ !:.ii
. ~.;: "4 It.,c
!II -.;, :: ll~~
~ ~~~ << !:;-
i ~~~ if ! !~~;
. ~~ 8:;: l i~i~
.. . :r_ E l II!
!i i I: . ~ ~l'
f:~ ~ ~~ ~ 6 i
g~!~}!~l
~: ! !!. !: ~ -
,_e.(;! IE*'
,. .- '- ,. .. ::..
:;~ (Iii : ~i
~,i i! f: ~ ~~
, . c.,. ,
! j:;; p. i
. t _) I_
i ~ h lC .~.'
~ r .... 1!! R
:: ::~....
1 ~; ~
l !,::,
1..::'] ~
,*
~,.
fo:~d
.!:t', .
"
I
: I
,
I
,
,
Ii
I'
i I
:.j
I,
I ,
I :
,
I
; i
I :
I ,
I
! ;
I: ,
r'
I ,
,
I
I:
/'". ,
... .::T
" .~,'. ,;,fs".,
..., "'''....~
,..,~;! '" " " /'f-;;-- .;~"S..
i".. . ".>C. '/~ . "'-".;'"
,. . '..,' "f~ -'\:.""
.' :"""
. ~
.
i
,
.,
...
"~
;J!
<Yo ,'> 1-
....'....~, /z ~"~~~~~:.' rr~';,,:,,~$'
./, ,~~.% .....
. ..<. \. '-.:. ',~, l~
'\., '- ' -......:~..." '\-"\: ~
'/:.. : ..."'..-:. " ,rY'.<>-
~,; ~'" ,~~~ ,....,. tft:1-
'\ < -'.~ ',......".'\. .it" ,~~\
\'.... \ '...... \11' .\...
......... '.\"') .> \""
(")l ". ."'...---/ .J
\~\ ",' .t;>:.~___.1
'\ "-....' ,,\ \
. \ '-,..:;. I~" :i:>. 'v..
,,',/
....\' r
. '" <.;
~;\\.
, >
,..
~:
;.....
,,~
-~
"
..,
{
,HC/16N\OGIJ\TEI
MARINA GATEWAY-tS.A.
<;n:ppj: .Q,\f\Ili<:r\l\(l1orurrcr-rc ~1i
u...........'''........n
t>l
X
:r::
H
to
H
>-3
to
CITY DATA
Case No. ~,,"-7'?-/7
~
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.
Current Zonina on site:
North
South
East
West
~~-I!-g Y~st') ~:::;::.(~JJ ?-vcau ~/ev0
-11- I, I ( /oJ p.~/o"J /CUJ-v
~;fV~;!i~~1~::1::~~ ,uIA~ P/rA/H ~
Does the project conform to the current zoning? no
2. General Plan land use
designation on site:
North
South
East
West
-(i<e/lJ./J
Is the project compatible with the General Plan
,u/<<-€ ~
Of'Ln "'? <l..u.-
no
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? -1!Jj,al1.J -In Oi2Ul 5..P1UL_ -In -clUJ u.~.
d . I I
.........
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes?
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to
the scenic quality of the route.)
n.o
protect or enhance
3. Schoo 1 s
If the proposed project is.residential, please complete the following:~19
Students
Generated
From Proiect
School
Permanent
Capacitv
Temporary
Capacity
Current
Enrollment
El ementary
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Remarks:
~~~nU
irector of Planning or Representative
\
"""\
1/-;):;-9 J-
Date
WPC 0413p/9459P -8-
<i:::. {!. () ..
I -/I
IoL
7~?1
.
.
.
ROUTI NG FORM
DATE: November 16, 1992
~:
--~:
SUBJECT: Ill]
D
o
,D
/
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. Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
~ Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City landscape Architect
Bob leiter, Planning Dir~ctor
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
Diana Richardson/Com Dev.
Environmental Section
Application for Initial Study (IS- 93-17
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
Review of Environmental Review Record
IFA- 603
IFB-
IFB-
FC-
lOP -973
lOP
lOP
IERR-
)
)
)
)
The project con~ists of: An office building containing 26,604 rentable
square feet.
location: 740 Bay Blvd.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 11/23/92
Comments:
S.~;r ;!/~<; fr-
c2-- /-tu'j/ /0'7 "Zr ;:!.~/;"h-7S-.-/::> ~ '<F' Qc-e '1,1"'/1>,,-,--,/
. - ~ _ rJ / e..,-t:::-I+=~3 7 -90 _
;;/b:;s,"hL"y /:J O'LCA.""?~rc/ c/<= __
/-
c.L,..--s s~
Case No. ~ -7'.s-/ ;/ _,
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station? ~ what is the
Fire Department's estimated reaction time? :3 ".../"L<=J
4,...,/~
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? )/,.:; 5
3. Remarks
'I
,
)
/ V:;.J tv! / ch.-k
Fire Marshal
/ / /J-si'id-
Date
......."
'.\",
~,
WPC 0413p/9459P
,,( t,;:> 1/ - h tf
7-;1
-12-
.
.
.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: November] 6, ] 992
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
---
Ken larson, Building & Housing
John lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson. Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust. Engineering (15/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf.-Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
-JL Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, 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)
Other
Diana Richardson/Com Dev.
Environmental Section
!XX] Application for Initial Study (IS- 93-17
D Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
o Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
D Review of Environmental, Review Record
/FA- 603
/FB-
/FB-
FC-
tOP -973
/DP
/DP
/ERR-
)
)
)
)
,I
The project cons)sts of: An office building containing 26,604 rentable
square feet.
location: 740 Bay Blvd.
r~~
+
rr"""-. ~~
t'UI ~ t'\, C4.\ " .
L ~ fJ - // is 7 ~ 72-
Case No. JS-:?J-/7
-
H-1. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1. Is project subject to Parks & Recreation Threshold requirements?
If not, please explain.
2. How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed
project?
3. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project
adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project?
Neighborhood
Community Parks
4. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part
of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood
Community Parks
5. To meet City requirements, will applicant be required to:
Provide land?
Pay a fee?
6. Remarks:
"""
~'t:;1';)' <(7: ~f2. "
Parks and Recreation Director or Representative
II' ~., .'lX--
Date
.......,
<1-c'P //6{,
?~73
WPC 0413p/9459P
-13-
Y~-55;t
~ G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Case No. IS-q:>,-f7
1. Ora i naQe
.
a.
Is the project site within a flood plain? y~.~.
If so, state which FEHA Floodway Frequency Boundary 5Y-,~. fjoWEIIEt':.
-rf.H": "&J(L-'\)If..l(;; f?S...1:> IS $<.IFFlc.,e:...Tl-Y AP."Vl!'-rftE: lOf)-YfAlt- ~W\y ~
IZ> c.o...PU' W(T'It F~.Nu:> CDNM.t.J<.1rr! ~12l>s..
What is the location and description of existing on-site
drail)age facilities?"'iJI2.F'N:E. ~-r7\'I3o.,Yf34/p.)J?t'clR;p I>Jf"AP WESTFJW EPGe.
cFP.oJ2a="L; AJJ:r;, MEA loJ<..er 9rJZOC:rOf2e6
Are they adequate to serve the project? )f~.
If not, explain briefly. ~~
.
b.
c.
d.
What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? I/f1'Clf'tP ... NE-5-r" a::: 14'.-Pr'" WIfICH Ce<J.Vf'''~ M...o"'';;
t-IOl<:ntlvAe.'T.> 17:> CNJr.Plo'rl"'_ Lt"-lEP l'J+..........€L.. P,<rR,l,UF"J To ':J"""' <;;.~
e.
Are they adequate to serve the project? YE~
If not, explain briefly. I-JIA
I
2. TransDortation
a.
?Plq1.-
b.
7f:tO
/
c.
.
WPC: Q4SQp
What roads provide primary access to the project? ~~EOO~EV~ ~p
IfJIf ~rPr:.~~
What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)? 376 M:::1r DVER 6<:1C,Tl' Ie. (}q=;
"
What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before
A.D. T. ~y l?DuLBIA12D <!-2,,/0
"J. ST1l.<=F":r 7 :J2O
l.O.S. f34-'/ F!ouLEVA-<2l"> l..oS'~"
"u' S~~~ l-O~ -A H
After
4~
761'N>..
I./>C. tlA tr
L...Df; '~ f'
If the A.D.T. or l.O.S. is unknown or not applicable, explain
briefly. f)A
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If
not, explain briefly. Y'~.
_ L~ fJ_ // I:, 7
7~71
-14_
YS-5S~
Case No. IC,-Q""-17
---.
e. Are there any intersections at or near the point that will
result in an unacceptable level of Service (lOS)?~D.
If so, identify: location 1A
Cumulative l.O.S. ~A
f. Is there any dedication required? y~.
I f so, please spec i fy. l?!,Y' PoU4NAeb 1<; "PfES1C;JA-rT1->~<;' A- CLA<;" IE-
Coc.L&rTr>1Z- WITH 81ft;:'WAY$--oJ 71ft': I'.E.le/ZA!- 'FlA.-l. SUFr-IG'';'''''''1>EDfGltrtDN
,G. f?Et<uf~D 7Z> ME:~ fh4.LF-wlt:1T7I- ~l:/A.~ <9F ~/D ~-;~'ON'
g. Is there any street widening required? No.
If so, please specify. f-J./A
h. Are there any other street improvements required? 1Jn.
If so, please specify the general nature of the necessary
improvements. IJ /A .
,
3. Soils f.t/A. BOSTtJ.U; gU'~(IJ.{;.. No New <L><.I-;'~T7D,J IS ~R:l5t:b.
a. Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the
project site?
b.
If yes, specify these conditions.
----
c. Is a soils report necess~ry?
4. land Form
GtzA.n:p 3%
a. What is the average ~ slope of the site?
b. ''What is the maximum~slope of the site? 17%
5. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the app1 icant? NO.
6. Waste Generation
How much sol id and 1 iquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
"'0 C~l:. It-\. 'So<-, p
$01 id IV~ GE"ed<r,,,.J. liauid '/-25 t3Au...o",~/OAY (j.1o a::v) DvEg.
i'5<c5rWG %W~ a~~TION.
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or
downstream from the site? Iz" vep A..1D 72ft MFn<r> S!;;WFI7 A/.-OI.!G WF-GTEl2q' --.,
6=1": t'/F PA!ZGeL-
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? y~.
WPC 9459P
~cf'
7~'l3'
-15-
.
.
.
WPC 9459P
'/S-E;5:2..
Case No. Ib-Lf3-f7
7. Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adverse impacts,
mitigation measures, or other issues.
~v~l q'L,
Date
,/
l-e.fJ-
7~'J?
-16-
-...
r1iK~P9g~Hf!~r!l!..qpljlJy.~f!i.!i.!P~ffl!
-,
-...
~o
7-;7
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912-2328
(619) 420-1413
FAX (619) 425-7469
GOVERNING BOARD
sue JARRETT. CHAIRMAN
BUD POCKLlNG TON, VICE CHAIRMAN
WAYNE W. SMITH
EDWIN J. STEelE
GEORGE H. WA TEAS
MARGARET A. WELSH
CARY F. WRIGHT
WANDA. AVERY
TREASURER
December 2, 1992
ClAN J REEvES
SECRETARY-ADMINISTRATIVE AlOE
Mr. Douglas Reid
city of Chula vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
DEe
Coj:J;",~.?> :
Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING
740 BAY BOULEVARD
CASE NO: IS-93-17
SWA FILE: WATER AVAILABILITY, 1992
.
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 12-inch A.C. water main located on the west side of Bay
Boulevard adjacent to the proposed development. The Authority's
records indicate that there are three water services which appear
to serve the existing building on this parcel. Enclosed is a copy
of 1/4 SEC. 164 map which show these facilities.
At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing
system to provide fire protection for this project. As 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 may result
in the need for new water systems or substantial alteration to the
existing water system. The Authority recommends that your Agency
work with ours 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 pressure ranging from
a maximum of 105 p.s.i. to a minimum of 80 p.s.i.
.
.);.c/>- 1/-71
7-9r
A Public Agency,
C'_. ..:.._ "'i_#:_. _, r:.. r'u.'~ li:_._ _.....1 C'
J:. _._ ~
-..
Mr. Douglas Reid
city of Chula vista
Re: 740 Bay Blvd.
December 2,.1992
page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at
420-1413, ext. 239.
Very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
~J
r /
;James L. smyth
Acting Chief Engineer
~~
JLS:RC:le
enclosure:
photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 164 map
.-..,
pc: Russ Collins, Sweetwater Authority
Ratner Development
2635 Camino Del Rio South, suite 309
San Diego, CA 92108
.-..,
7-9;
LC fJ- //-7~ :;;Lff
.
".K"'''
0.11710 JI
,..no.O' .
o
r- ___
rHOOIC
ION SHOWN
''''
.
-
---
..-F.H.'1l7
"'.0..&203.0
"''''.
.)8:)07
e"F_S.38~
W.0..4.2131.0
&.F.Ko.7
~..... ~
~~
oz'
"""
"
.g
-
-i,,-~
...,
""
~
''';::
-
-~
.0
______ r
\
,,"I;.v
4f'-
----....~~
o
"11:
.... :: 1L
'.'0 _
~
,
~
--'
..
~ a:
It
~
~
J / I ~
~ w
(l~a~~ - 3
_L\J1 J' '"
~&~~ ..r
rr.-cc~\ f ~
L1J ] I
li- ,
rH :;~
1 _: ~
<i
..'
J
"
,...
J
"
- I
2:
o
;=
u
"-'
V)
~
,
J
.
!'
/
lr A.~ '{; /f73
J~.. .~..._--.
_.",7.71'U
,'"G.Y. 84"
...."'"
~
.
.~
.
.
lDEi'-'2 .W.S. Of'FSET
ATTlf(G "6 WO.&Z06O.2
cb.1.U'.
~
/
6 l':H"N
W.O. ..s
AI%
,.,.!. 7"-
V.o..:,,,:,:~
/ '7'
.
12.".y.
IZ-Lf'.V.
~ ~I
\.,....... \-
W..Q:A2060.4
.
<lUR<Uoo
(2-SW-2861
o...oStD - STREET VACATlOtt
6.".H. .,..5.
w'O.....206O.!.
.
-
~PROJECT SIT
::
.
.;
,;
S71"4
IlI"l
Sll.a.
o
~
CO
.;
c
.
!!
~
o
!!
~
CO
7--/tJcJ
.rcf:,Y-73-
I
.
_~o
..".
,<)
-"""
~..._.._-.d
-.
...-
.
~
< ~
....,....410..1 0
o ~
-3 1_
c.r.....ao....
~.._ :n
O' ~
""'"
=>"'"
Ul~_ '-
., -'0..
>-.
1Il,
"'40'!0..
II 1_
::".eoa. G
=>- I~
~-.,
--
of
z .
l..--_oo.W
,.._,~
!~
.
0f'I..._
o
"
w
o
~""
:J.
<Jl
~G
W7~
~......<
I~ 0
1!il.J~
1--0
.
......<<.
..,'
"-loW"l
I
........
.'
.."',.
L.....
~..
~.....
_:,,,
""'I'!i6
R
I
.......
OL' .
......~"
a
'.IlV~
'-4t"
.........,
10
.........
.
.
.
1Z
~ 1.:
",...I:;
.-
7' _E
........
Z
~l""t.
! .(
-..
-.
.
.........
II
L.eo..,..
..
G
w.1C,.'!aoo
......_-
.....-
17
..._"
~
.......,
"
c;.:
.!
......,)
'0
"'*Iot
z
to'-G."" .....~ J
~o~i::,C,&."Tl
29:l~ t-!-
" ;;
fi
.0'" 1-
"
'~_lljl ~
.~
..
Z9
72''- _
,
..
...,~ ~ ...~~~
-
r.."...'"
dJ
L","
.......
..
.-K)I,
........
,0
I......s.'"
.........
"
-."""""".
L_
'.
....~.
..........
...':..
tl,.41"'~
I. ::
......
,-
I~..:-
"~"l
I...~:~
........
II
....-
-
n..
,
HALSl y ~T. I_
I ..
-"-
) "Goo_
1---.---
.
....,-.01."
....:t~$" f--
" ,. .
....~.~.s .......... I
."- <..c ,-
-
~,
..
.'-
~
.
-4
o
.,
,
""k"&
...
I
'K
'2 ~ ...
0'" 0
II n ~
--,;;~
.
(r) . _1 '._~..~w.o 11707
t"':') S 4,.~~$~'~:7:::z::;..r.
<:, "'~. ..:-" /""
.-- ; r-' .
.;_ (\1:> ...
r- (\J CD ;
;::,.f; [7 T! '.J- U
-- ....... ..... -..:. .. X
!"":f,:':;CQQJ
QUITC(".WE:O'lb.oi.H:..\-) 0
U-!'j'''Q' 0' (j {,J .......
C .0 _ ......, ....., =-
.8 C O.w ..2
-.. _....... (.,~ 1-
,-v: _ (1,1 -. . a..
u :--~ ::; ;:: C/)
o .- -. C . <r.l
-Co .':)~
<..' c..... <() CV
.2 (") 0 .~! == "0
g::r~~'~8~n
~ ,"::- (; <.' .==
~ -'-' _ ,.,:J -i :.:
:3 ~ ~ 0
~.. {., .~
,. CJ ~
.; Iry C ~c U 0
~'. en it.. ~ 0 3:
- ~
. ~
....~'"'
-
1
.......-..
hr......7~ """,,"1'14'$
.-
.
.
~
o
.
.-
-
.
~
.
..-.0..
.
,~e..
.
,
.
~ c. '''.
~. -
~ ;. :~;~r
:;
t _
.,....
"
"
~
...ur,t.
.; -
.
,
,
~
· t
--; :
..
~
'141.
u..".'
.-
f
j
"
~
..
r)'w..;-
:._~~-
~ ....out,
.. ?
:;1.:-'4
f....._
t. L""lll
:: .
...~
~...
,
..<_
c."".
'-~~
..,....
111.........<..:.
"'''IM
.
-i
~
......
,:t~
U~I"'"
I. 10
'. ...
'~
.
,;
..!.
.-
...f
,N
.........I.jl()
......t<)
,
.,.,u,,&
:or
"-'US7
or,
,""l..z
.. "-1.25'''- ~
Ii'\ '.7 -;7 ~
--:: ."Ufl ~H
__;.n . <J ~
f::l: ........ ~2
_I"'~l '('J~ .
.
.
:;.
'i
1-
;.
-
".,.l36I
.1:
........"
~,.....~
o.
..
J
-
I I Z
I!.:P.::;~
. ,.. ..
I U'~.
~
.r]]:
"<IIe.
.;
fA ~
;:: z
"
.. ........u _
~ .....,. -
I->->
~.
~
..<
~
"
":
-.. (.H,.Ot'.
'~ ~.. .-
2 ~ I.OZ4 ~
N . ,~
..'_0. . ~M't" 0...
32.L .~
iI."(Ic,. l'
· a.. I<~II ._
iI 5..2
, 1oL, ><:;j__
~
.....
~
...
t
:
.
~
..,
~
.
~
..".
.
..
lI(.Ct!
.
~
.....
"
"
"~Ct"
7
...~~.-
~
,'r.
~
7
ST
,-~
Lt:;....,
-
~'r'" I - I
~'. ...Jl..5.
'-"'at
Z
r~
'-....o~ 1_ \.....
3
""
u..':":"!:o
.
.
.
"
'-0(.1:'9'
..1Il
"-~.l1...,....
l,.1(,.n'CP
18
LS.,JU(\J
&.4t.~ r..~
'7 .
....u
..~.~ .....~
'6 5
...."
"".t_k P"'~
....~" : --;;:
""'7: ~ ~
.....c~;i Cfu
1L.m.o 1'-'-1 V
Ll.~ ' .....
#
.....
1-
-
.
:,
..!:.!:;
.f
~
-ti
.
.........
...
-
,',
~
,
..
~-
..,;",..
,"'..
;,
....:
. .... C
-
~
--;::;
..~
'2.
'-4411
-...t.Mo. .."~
II e. ro
L~ -1__ .....
- .:..
~
<<-,.".
-
""'"
i!1il&11!l$~VJ1~fii!lj?jfl!1y{~l!plfll1~;
""'"
""'"
7 - /cJ)
*- e. ^ I J r-tf'
r-I/-
BOARD Of EDUCATION
SEPH O. CUMMINGS, Ph.D.
LARRY CUNNINGHAM
SHARON GLES
PATRICK A. JUDD
GREG R. SANOOVAl
SUPERINTENDENT
.K)HN F. VUGRlN, Ph.D.
.
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST"J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425.9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTll
November 18 1992
.\
~~.~.
NOV
.E;'.V
L,~_
Ms. Diana Richardson
Community Development
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: IS-93-17/ FA-603/ DP-973
Location: 740 Bay Boulevard
Project Name: A 26,604 Sq. Ft. Office Bldg.
Dear Ms. Richardson:
This is to advise you that the project, located at 740 Bay Boulevard, is
within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children
from Kindergarten through Grade 6. Mueller Elementary is the home
school for this project.
District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 3-4 percent over the
past several years, and this is projected to continue. Permanent capacity
has been exceeded at many schools and temporary relocatable classrooms
are being utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District also
bu;}es . students outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate
growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance.
State law currently provides for a developer fee of $.27 for non-residential
area to be charged (Chula Vista Elementary School District - $.12/square
foot; Sweetwater Union High School District - $.15/square foot) to assist in
financing facilities needed to serve growth.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely, \
~3,,~,
Kate Shurson
. Director of Planning & Facilities
cc: Bennet Greenwald
_,z. e P I~I 7-5 / -)t};L
-.."
~Piig~V11~!JJiqJ(9lJ~{~l!1i19iiffli
'""'"
'"""\
-I- e P //-76 7---)q3
.
.
.
KMB Consulting
Traffic Engineering. Transportation Planning 4 Impact Studies
December 22, 1992
Ms. Diana Richardson
City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 11 AND NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
PROJECT
Dear Ms. Richardson:
Introduction
In accordance with your authorization, KMB Consulting has reviewed the potential traffic
related impacts associated with the proposed amendment to the Chula Vista Local
Coastal Program (LCP) General Industrial land use designation and with the proposed
National University project located at 740 Bay Boulevard. We have concluded that the
LCP amendment would not result in significant impacts to existing or future traffic
circulation. Similarly, we have concluded that the National University project would not
result in significant additional traffic generation to the surrounding street system, and that
proposed on-site and adjacent parking would be adequate to serve the proposed use.
The following discussion summarizes our analysis.
Proposed National University Proiect (740 Bav Boulevard)
The proposed National University Project would involve the operation of a not-for-profit
college level institution within an existing building located at 740 Bay Boulevard in the
City of Chula Vista. The property is within the coastal zone. Current permitted uses for
the site include general industrial and industrial/business park uses, as well as other
specialized uses identified in the Bayfront Specific Plan and LCP.
The existing building at 740 Bay Boulevard provides a total of 26,604 square feet.
Although located within the general industrial zone which permits various industrial and
limited commercial uses, existing uses within the building are exclusively .commercial
I t p- //-77
' ( f
? --/t/{
qf1(J(J Bu<;;np<;<; P~rk Avenu(', SlIiff> 107. S;1n f)i(>~f) r A q? 1,1. fF,l q) ARQ-4q44 . FAX ((~ 1 Q\ hRQ_dQQ4
Ms. Diana Richardson
City of Chula Vista
December 22, 1992
Page Two
~
office" type uses and include Kelly Temporary Services, Sher-Voit Commercial
Brokerage, Systems Engineering Solutions, Mexico Resorts International, and Calbrit
Design (a computer design firm). National University would occupy 7,708 square feet
within the building.
Exhibit 1 summarizes expected traffic generation which would result from the National
University project, and compares this traffic generation to trips which would be expected
without the project, assuming the space were occupied by an office use similar to the
other, existing uses within the building. The applicant anticipates operating six
classrooms which would each serve an average of 25 students, for a total student
population of 150 students. National University is an institution which traditionally serves
working adults, so that classes are generally at night. The proposed project would
provide classes between 5:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. weekdays, but would also hold some
daytime seminars and academic activities at the site. Assuming that the average
daytime student population is 150 students, or approximately equivalent to the night
attendance, university activities would generate approximately 540 daily trips. This is ~
based on the assumption that night classes would generate traffic at a rate of 2 trips per
student (a worst case, assuming that each student is in attendance and drives alone),
and that daytime activities would generate traffic at a rate of 1.6 trips per student. The
rate of 1.6 trips per student is consistent with the average trip generation rate published
by the San Diego Association of Governments. (SANDAG) in the San Dieqo Traffic
Generators manual for 2-year, junior colleges.
When project traffic generation is compared to trips that would be generated by
commercial office uses, using the average trip generation rates for commercial office
published by SANDAG, Exhibit 1 shows that the project would result in an increase of
approximately 386 daily trips to the surrounding street system. This level of additional
traffic would not constitute a significant addition to area traffic volumes. During the
critical peak hours, the project would result in only a nominal increase in traffic during
the morning peak hour and in approximately 149 additional trips in the afternoon peak
hour. It should be noted that the increase in afternoon peak hour traffic would be in the
inbound direction, while existing industrial/business related uses in the area generate
primarily outbound traffic in the afternoon peak hour. Since morning peak hour project-
generated traffic would be minimal and since afternoon peak hour project traffic would
be in the opposite direction of existing peak traffic flows, the project is not expected to
significantly impact area traffic operations or levels of service. .
~
~:!.- f' - Ii 1 f
'7//ilS'
.
Ms. Diana Richardson
City of Chula Vista
December 22, 1992
Page Three
The property currently provides 80 on-site parking spaces. Applying the City of Chula
Vista's Off-Street Parking and Loading standards for commercial offices uses, it is
estimated that an on-site parking surplus of 17 spaces exists as shown in Exhibit 2. In
addition to the 80 spaces located on-site, 354 parking spaces are currently available on
the adjacent property which is occupied by 50,000 square feet of office space and
53,000 square feet of warehouse/manufacturing space. Again using. the City's standard
off-street parking standards for office and manufacturing uses, adjacent uses require
approximately 220 spaces, resulting in an estimated surplus of 134 spaces.
.
Exhibit 2 also summarizes the anticipated parking requirements of National University.
Assuming as a worst case that each student will require one parking space during the
peak parking demand period, 150 on-site parking spaces would be required to serve the
daytime student population. Similarly, 150 spaces would be required after 5:30 p.m. to
serve demand generated by students attending night classes. It is assumed that day
and night class schedules, and therefore parking demand, would not conflict. Since an
estimated total peak period parking surplus of 151 spaces exists on the project site and
on the site adjacent, existing parking provisions should be adequate to serve National
University parking demand, even if the peak parking demand periods of the university
and of other existing uses coincide. During the evenings, of course, on-site parking will
not be utilized by the existing industrial/business uses, so that nearly all spaces will be
available for university related activities. "
Proposed Amendment to Chula Vista Local Coastal ProQram
The proposed amendment to the Chula Vista LCP would involve revisions to permitted
uses under the Industrial: General land use designation to allow colleges/universities,
trade, vocational and technical schools, child care centers, and utility uses in addition
to general industrial uses. The predominant permitted uses within the coastal zone are
general industrial, which on average generate approximately 16 trips per thousand
square feet as shown in Exhibit 3. Trip generation for education uses is typically
estimated based on "number of students., since square footage requirements of
education facilities will vary widely depending on the specific nature and specialization
of the institution. Therefore, it is not possible to make a direct comparison of potential
traffic generation impacts which would result from a shift from industrial/business park
to education uses. However, as demonstrated in the previous trip generatiQn
comparison for the National University project (Exhibit 1), daily and peak hour traffic
. would likely not be significantly increas6d by a limited shift to education-related uses.
--,1 C f2 - /1- 7 ~
7~/c~
Ms. Diana Richardson
City of Chula Vista
December 22, 1992
Page Four
~
Child care facilities, which would be permitted under the proposed LCP amendment,
typically generate approximately 80 trips per thousand square feet, and an extremely
large percentage of these trips occur during critical commuter peak hours, as shown in
Exhibit 3. It is expected, however, that the total shift of square footage from
Industrial/Business Park to Child Care uses which might occur in this area would be
small. In addition, child care facilities would most likely serve employees of area
industrialjbusiness uses, so that not all trips generated would be "new. trips on the area
street system. At the plan level, significant impacts would not be anticipated. It should
be noted that the proposed new uses would be conditionallv permitted, so that any
future site-specific proposals would require discretionary review and approval. At the
project level, potential localized traffic impacts would be addressed.
Summary
The proposed LCP amendment would not result in significant impacts to existing or
future traffic circulation at the plan level. Potential localized impacts would be addressed
as specific project applications for conditional approval are made. Similarly, the National
University project would not result in significant additional traffic generation to the
surrounding street system, and proposed on-site parking would be adequate to serve
the proposed use.
.-..
Please call me if you have any questions, or if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
KMB CONSULTING
~Y/~ 177 ~
Kristi M. Berg, P.E.
Principal
Attachments (3)
.-...
/~/O)
.
8/
><
..
"
a.
::E
a. Ef
z '5/
Q><O
.....
....
era.
"'::E
~<EI
Cl
!!,
:= ~~I
....,
~><
~ :
..;;=
>- "*
~
a: -'51 0
~r:: e.o
,.,
..
:2:(f) .. "*
a. <0
:Ja: _::E "I '"
(f)W ~a._
.,....z~ '"
'" "*
. I-oz ...
m-:J .. - '5/ '"
-I- a:: eo
J:<l:-' z><
Xa:<l: 0" "*
-"
Wwz !;:a. <0
ZO er ::E "I '"
w- "'..-
G!;;: z...
'" ..
Cl..,
a.z p~ IL
- " '"
er....
a: "';;=10 ~
..
I- "er a.
'" :;;
"-
0;: 0
> '"
..
IL
UJ
j ~
0
<0
'"
'"
.
..
~
I
~I
'"
'"
~
...
...
'"
'"
'"'
'"
OJ
U
;;
E
E
o
o
~o ~I N '"
'"
'"
'"
<0 ~
e ~ tOl ~ +
II) 0 (")1 ., +
...
ex) 0 COI ~ +
~ '" ...
<0
., .,
., 0 01 ;:;; '"
...0... +
'"''"' N
II
'"
"
;;;
x
s: OJ '"
0 E
"*"*"* 15 g
~~tC! ~
00", UJ "
"
s: "
~
"*"*"* ..
:r=
<O~"": i5
N~N
"*.."*
'q"-~
......:z.....
"* "*
U)<~
C\i-o
z_
s:
ILl-I-
~~~
-....
"a.a.
~O::'E
..t:;-<o
o~ _
"'''' -
.. ..
E1:
IL " ..
UJ..,..,
<0.22
'" .. ..
~~g
e..........
..
"
..
:J ..
o ~
..
..
_0
.s:...
"'..
2'0
'"
'"
'"
~
~
-.,
"S
c
"
E
EO
~
o
'"
(;
c
.2
<;
.u
"
..
'"
<<
"
0>
"
Ci
c
~ eo;
- Q
~:S"ti
~<-~
.... 'Qi E
~ "0 '_
,,- -
~ ~ ~
" 0> "
:t::!:!4:i
~ t: ~
t-:~CI)
oCi.!!
~Cl.~
acaa
c:(IJ~
.... ..
'-"" ~
...~ Q,) ~
C):&
e f
:) Q..$.
~~~
. .
~~f
OeD ~
>-
<<ice
u::J=
CD Cj ~
E 5.2 :;;-;<l~
E.- _ __
8~:J!! /) ":cP/
,L C, ~ II
I
.oj
c
..
-g
~
"
....
.,
0;
..
"-
~
..
~
t>-
.,
~
..
'"
~
"
;::
"
"-
~
0;
~
"
~
..
5-
.,
.
"-
.,
~
o
'"
? ~I {J Y
--
'" '"
:l :l
en en'
CD CD
0 0
<u III
a. a.
en en
c: c: v
~ I'-- ~ (')
.... ~ .... ~
l1:I l1:I
a. a.
"0 "0
(]) CD
"0 "0
.:; en :; en
0 CD 0 CD
.... 0 .... 0
a. <u a. <u
a. a.
en en
en c: c: v
0
en ~ co ..><: lJ)
.... .... (')
~ l1:I l1:I
<l: a. a.
Z "0 "0 "0
<l: CD (]) Q)
.... .... ....
C1 :l en :l "r :l en
Z Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
~ 0 000 0
<u <u <u <u III
a: a. a. a. 0..
C\l <l: en en en en en --..
!:: a. c: (') . c: 1'--(')0 c: 0
~ CD ~ CDlJ)C\J ~ lJ)
III ~ .... .... ~ C\J .... ~
:I: l1:I l1:I l1:I
X en a. a. a. .;
c
w a: ,2
w LL .; '"
'"
> l1:I LL l1:I LLen l1:I ~ c ~
C 0 '"
-
Z (j) eno Q) .!!! '" >-'
'" '"
::::> 0 00 "0 ~ ;;;. ~ ~
'" '0
0 00_ :J ~ .~
....I ~ l' '"
(') (') ~ en '" ~ ~
<l: --- --- --- --- c .~ .~
z CD CD Q) Q) ii c c
c: 0 c: 0 0 c: 0 ~ 0) " Q
0 <u <Il <Il <Il 0 0; c '"
~ a. ~ a. 0.. ~ a. .... ~
j::: .... .... .... " c ~ "
l1:I en l1:I en en l1:I en c ~ 10 ....
<l: a. a. a. ~ :;'!! ~ '"
~ ~~ ~ '"
z ~ ", ~ ,:.:
.0 " '"
, " ~ ~
LL LL LL ~ ~ i;
Q ~ lu
1 (j) i en en i ;; "g- '0 ~
CD 00 I- ~ <.> .c
-b <.> <.>
<Jl 00 en '" 0 ~ Q
co 00 " ~ ~ '"
.0 a:) 0 0 .0 '" ~
CD 0(') lJ) .'!! "
~ :!2 "
Q) ill lJ)lJ) ~ '" ~ ~ ;;;
~ s; 0 "
ill CD CD .!!! S " 0)
~ ~ 0
0 c 0 ~ .c ~
~ .c <.> <.>
0 :EO CD :EO () ~ ~
CD 0 0 0 OJ '0 ll- "
<u .. ~
0 c € ....
(ij <.> " ~
~ '0 (tj"L: .. .g
0.. '0 <( ,- :J U g.
o~ ~ ", .!!! ~
~ ~o .0 '" ~
en <D CD<u '00 " .!; g. a'i
E en E- ~ ~ ]
CD Q) '" Q. Cl "'""'-
en E en E~ <D " '0 " i2
:J ~I :J ~I :J ~I .~ 0- .!; ..
0 o <Il c e " '"
0 o~ <u :J '" ~ .2 .
"" '"
c c c ....
:;::; :;::; 0 '"
en en ~ ~
'x 'x
w w z p~~ ~ ~ 0
~ .,
-:e.~/) 1/ 7 -/0;
, I - { t
.
EXHIBIT 3
AVERAGE TRIP GENERATION RATES
Use
TRIP GENERATION RATES (a)
Average Weekday AM Peak (b) PM Peak (b)
Trip Rate In Out In Out
Industrial/Business Park
16 trips/KSF
9.6% 2.4% 2.4% 9.6%
Child Care Facility
80 trips/KSF
9.5% 9.5% 9.0% 9.0%
2-Year (Junior) College
1.6 tripslST
10.8% 1.2% 2.4% 5.6%
(a) Source: San Diego Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, July 1992.
(b) Expressed as a percentage of daily trips.
NOTE: SF = Square Feet; KSF = Thousand Square Feet; ST = Students.
.
.
l~, ;/ - /1-J2-'!r
7~//O
--..
'f1jX~pl,jg~Pil~!!l!llfi9!l~l~l!p!9.!lr9i
--.
-..,
,L c. -f- Ii' 0'7 ( 7 --I / /
l
.
.
.
--------- -------.-
REPORT OF FIELD DENSITY TESTING
ParcelS - Subgrade and "Sase Preparation of Parking Lot Area
Marina Gateway - rSA
740 Say Soulevard
Chura Vista, California
JOS NO. 84-3538
03 February 1986
,
Prepared for
Mr. Bennett Greenwald
GREENWALD-McDONALD
.,''.
Prepared by
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
8145 Ronson Road, Suite H
San Diego, CA 92111
7 ")/eJ-
~iFr;lf2, ~~
........
i!1jX~plj&~Pfl~fJl!q(jlJ.t!:yl~li;pl9!i~;
-..
........
) fP //- cP'-
,
7-//)
.
.
.
---------------.-----
1~~D
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
GROUNDWATER' GEOPHYSICS. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
03 February 1986
Mr. Bennett Greenwald
GREENWALD-McDONALD
2635 Camino del Rio South, Suite 107
San Diego, CA 92108
Job No. 84-3538
Subject:
Report of Field Density. Testing
Parcel 5 - Subgrade and Base Preparation of Parking Lot Area
Marina Gateway - ISA
740 Bay Boulevard
Chula Vista, California
Dear Mr. Greenwald:
In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., hereby
submits the following report summarizing our work and test results, as
well as our conclusions and recommendations concerning the subject
project. Our firm tested the fill soils that were removed and recompacted
during the final preparation of the parking lot area at the subject site.
Previous grading work was done at this site as described in our grading
reports, dated December 18, 1984 (Job No. 84-3538), and June 26, 1985
(Job No. 84-3538).
The grading tested herein consisted of processing and recompacting the
top 1 foot of subgrade and placing and compacting the base materials.
This grading was tested on December 9, 1985.
GENERAL: SITE INFORMATION
The property is located west of Bay Boulevard, between J and K Streets,
in the City of Chula Vista. Prior to this grading, the lot had been graded
short of the finished subgrade elevations. Survey information concerning
actual elevations after grading was not available at the time of this report
-ct,/) JI_i7-
,- r-ll -"
/-/ / f
--------'"--------------------...----.-.---. -- - .
Marina Gateway Parking Lot Area
03 February 1986
Job No. 84-3538
Page 2
"""'
preparation. A second grading was done at the site to bring up grade
elevations. Field density tests and observations were provided by our
company during this second grading phase as described in our report
dated June 26, 1985 (Job No. 84-3538).
The site has been prepared to receive the asphaltic concrete pavement
layer within the curb limits. A plot plan illustrating the approximate
location of all materials which were compacted throughout this grading
operation is enclosed as Figure No. I.
FIELD 08SERVATIONS
Field density tests were provided by a representative of Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc. to check the grading contractor's compliance with the
drawings and job specifications. The presence of our field
representative. at the site was to provide to the owner a continuing source
of professional advice, opinions, and recommendations based upon the
field representative's observations of the contractor's work. and did not
include any superintending. supervision. or direction of the actual work
of the contractor or the contractor's wC;rkers.
........
The grading operation was observed to be performed in the following
general manner:
1. At the time of our site visit. base material was already being
placed. No observations were provided of the subgrade processing.
A few tests were taken in the still uncovered subgrade areas.
2. Areas to receive base material were tested. as described above. by- -
our field representative prior to placement of base material.
3.
Base materiaJ was placed in horizontal layers and compacted up to
finish grade elevations.
..........
7--//~
dfil7;J~~
.
.
.
. ..-------M:arlna-vate~ay ''''arKlng Lor-AreB---h
03 February 1986
:Jot"-Ncr:..-tfq""-j~.3li-
Page 3
4. Base material was watered or dried at or near optimum moisture
content, and mixed prior to compaction.
5. The soil utilized in this grading operation were mostly from on-site,
nonexpansive and some expansive soils previously placed in the
first and second grading operations, and consisted primarily of silty
sands and clayey fine sands.
6. Subgrade soils up to 12 inches deep in the paved areas were tested
to be compacted to at least 95 percent of laboratory Maximum Dry
Density. Base material was compacted to at least 95 percent of the
laboratory Maximum Dry Density.
7.
Compaction was achieved by drying or wetting the base, mixing it
and rolling it with heavy construction equipment such as a steel
roller and water truck.
8. Compacted subgrade and base material were placed within the curb
limits and graded surfaces shown on the attached Plot Plan (Figure
No. I). The slope fill soils to the west of the west curb were found
"'.
to be uncompacted (by probing).
TESTS
Field density tests were performed in accordance with A.S. T.M. 0-1556.
Maximum density determinations were performed in accordance with
A.S. T.M. 0-1557, Method A. The relative compaction results, as
summarized on Figure No. II, are the ratios of the field densities to the
laboratory Maximum Dry Densities, expressed as percentages.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The follow ing conclusions and recommendations are based upon our
analysis of all the data available from the testing of the soils compacted on
this site. Our visual observation of the grading operation (while in
!- (!, ,j)
-~'t
o
7~/ /?
JI
17
11182 ~R
!
. /Vlarlna ~nt~way t"'arf<lng Lot Area
03 February 1986
Joh No. 8lj-3538----
Page lj
I
~
progress), field and hboratory testing of the typical bearing soils,
and our general knowledge and experience with the natural-ground
soils and recompacted fill soils on this site were utilized in
'conducting OUr services.
"""".
I
1. The soils utilized in the grading operation were from existing
on-site soils which were recompacted, and imported base materials
which were placed and recompacted. The soils primarily consisted
of tan-brown, fine, silty sands and brown, fine, silty sands and
brown, fine clayey sands. Clayey soils of this type are considered
moderately to highly expansive as measured by the County of San
Diego Test for Expansive Soils.
2.
During the grading operation, the on-site soils were compacted to
receive the base material. The base material was properly placed,
watered, and then compacted to at least 95 percent of Maximum Dry
Density, in accordance with the requirements of the City of Chula
Vista.
""""
3. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will accept no liability for damage to
structures that occurs as a res'!!t of improperly backfilled trenches
or walls or additional unobserved fills.
4. Any indication of distress that may be produced by the uncompacted
fill slopes to the west of the parking lot would need to be promptly
corrected to avoid further damage.
SUMMARY
Based on our field testing and grading observation, it is our opinion that
the grading operation described herein, in general, was performed in
conformance with the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance, and the Com-
pacted fill soils and natural-ground soils within the described limits will
safely support t~e proposed pavements if our recommendations are
followed.
"""'"
,I t P
// 9CJ
/~/ 17
q~~B
--------.------.---
.
Marina Gateway Parking Lot Area
03 February 1986
Job No. 84-3538
Page 5
Recommendations presented herein and in our previous reports related to
this project remain applicable unless superseded in writing. All tested
and approved work done during this grading operation appears to have
been performed in accordance with the soil investigation report for this
site issued by our firm and dated July 20, 1984 (Job No. 83-2851/1). The
grading described herein was observed and/or tested on December 9,
1985.
..
All statements in the report are applicable only for the grading operation
observed by our firm, and are representative of the site at the time our
report was prepared. The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall
not be held responsible for fill soils placed at any date different than
indicated by our observations or testing, or subsequent changes to the
site by others, which directly or indirectly cause poor surface or
subsurface drainage and/or water erosion altering the strength of the
compacted fill soils.
.
In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the
improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations
contained in this report shall not be considered val id unless the changes
are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in
writing.
.
.
Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made
in accordance ",ith generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles
and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either
expressed or implied.
L ~p
C"
J / Cf1
/1-
?-IIg/
~r? ~p 00
---------
M"rina Gateway Parking Lot Are"
03 February 1986
Job No. 84-3538
Page 6
-'.
Thank you for this opportunity to be .of service. Should any questions
arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Reference .to our Job No. 811-3538 will expedite a reply to your inquiries.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
@)~
Jaime A. Cerros, R.C.E. 34422
JAC/pj
cc: Addressee (4)
-,
-.,
.J-4-f- /;' - 9 J; ? -/1;
Q~~o
------------..----.--- ---- - ......
,.,
i
Compaction Test Results
Depth Moisture Field Soil Aelalive
Test Dale location Fill 0:'0 Density Type Compaction
1 12/9/85 see plot plan SG 8.0 118 pcf I 96%
2 1219185 see plot plan SG 9.5 119 pcf I 97%
3 1219/85 see plot plan base 7.0 134 pcf /I 97%
4 12/9/85 see plot plan base 8.0 136 pcf /I 99%
5 12/9/85 see plot plan base 9.0 132 pcf II 96%
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
TYPE DESCRIPTION OPTIMUM MOISTURE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
I Light brown, clayey fine sand 12.5% 123 pc f
II Gray, fine to coarse, crushed
rock to 3/4-inch. 8.0% 137.7pcf
.,.,
. 7 ---/020
,
~
;'.
.
.
.
QfiU4@=ilfi
/. r!P /1 9~
Job No. 6'4-353.8
..tL
Figure No.
1\
'"
CD
>1
,
,
'~
tJ. '
\
w
0.
\
,
~
,
,
,
~~
. ,
0 ,
. ~
u Z
. <>"1- e '" ""'"
,. ~
<10" ;;: ...,
. to CTl
. " <<').. trl
' .... ~ ."
"'0 ~
." "" "'" :z
)> tv
:;0
^
~ ,
:z ,
G") ~
"
""
0
0:>
)>
-< ,
,
0:> ~'\
r
<:
Cl
.
0 ,
.
u ,
.
::
.
.
,
,
PARKING \
,
, ""'"
<: L(!./)-
// _ 1 tf ') -- /;l )
~ }
YS-oO(
APPLICATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS SITE PlAN
~ IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-1/2 X II FOLDER
INITIAL STUDY
FOR OFFICE USE
A. BACKGROUND
City of Chula Vista
Application Form
Case No.
Deposit
Receipt No.
Date Rec'd
Accepted by
Project No.
~S.-9..;;-iP
.Al,.99
;.u/ /?
//.0/<,-,7'2-
~
~-,?",.s--
PROJECT TITLE ,;)(t9t:M.L fP~ P~IlAn.P~jJ/1d-#/1
PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or descrVptiOn) ~.~
j~~~~J !JJirJ..u1 LD,V.~ f<lP
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No.
BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~~"'/1i)I1/J1UAU1/M/lll;iA('}/fthur~
oAtIl IlnuJlJr~,: duwp '/ J/tfll~ e.FWJr,H-'-'~/l() ti;4ktJtxu~
{ll1Jf/L-f'Atf~~~~_:~~~'''~'~~L .!i~J 10- r?U./Wjrh[};rd:fu1.
4. Name of Appllcant _______~~~
Address Phone /:;Ill-50 </7
City altdA.-~ State (!/l Zip 911/0
iJJ~~h4)
1.
2.
3.
5.
Name of Preparer/Agent
Address ~~
Phone
~
City
Relation to Applicant
State Zip
(JA-nunJYYfIft; ~f ~. ~
6. Indicate all permits or approval~ and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
,I
a. Permits or approvals required:
___ General Plan Amendment ___ Design Review Application ~PubliC Project
___ Rezone/Prezone ___ Tentative Subd. Map ___ Annexation
___ Precise Plan ___ Grading Permit ___ Redevelopment Agency
___ Specific Plan ___ Tentative Parcel Map ___ O.P.A.
___ Condo Use Permit ___ Site Plan & Arch.Review ___ Redevelopment Agency
___ Variance ___ Project Area Committee D.D.A.
___ Coastal Development Use Permit Other
Permit
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
___ Grading Plan Arch. Elevations
___ Parcel Map === Landscape Plans
~ Precise Plan ___ Tentative Subd. Map
~ Specific Plan ___ Improvement Plans
___ Other Agency Permit ___ Soils Report
or Approvals Required ~ Hazardous Waste
Assessment
-1- c-L.C /
. '.
WPC 0413p/9459P
___ Hydrological Study.
___ Biological Study
___ Archaeological Survey
Noise Assessment
=== Traffic Im-l'act Re8ort..4#L.
V"'Other U!P~
;:- ~
//-?~ 7-/.;2;)-
E. CERTIFICATION
-.,
I,
or
Owner/owner in escrow*
I, '1fJfUr7uh fJ8u~)
Consultant or Agent*
-.,
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 attachments thereto.
,;
DATE: ///;'1/72....
/ J
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-.,
L~.t ,Ii -9L
?-t33
WPC 0413p/9459P
-7-
. :'
eF.
CITY DATA
Case No. __73;'- 5<-? - /7
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.
Current ZoninQ on site:
North
South
East
West
:T(lCkcLw ~ ~,,;t/c..f~,(>>,~
.--ih ~JtnD.Jl /)" - r. . I ,u-;;:;;_o.-h~'0_
~~ "
Nfl
NA-
Does the project conform to the current zoning? nD
2.
General Plan land use
designation on site:
North
South
East
West
.d>1tU.w#/J - U"ur,J O-I<d ~yC-I.. f,;;i;...J::.cl1-u",,-,.
NA
tilt
t-In
Nn
Is the project compatible with the General Plan land Use Diagram? no
.
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? Plfd7nwJ <:f -6/.; uP j"rlJJn:/7,-A-P (UrJ.,-tLf (1M'!" C!d-L
f1 ~ ~'" l- -fzr () D-t n JJjXJ- (L ,
,
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? f.d1~ O--U- .
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance
the scenic quality of the route.) ~C(~0' OUlIS''''; .JfLld~
3. Schools
If the proposed project is-residential, please complete the following: f/A
Students
Generated
From Proiect
Schoo 1
Permanent
Capacity
Temporary
Capacity
Current
Enrollment
El ementary
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Remarks:
. /l;w ~nJ
Director of Planning or Representative
!/-J5-'1ri-
Date
WPC 0413p/9459P
-8- c
/ e L)
- '
fJ
II 9'7
7 ---/~ Y
"""\
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
~,""" ;f)w~{/~<--7.
Address.,) 7t 7'~ /hl
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
f..5 9.?- /7 /4 -&05 /;J
PI an Fi Ie No. Checker /,'\/J..ST,~
v
Date //~~;l7~
Type Constr.
Occupancy
No. Stories
Bldg. Area
The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions.
PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN:
-,
//,/.:[
A..C.t__S~
~.c; ,A C.,.. <;;.-;/5
2Y-L~( h;; /-1c/~
+~ ~(
/
co2 - pt:-e: {/ /= C
;{,/L /l-t {
,
-,
..') - /7 Ice
~ w/{c
7 ,
/'c:. i t'..___, II" C H "'~ /)
7
,(/
<,/ /. - ~. -, c ,..-
. L/C <_ <--"//-/::,J,,,,-,' ;r
/ i/, .
b" dz ,.,4>:-/7//~ :;,J
S/-J7'7L-C .6< /7CI-
/-L,.<./
.6"~;L<"/"'~<J
~
by -1-y 0/-:
........
G,....... ST /ZA.-' L- 7/c/V .
4- &r /"<!TU::..-77c,.v /2-7P IA..t~<z.~/J $.4~ h Z /-f'GT
/z :j;/<-/~'/::./C:A SJs-~s" /3/-1 AA.A~5,' S7;-9-/<--Cj?;.~cf/
/kIJ ~5~51 z7Z_ '
s-- h--: C -'7 c/ /&Ir-' 7
h -/J~;;TZc -- /'7 ;e...
/J4 77 / L'i d</
%-f;/ h<;,~'~
'7
'2 t~ //LL"....t 4-- /J
(.
/~/;r--:. JC't.'Vi~ /?/V.:.~/ f=~ ,-/:J'--:7L~~. /_
vi ,c:--- i/
/"1/;1 y" hi: /l/lL.~2D.. ft //c/'i: ~ /1-/-;' [yO S-c/!.-J,! -/Z:,5
, c/
fr/L,/j -- - f'tViUu-v} On a f1(td- -J;y-rorcf neuU.cv (fUJ tPlIrw:w)
/2z~~/L<~ ~7) ~ h~
. c/ / /
IAZr?~~75 r 0< "....,L7
--fr
A://..aSS</j
6z
"--<7
.........
L (P //- C;? ,/-/02-3
FPB-29
.
.
.
DATE:
ft2l:M ~
t-
~, ~
~
NOV -Ie,:o
,....
CCir.r:~,:;~~t~~., .
Co.:":':
TO fRoM:
SUBJECT:
7' S -Co (
ROUTING FORM
:-.=-:~:'./=:J
-- -
)r. C!-E.n_A. ....:S:!..
'2</
November 2K 1992
'--~';:~:N:::;:;:(;i-.(r; i':;EP'
199Z NDV 20 PM 3: 12
/
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.-AsSistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove. Fire Department
Marty Schmidt. Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins. Police Department
Current Planning
Frank Herrera. 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)
Other
Diana Richardson/Com Dev.
Environmental Section
[ll] Application for Initial Study (IS- 93-19
D Checl<print Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
o Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
D Review of Environmental Review Record
/FA- 605
/FB-
/FB-
FC-
/DP -N/A
/DP
/DP
IERR-
)
)
)
)
The pro1ect con~ists of: Program amendments to allow colleges and universities;
trade, vociational & technical schools; child care centers
and utility and vehicular uses by Conditional Use Permit
within Industrial:General land use designation.
location:
Industrial:General landuse-designation within ChulaVista
Certified local Coastal Program.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 11/30/92
Comments:
.110 CaAM(EI-t TS .
- . 7./1{J~
?_j.2? -c!-O 11- 'f~- 4;;}v
-.,
tJiiipdcigiieni!iJiUllJi left!J/a~~i
-.,
-.,
< I-!.-P //-/~() '/--/;27
.
.
.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: November 20, 1992
./
TO:
Ken larson, Building & Housing
John lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (15/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudo1f.-Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department .
*Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, 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)
Other
FROM:
Diana Richardson/Com Dev. Environmental Section
SUBJECT:
[ll] Application for Initial Study (IS- 93-19
r==J Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
o Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
r==J Review of Environmental Review Record
/OP -N/A
/OP
/OP
/ERR-
)
)
)
)
/FA- 605
/FB-
/FB-
FC-
,/ -
The project con~ists of: Program amendments to allow colleges and universities;
trade, vociational & technical schools; child care centers
and utility and vehicular uses by Conditional Use Permit
within Industria1:General land use designation.
location: Industrial:General landuse-designation within Chula Vista
Certified Local Coastal Program.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 11/30/92
Comments:
~~~jVEO
!.Je\i -:'" f;:1?
~~ ~ ~.~ to
? --);2~t f- // /,tJ-!
PARKS hNU ntvOO1IIUI' Lltrt\KiMi:I~T
H-I. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Case No. ~s- '9-.?-/ ~
---
2. How many acres of
project?
3. Are existing neighbor ood and communit parks near the project
adequate to serve the po ulation increase esulting from this project?
are necessary
'-
1. Is project subje to Parks & Recreation
If not, please ex lain.
the proposed
Neighborhood
Community Parks
4. If not, are parkland dedicati
of the project adequate
Neighborhood
Community Parks
o other mitigation proposed as part
e population increase?
5. To meet City requirements,
Provide land?
Pay a fee?
6. Remarks:
---
.
~1.1.'" .'t2- I
Date
Parks and Recreation Director or Representative
---
WPC 0413p/9459P
~L(P
-13-
Jf -/L'}....- '0 _/'7g
II ' / /e?'-(
..-
negative
declaration
PROJECf NAME: National University/LCP Amendment No. 11
PROJECf LOCATION: 740 Bay Boulevard: National University
Bayfront LCP Area : LCP No. 11
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 571-170-16: National University
Not applicable: Bayfront LCP area
PROJECf APPLICANT: Bennet Greenwald, Foster Properties: ational University
City of Chula Vista: LCP Amend nt No. 11
A.
Proiect Setting
DATE: December 21, 1992
CASE NO: IS-93-17: National University
IS-93-19 : LCP Amendment No. 11
.
The National University site is located 740 Bay Boulevard, and is within the Chula
Vista Bayfront LCP area. The build. g already exists, and is located between Bay
Boulevard and 1-5 south of J Street. le project area is urbanized. The Bayfront LCP
area includes a diversity of settin s, from pristine wetlands to fully urbanized. The
Industrial:General. category of t e LCP, which is the subject area of the proposed
Amendment No. 11, is mostly, developed with uses of an industrial or business park
nature. The project area is i ntified on the Jollowing figures.
B.
Proiect Description
The National Univer . y project proposes to use 7,708 square feet of a 26,604 sq. ft.
existing building fo 6 classrooms and associated office space. The hours of National
University would 5:30 to 10:30 p.m. on weekdays, with some academic daytime
seminars or aca mic activities. The LCP Amendment No. 11 proposes to allow certain
land uses wit n the Industrial:General category. These uses include colleges and
universities; de, vocational and technical schools; child care centers; aHa litilit) 113<:5.
These uses ould be allowed conditionally, and a Conditional Use Permit would be
necessary order to permit these land uses within this category. The proposed changes
are sho n on the following tables of permitted uses.
C.
N tional University requires an LCP Amendment and a Conditional Use Permit to allow
e educational uses in this Industrial:General category. The LCP Amendment No. 11 is
itself a change to me permitted uses in the Industrial:General category.
<Ir!- t- Ii ;tJ-3
7~/30
~y?-
-.-
r_ --..;;- _
- --
city of chula vista planning department GlY OF
...._..:......____._. __..:_... ___.:__ rWI II ^ ,lteT"
Page 2
~
1. Fire/EMS
1tP
Ij
~-J\
~
D.
Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
The Threshold/Standards Policy 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 approximately
3 miles away and would be associated with a 4 minute response time. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy.
2. Police
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires 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%
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 Policy as the Police Department has not indicated that their
response time would be affected by these projects.
~
3. Traffic
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a
Level of Service (LOS) "C. or better, with the exception that Level of Service
(LOS) "D" may occur during the p~ two hours of the day at signalized
intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 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 arterials with freeway ramps are exempted
from this policy. The proposed project will not affect this Threshold Policy. See
traffic report, KMB Consulting, for detailed comments.
4. Parks/Recreation
The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/! ,000
population. The proposed project does not affect this Threshold/Policy.
5. Drainage
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineer 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 Policy.
J-.t/)~ //-Iaif
/-/3 )
.
.
.
Page 3
6.
00
.,,'1
Sewer ~"
~
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires 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 proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy.
7. Water
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment, and
transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that
water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The
proposed project applicant must work with the City's Fire Department and
Sweetwater Authority to ensure that adequate infrastructure is available. Proof
of adequacy must be given to the City's Planning Department prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits. This is standard City procedure, and not a
mitigation measure required by this Negative Declaration.
E.
Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed
project will not have a 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.
The Discussion contains each of the environmental issues analyzed in the Initial Study.
As stated throughout the Discussion, no significant impacts occur from the National
University project. Also, no significant impacts occur from the allowance of certain uses
in the Industrial:General category. If projects are proposed in the future which are
consistent with permitted uses in this category, a Conditional Use Permit would be
required. Environmental analysis would also be required on this project-level basis.
F. Mitil!ation necessary to avoid sil!nificant effects
G.
The proposed project is not associated with any significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation will be required.
Mandatory Findings 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. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the 7 ~/ J,;2..
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, I.l. P~I/';/).5
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
V,P
--l \'7
\;
~ Page 4
---.
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.
Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study no significant impacts were
found to occur to biological or cultural resources because the project would not
disturb the natural environment.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The project implements long-term goals of the City regarding development of
necessary facilities. And, the project does not sacrifice long-term goals for short-
term gain.
3.
The project has 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.
"""\
The analysis contained in the Initial Study analyzed both the National University
project and the Local Coastal Program Amendment No. II in order to address
cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts were found by this analysis. In fact,
no individual impacts were found.
"
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The analysis contained in the Initial Study found that no direct or indirect adverse
effects would occur to human beings from the National University project or the
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. II. Future projects proposed consistent
with the Local Coastal Program Amendment will be analyzed on a project basis
in order to determine the potential for impacts to human beings.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Roger Daoust, Engineering
John Lippitt, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Garry Williams, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
~
? -j 33
k&f II ~G./
- ({ -/
o
\j#
v0
Page 5
.
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Marti Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept.
. PameJa Buchan, Community Development Dept.
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: National University: Mr. Bennett Greenwald, Foster
Properties
City of Chula Vista LCP Amendment No. II: Ms. Pamela
Buchan, Community Development Dept.
2.
Documents
.
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program (amended 1989)
Traffic Impact Analysis for proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment No. II
and National University Project (KMB Consulting, December 18, 1992)
3.
Initial Study
This environmental 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 the Negative Declaration. The report reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding
the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista
Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
}l1Jt'~Lf (v{U~ (I. I/!Uac~
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 12/90)
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Site Plan
WPC:F:\HOME\COMMDEV\430.92
.
-k.. ~f- /! -/6':;
? ~/3 Y
-..
~pqg~ff!i~f!i1qf!AlJy.l~l!pl!J.il!fi
-.
-.
} 11 j) r I J A ('\)
f..-L.' - II (Va
?-lj~
.
.
.
':J ..
("\/
\fI;J /
\ /
(..0 //
'1'1 /
n li>/
V/
/
/
/
(
/
/
I
AMENDMENT r;;l II TO:
I
I
/
/
OIULA VISTA BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
i
,
/
/
ClIULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
/
/
,
i
,
I.-el!end
/
I
/
/
I
I
,I
/
/
/
/
/
d.~r- // !CJ1
7---/3b
-.
Th{$page tiiieiriioiU!Uyfeft Dlii~k,
--..
--..
L t?- II I It)'
II II
7~/3/
.
.
.
\?<(p
\-f(; VJ
Animal Services Commercial Activities include the services relating to the storage, maintenance, grooming or
keeping of household or other animals.
Section 19.82.28 - Animal Services Commercial Activities
Section 19.82.29 - Transport and Warehousing Commercial Activities
Transport and Warehousing Conunercial Activities include the provision of warehousing and storage, freight
handling, shipping, and trucking services.
Section 19.82.30 - Building Maintenance Services Commercial Activities
Building Maintenance Services Commercial Activities include the provision of services to buildings involving
cleaning, maintenance. custodial and security.
S<.'Ction 19.82.31 - Funeral and Interment Services Commercial Activities
Funeral and Interment Services Commercial Activities include the provision of undertaking and funeral services
involving the care and preparation of the human deceased prior to burial.
Section 19.82.32 - AthletiC and Recrmtional Commercial Activities
AthJdic~~dRecrc;ationiilConiniet'ci81Atti"itiesinelude th" provision pf servi"",; relati",g to conunercial sp<>1t and
(~#~.~q@!::#~J#.mf!~~<~:lJ.4h:'~>g9I(~r-ri:ij_~':f~$#~:::]Ji~~J!6~:@ig~#\~:~4.:f~J#t~:f#S!~f#i-6#:'~_t~i:s-6We([~ri::.@fijatlire
golf parks. . .
INDUSTRJAL
Section 19.82.35 - Custom Manufacturing Activities
Custom Manufacturing Activities include the following activities. They also include certain activities accessory
thereto, as specified below.
.'-',
(a) Manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, treatment, or fahrication of the following
products:
Experimental, film, electronic, or testing;
Electronic instruments and devices;
Office computing and accounting machines and typewriters; and Scientific,
electric measuring and control instruments and testing equipment.
(b)
Printing, publishing, and sign-making.
(e)
Accessory uses incidental thereto, including administrative, executive and financial offices and incidental
services, such as restaurants to serve employees, when conducted on the premises; wholesale business
storage or warehousing for products of the types permitted to he manufactured in the zone; other accessory
uses and huildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use.
(d)
Retail sales of products produced or manufactured on the site.
- 8 -
LGf
I I
/{
11/
? --/J~
rJl)
'?
,'=-
~~J
Large or Specialty Animal Raising Agricultural Activities include the raising, keeping, grazing
or feeding of large or specialty animals for pets, zoos, animal products, animal increase, or
value increase.
Section 19.82.42 - Large or Specialty Animal Raising Agricultural Activities
~
Section 19.82.43 - Agricultural Packing and Processing Activities
Agricultural Packing and Processing Activities include the packing, cleaning or processing of
fish, meat, eggs, dairy or produce.
Section 19.82.44 - Agricultural Supplies and Services
Agricultural Supplies and Services include the sale or services relating to agricultural operations,
typically intended to enhance crop yields through fertilization, pest control, and other treatment
or assistance.
CIVIC
Scction 19.82.50 - Esscntial Service Civic Activities
Essential Service Civic Activities include the maintenance operations of the following
installations.
(a)
Electric, gas, and telephone distribution lines and poles, and water, storm drainage and
sewer lines, with incidental appurtenances thereto, but excluding electric transmission
lines.
--.,
(b) Parks and botanical gardens, but excluding playgrounds, playing fields, bandstands,
auditoriums, and similar assembly areas.
(c) Freeways, rapid transit routes, streets, alleys, and paths, but excluding uses on, under,
or over such ways, which uses are not customarily appurtenant thereto.
Section 19.82.51 - Limited Child-Care Civic Activities
Limited Child-Care Civic Activities include the provision of day-care service for eight or fewer
children.
Section 19.82.52 - Rcsencd, Child-Care Civic Activities
Child-Care activities to provide da)'/nighfcareserVicesform<i~thaneight children.
Section 19.82.53 - Community Assembly Civic Activities
Community Assembly Civic Activities include the activities typically performed by, or at, the
following institutions or installations. ~
(a) Churches, temples, and synagogues.
-11-
. L~ t-
I}
1/
/Iz 7 --I :1)
.
Sc'Ction 19.82.59 - Utility and Vehicular Civic Activities
\1,9
s
~l'
Utility SRd Vehicular Civic Activities include the maintenance and operation of the following installations.
(8) CSRlffiYRisatisRS BEJ.uipmBRt iRsta1latisR6 &:REi BXGR8:Rges.
(8) Eleetrieal SHBstatieas.
w (%1 Emergency hospitals operated by a public agency.
(d) Cas 6ub6l<ltiaRs.
W (h) Neighborhood newscarri.er distribution centers.
(41 m Police stations and fire stations.
~ ~$ Post offices, but excluding major mail-processing centers.
Section ...19 :82:60UiiliiYqvicAct,vities
lJ(:il.itY;-ci}'iq:::ll~tivi.[i~jri_~t.'~~e-_tbe.'ri:1ainte~#~:'-aod ",()perati~n-oftbe':Jollowi oginstaIlations:
(a) . G9:hti.]_~ip.~~?~,:.~_l1iP.f.D~fti(i.~t1LIhlti(),~~':_8itC1C~~C.hang~:
(b) Electrical substations.
. (c) .GaS.~bstations;
.
-13-
--/-- f!.- P
4/ I '-,5
I - /1
/' --/10
S<'Ction 19.84.04 - Commercial: Office Park PenniUed Uses
~P
\\';;>
f;"
~
"'.
All lands designated on Map I, Land Use Controls, with a Commercial: Office Park designation shall be permitted
to accommodate the following uses:
Food. Service Commercial
Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
Medical Service Commercial
General Personal Service Conunercial
General Retail Sales Commercial
Consultative and Financial Commercial
Administrative Commercial
Business and Communication Service Commercial
Group Assembly Commercial
Parking Services Civic
Community Assembly Civic
Non-Assembly Cultural Civic
Administrative Civic
Special Signs
Development Signs
Realty Signs
Civic Signs
Business Signs
S<'Ction 19.84.05 - Commercialllighway-Related PenniUed Uses
All lands designated on Map I, Land Use Controls, with a commercial Highway.Related designation shall be
permitted to acconunodate the following uses:
........
Food Sales Commercial
Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
Transient Habitation Commercial
Automotive Servicing Commercial
Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial
Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
Group Assembly Commercial
Parking Services Civic
Community Assembly Civic
Administrative Civic
Utilily Civic
Utility and Vehicular Civic
Special Signs
Development Signs
Realty Signs
Civic Signs
Business Signs
.-.,
7~/(/
-18-
..,(~t -
!/
If
1/';/
{f
.
.
.
S~'Ction 19.84.06 - Commercial. Marine-Related Permitted Uses
~
V
<:-V}
All lands designated on Map 17 Land Use Controls, with a Commercial Marine-Related designation shall be
permitted to accommoda.te the following uses:
Food Sales Commercial
Food Seryice Conunercial
Convenience Sales and Service Conunercial
General Retail Sales Conunercial, limited to boating and yachting sales, including ship chandleries
Retail Business Supply Commercial, for marine-related businesses only
Transient Habitation Commercial
Boat Sales or Rental Conunercial
Boat Servicing Commercial
Boat Repair and Cleaning Commercial
Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
Parking Services Civic
Community Assembly Civic
Non-Assembly Cultural Civic
v!imyffii,Y\B
Utilil)' llJIG Vehicular Civic
Special Signs
Developrne~[ Signs
Really Signs
Civic Signs
Business Signs
S~'Ction 19.84.07 - Commercial Specialty Retail Pemlitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted within areas designated Commercial Specialty Retail on Map I, Land Use
Controls, provided that the Cily of Chula Vista may approve a single site, to be used for Commercial Specially
Retail within three months after request for any site by the landowner with submission of a statement documenting
the relative attributes of the various sites, any of which may be selected with regard to (he potential for specialty
retail:
Food Service Commercial
Convenience Sales and Service Conunercial
General Personal Service Commercial
Group Assembly Commercial
Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
Essential Service Civic
Parking Services Civic
Limited Child-Care Civic
Community Assembly Civic
Non-Assembly Cultural Civic
Special Signs
Development Signs
Realty Signs
Civic Signs
Business Signs
7 ~/t/ ;L
-19-
-I--~
f)
r -
II' - / !'::J-
Seetion 19.84.11 - Wetlands and Buffers
(:;,0
il\'='
o
'?J
The following uses shall be permitted within lands designated as Wetlands and Buffers, on Map
I, Land Use Control: .-.,
Restoration or enhancement of wetlands areas, with development or construction limited to
interpretive facilities which will preserve natura! resource or habitat values.
Section 19.84.12 - Industrial: General Pennitted Uses
All land designated on Map 1, Land Use Controls, as Industrial: General shall be permitted
to accommodate the following use classifications:
Food Service Commercial
COlwenience Sales and Service Commercial
Business and Communication Service Commercial
Retail Business Supply Commercial
Research and Development Commercial
Genera! Wholesale Sales Commercial
Transportation and Warehousing Commercial
Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
Custom Industrial
Light Industrial
General Industrial
Essential Service Civic
Special Signs
Development Signs
Realty Signs
Civic Signs
Business Signs
-...
Section 19.84.13 - Industrial General Conditionally Pennitted Uses
~S!~~~(~h~Mt~~~0a~4J~~~~~~~~J~~t~~~:g~~:~b~~ell~~:..~
Educational Services Commercial Activities
Child-Ca:feCivic Activities
Utility Civic Activities
All lands within the W!~~q~ry;~! designated on Map 1, Land Use Controls, for Industrial:
General Use, shallbepermlttedioaccommodate the following use classifications pursuant to the
Conditional Use Procedure at Chapter 19.14:
~tH!~g~;~g;~~&~g&niH&Qmm~E~;!%Sy~q~~
Automotive Sales (New), Rental & Delivery and Accessory Commercial Activities
Automotive Servicing Commercial Activities
Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial Activities
Boat Sales or Rental Commercial Activities
Boat Servicing Commercial Activities
-21 -
7---/t/y
~ ,C (!, fJ - I~I /,1 b ~
~
.
Animal Services, (continued)
Dog Bathing Dog Clipping Dog Training Services
Dog and Cat Hospital
Guard Dog Training
Horse Training
Pet Clinics
Pet Grooming
Pet Motels
Public Corrals
Public Stables
Riding Clubs
Veterinary Hospital (large animals)
Veterinary Hospital (small animals)
Transport and warehousing
.
auto Storage Garages
Distributing Plants
Freight Handling
Moving and Storage Firms
Parcel Delivery Truck Fleets
Private Storage Public Warehouses
Refrigerated Warehouses
Storage Yards
Storage, Cold and Food
Trucking Terminals
Warehouses
Athletic and Recreational
commerp,i,a1.;.Sport:and... Recreati6rialEnterpr iSes
GOlf Qt;ivirigRange:s . .
6;~~;~~.l~~s~~~;(~f anac~b!euse)
Recre<itl6rialcenters ..... .
.
)--/(1
i-f!.
- 13 -
Appendix A
/)
, ~
~o
.;,
,)'
~
, J
I {
/17
CQN1M.E:RctAt
Building Maintenance Services
Disinfecting and/or Exterminating Services
Gardeners (landscape maintenance)
Janitorial Services
Maintenance and Custodial Services
Sewer and Drain Cleaning
Sweeping Services
Window Cleaning Services
Funeral Interment Services
Cinerarium
Columbariums
Crematories
Crematori u ms
Funeral Parlors
Mausoleums
Mortuaries
Undertaking Establishments
EducatiQnal Services
Colle"esand Univer,;ities
::;:::>::::/::"::::f':::,:::::-::"':::::::;::?'::-::'<:;:':::,::;::::;:;,:::":::;.:,:::::,:-;;,,,;;::,:.:::.:>
Tiade, VOCatlon<lland:'!:'echnicaLSchoolS
-14-
Appendix A
7--/ff
"I- e. f.
vO
,':J
JI
X,
V
.......
""""
---,
I )
I (
/I!
CIVIC
.
Essential Service
Electric Distribution Lines and Poles
Gas Distribution Lines
Open Space (of a passive use)
Paries, Public (passive use only)
Sewer Collection Lines
Storm Drainage Collection Lines
Telephone Distribution Lines and Poles
Water Distribution Lines
Limited Child Care
Public Day Centers (for eight or fewer children)
Public Nurseries (for eight or fewer children)
gm(~iQiN
~;~i'~~ii~m~I,lif~!I~~~~!mirEW1~IS#)
Community Assemhly
Amusement Parks ..~-
Aquariums
Auditoriums
. Bandstands (public)
Birtb Control Clinics
Botanical Gardens
Camping Areas (non-profit)
Carnivals
Churches
Circuses
Community Centers
Community Health Clinics
Convalescent Hospitals
Exhibition Halls
Extended Care Facilities
Fairgrounds
Golf Courses
Historic Sites
Hospitals
Marinas (public)
Meeting Halls
Monument Sites
Neighborhood Centers
Nursing Homes
Open Space Areas (of an active use)
Parks
Picnicking Areas (public)
Places of Worship
.Iaygrounds and Playing Fields (of an active outdoor use)
Public Health Services
Recreation Centers
-[7-
Appendix A
~C>
\'J
..)
9;V;
7---/t/?
.i- (! ;?
/I
II
lif
I (
'Jtility all4 Vehicular
~
.'0
\)'
~y
--.
Airports
Bus Stations (passenger or freight)
Cinerariums
Columbariums
Communication Equipment Installations and Exchanges
Community Antenna Television Systems
Corporation Yards (public or private utility)
EI8etFie TrBAsmissisn LiRes
ebGtAe SUBstatisRS
Fire Stations
Funeral Parlors
Gas SI:iBstatisns
Heliports and Helistops
Mail Processing Centers (major)
Mortuaries
Police Stations
Post Offices
Po"'.r Plants (st"""'_ fossil)
PUFRpin; Statisas (58"'8g8 sr "'aler)
Radio Transmission Facilities (including booster and relay)
Rail Stations (passenger or freight) .
Reser'sirs (water)
Service Buildings (in public parks, playgrounds, or golf courses
TelcpFi8Re EJ(eFi8nge sr ~>::iteRiRg Faeili.tiss
Tele"isien Tcsasmissi8n Fseilities (inelyding BBBster aRa relay)
Transportation Terminals
Undertaking Establishments
'lIater TanJ.~s
'}later Treatment Faeilities
......."
Utilil
......... ..1
~:~:~~.I.:&~~d~?n.liiii:S
Gas. SubstationS
Power PlantS (stbriti,fossil)
.=:-~
-19-
Appendix A
?/f/7
k ~ iP - / / - <,1/)
, (( (
......."
.
.
.
ORDINANCE 2545
s~co
'lVD R
'E:,{jD,,,,,
G ,{jIVD
,(jDOp
I/O",
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS-93-17/19 AND ADDENDUM THERETO AND ADOPTING LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) NO. 11 AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE CHULA
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 19, ZONING CHAPTER 19.07.035 AND APPENDIX A
RELATING TO THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW CERTAIN LAND USE
CATEGORIES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL: GENERAL
LAND USE DESIGNATION WITHIN THE LCP
WHEREAS, on January 27, 1993 the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista conducted
a public hearing to consider Amendment No. II to the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Bayfront Specific
Plan and recommended that the City Council approve Amendment No. II to the certified LCP and Bayfront Specific
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Agency of the City of Chula Vista has considered the information in Negative
Declarations IS-93-17/19 and Addendum thereto; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista conducted a public hearing
on March 23, 1993 and considered Amendment No. 11 to the certified LCP and Bayfront Specific Plan; and,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION I:
That the following section of the certified Chula Vista Local
Coastal Program, to wit: the Chula Vista Municipal Code Title
19, Zoning, Chapter 19.07.035 section IV., C. 2. b. relating
to the Bayfront Specific Plan be amended as follows:
IV.
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
C.
Industrial Land Use District
2. General - Industrial: All lands on Exhibit #3, Land Use Districts, designated as General
- Industrial shall be pennitted to accommodate uses as follows:
b. Conditionally Pennitted Uses:
I) Automotive Sales (New), Rental & Delivery and Accessory Commercial
Activities
2) Automotive Servicing Commercial Activities
3) Automotive Repair and Cleaning Commercial Activities
4) Boat Sales or Rental Commercial Activities
5) Boat Servicing Commercial Activities
~... ..........\.~1~1~~W~~II'~i!!i\#!.Yilj~
- Added Text
7-1
I-
'1;{
,
,
'-.'.
SECTION II: That Appendix A to the <:;ortified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, attached hereto as
Exhibit I, and as though fully set forth herein, is hereby readopted into, and made a part
of the Bayfront Specific Plan; and
........"
SECTJONm>- ------ Appendi"A is hereby amended- as fo!tows:
APPENDIX A
COMMERCIAL
Building Maintenance Services
Disinfecting and/or Exterminating Services
Gardeners (landscape maintenance)
Janitorial Services
Maintenan'ce and Custodial Services
Sewer an'd Drain Cleaning
Sweeping Services
\Vindow Cleaning Services
Funeral Interment Services
Cinerarium
Columbariums
Crematories
Crematoriums
Funeral Parlors
Mausoleums
Mortuaries
Undertaking Establishments
........"
Educational. Senices
Colleges and Universities
Trade, Vocational and Tecluikal S
-14-
Appendix A
........"
./7[1 r;).
'(;~
Public Hearing:
Schedule update
MunicipaL\~e .
di\ \ ~ J
A ot..~~Rce .<5'., ? Amending Sections 9.12.160,
'0\~C9~13.050, 13.14.090, 13.14.100, 13.14.110,13.14.120
~~ and 13.14.150 of the Municipal Code and adding new
cCO~O Sections 5.36.035 and 15.36.015 of the Municipal
~~ Code relating to feeg('nd service charges.
":\ 1> Resolution 17tJ'I Amending the Master Fee
'~~ 0~~~ Schedule to effect changes in designated existing
3\~~\q) fees and addition of new fees.
.
.
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting
~~
Item:
Date: ~ 1/3/1.3
ITEM TITLE:
Consideration of Master
and related changes in
Fee
the
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Fina~e~
Revenue Manager
Administrative ~ alyst Young~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager tJ ("/5ths ~ote: Yes_ No X)
(NOTE: Following the opening of the public hearing on March 16,
several items have been added to this agenda statement to address
some of the questions posed by Council. Each of these additions
has been placed in boldface type. Further response to Council
inquiries will be provided either on Friday or as part of the ataff
report at the time of the public hearing.)
The portion of the Master Fee Schedule update completed on April
28, 1992, amended several titles of the Municipal Code and made
related changes in the Master Fee Schedule document. These
changes, which did not include changes in existing fee levels,
represented Phase I of the first comprehensive review of the City's
fees since 1987. At the time of final approval of the FY 92-93
budget, Council considered several revenue options and directed
staff to bring forward the second phase of the Master Fee Schedule
update. Having obtained recommendations from various Boards and
Commissions, solicited feedback from interested community and
business groups, and advertised the public hearing, staff is now
submitting Phase II of the update to:
1). Make several administrative and technical changes in the
Municipal Code relating to the assessment of fees.
2). Update designated existing fees to account for increases in
costs; Make adjustments in fees to provide for more equitable
and accurate cost assessment; Propose adoption of new fees
fr..1
/1-1 -
for recently evolved services or for special services
currently being provided at no additional charge. ~
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Adopt Ordinance amending several sections of the Municipal
Code relating to fees and service charges.
2. Adopt Resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule to effect
changes in designated existing fees and add new fees.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Proposed changes in Building
and Housing and Library fees have been submitted to and recommended
for approval by the Board of Appeals and Advisors and Library
Board, respectively (See minutes; Attachment #5). Proposed changes
in Parks and Recreation to adopt non-resident fees were submitted
to the Parks and Recreation Commission but were presented to
Council separately. Prior to bringing the full proposal forward to
the City Council, staff presented the package to the Chamber of
Commerce on February 2, and to the Economic Development Commission
on March 3. Each body posed several questions for staff which are
addressed in Attachment #8. The Chamber's position on the proposal
is included in that attachment. The EDC has decided not to take an
official position on the proposal.
DISCUSSION:
.-."
1. BACKGROUND
While a primary mission of government is to satisfy community needs
such as police and fire protection, many city services solely
benefit specific individuals or businesses. It has been the
general policy of the City Council that the public at large should
not subsidize activities of such a private interest through general
tax revenues. Therefore, the City has established user fees to
best ensure that those who use a proprietary service pay for that
service in proportion to the benefits received. With few
exceptions, such as those services provided for low-income
residents, fees have been set to enable the city to recover the
full costs of providing those services.
Types of Fees
Typically, fees take one of three forms: flat fees, multi-level
fees, and variable fees based on costs (deposits).
Flat fees are preferable in most cases due to their ease of
administration. and collection. Where the annual volume of an
activity is high and the per-project costs are reasonably stable,
Page 2
-.,
--TI
tit
.
flat fees have been based on the average transaction costs for
services provided (e.g. $50 processing fee for satellite dish
variance). Since the time of the last comprehensive update of the
Master Fee Schedule in 1987, however, inflationary factors have
diminished the ability of certain flat fees to recover the City's
costs. If flat fees are not subject to regular updates and service
levels are maintained, then as costs for providing services
increase, general tax dollars will increasingly subsidize the
City's costs for providing these services.
Variable fees adjust for inflation automatically by requiring a
deposit from which actual costs are debited and any unspent balance
is refunded. If the costs of a particular service differ with the
size or complexity of the project, deposit-based fees provide for
a more equitable assessment of those costs than would be possible
through a flat fee. Thus, for example, citizens who petition for
annexation to the city are charged for only the actual staff time
spent on their projects rather than paying "average" processing
costs. Variable fees are difficult to administer, but since they
automatically correct for changes in service costs, increased
efficiency, and fluctuations in requested or mandated service
levels, they seldom require updating.
Multi-level fees serve as a convenient middle ground. These fees
are used when the cost of service provision is clo~ely correlated
to a specific project factor. Two or more fee levels are set and
the level of the fee is determined by objective measurable criteria
(e.g. site plan and architectural approval fees are recommended to
range from $0-$720 depending on building valuation) Multi-level
fees thus offer the stability and administrative ease of flat fees
and the enhanced equity of deposits. As with flat fees, however,
these fees must be updated periodically to ensure that the City'S
general tax support for these services remains at a consistent
level.
Update Criteria
A prime consideration in this update has been how changes in fees
would impact local citizens and businesses. Staff has endeavored
in its recommendations to maintain equity through variable and
multi-level fee structures and to keep increases in flat fees
moderate wherever possible.
Proposals for flat and multi-level fee revisions in the attached
resolution were formulated in terms of staff time, hourly salaries,
benefits, administrative overhead, and postage and material costs.
To ensure that these figures provided the most accurate cost
estimates, the indirect cost allocation (overhead) factors were
recalculated in conjunction with this update using current budget
figures for salaries and benefits. For the most part, the fee
proposals reflect the effects of inflation on salary and supply
. Page 3
~~.3
/4-3
costs since 1987. In some cases, however, increases in efficiency
or streamlining efforts have mitigated the effects of inflation by
reducing the amount of staff time required to provide the service.
Variable, deposit-based fees were similarly reviewed for equity and
cost recovery. These fees required few adjustments because charges
are based on actual hours worked given the employees' current
hourly and overhead rates.
.........
Service Costs
Prior to and concurrent with this update, staff has been working to
minimize costs of city services, simplify the development process
and provide for decreases in fees where appropriate. Through the
annual budget process for fiscal year 1993-94, staff is identifying
potential cuts of 2%, 5% and 10% in department operating budgets
and conducting a review of development services staffing. After a
similar process for FY 1992-93, the city eliminated expenditures
totaling $778,000 (1. 5% of the operating budget), instituted a
temporary hiring freeze and approved negotiating with employee
associations on a voluntary work furlough program.
At a time when other jurisdictions have found themselves
overstaffed and have had to implement layoffs, Chula Vista's
conservative hiring practices have allowed the City to maintain one
of the lowest ratios of employees to population in the county.
This low ratio has been accomplished iri spite of increasing
workloads brought on by limits placed on the hiring of outside
consultants.
""'\
Innovative ways of providing similar services are also being
pursued to achieve significant cost savings. In the past year, the
city has entered into cooperative agreements for operation of
library and community center facilities on school sites, marketed
city services (animal control, parking ticket processing) to other
jurisdictions, refinanced long-term debt, purchased SDG&E street
lights to achieve long-term saving on energy costs, implemented
non-resident park and recreation fees, established a non-profit
corporation for lower mailing costs, and increased reliance on
volunteers in both operating and administrative roles.
Service streamlining is also one of the City's primary goals.
Implementation has already begun on an automated permit tracking
system to coordinate plan check activities between departments.
other changes underway include reorganization of committee roles to
eliminate duplication of effort, clarification of project
management responsibilities to reduce the time required to bring a
project to approval, automation of engineering department functions
and establishment of a computerized geographic information system.
Page 4
"""\
1:r
e
.
.
As these changes reach full implementation, they will result in
significant savings in the time and expense of obtaining permits
and services. In the short term, these effects are passed on
through sliding scale deposit-based fees, through mitigation of
inflationary impacts on other fees, and through approximately 83
fees contained within the fee schedule which are not recommended
for any changes.
Taxes vs. Fees
Although it may not seem appropriate to increase some fees in the
midst of a struggling economy, taking no action would mean that
inflationary impacts on service costs would be borne by the general
taxpayer. Since it has been City policy to charge for these
private-benefit services, subsidizing increased service costs would
thus be a departure from previous policy.
Chula Vista has, however, paid significant attention to the state
of the economy through the levels at which taxes are assessed. In
1991 and 1992 annual reviews of the business license tax and the
transient occupancy tax (paid by hotel patrons), all scheduled
increases in the level of the taxes were abated. For the utility
users tax, the scheduled increase has been abated every year since
1979. If consideration is also given to the limits placed on
property taxes through Proposition 13, the recessionary impact on
real estate prices and the link between sales taxes and consumer
spending, tax assessment and collection have remained very
responsive to ~conomic fluctuations.
PUblic Hearing Process
To prepare for the public hearing, copies of the proposed fees were
sent to individual users of the services or specially impacted
groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Construction Industry Federation)
during the week of January 25. These mailings included a list of
contact people and phone numbers to respond to questions on the
proposal and announced an open forum on the proposal (which was
held on February 25) and a public hearing date of March 16. This
hearing has since been continued to March 23, with legal notices
placed in the star-News on March 13 and 20.
A complete list of those noticed and of comments received on the
basis of this noticing have been included in this packet in
Attachment #8.
Equity and Fee Waivers
Despite staff's attention in the fee schedule to maintaining or
enhancing equity, there may be cases down the road in which
additional consideration will be warranted. Recognizing that,
Page 5
i..S-
~
staff has incorporated the Municipal Code section regarding fee
waivers into Chapter I of the fee schedule for easy reference. ~
According to Code Section 3.45.010, all waiver requests must be
submitted in writing and considered through a public hearing.
(Such a public hearing does not require publication of legal
notices.) Waivers larger than the greater of $2,500 or 25% of the
original fee must be considered by City Council. By following this
policy for all fee waiver requests, the City will ensure that all
those deserving of waivers receive proper and fair consideration.
It should be emphasized, however, that by granting waivers, the
Ci ty does not make the costs disappear. Unless the level of
service is reduced or the costs for providing a given level of
service are reduced, the city continues to incur those costs. But
rather than passing on the cost of that service to the party who
receives the benefit, the City is subsidizing the service with
general tax revenues. As more waivers are granted or as the City
goes longer without adjusting fees, the percentage of that subsidy
grows.
If a particular class of fees is subject to frequent waiver, it is
appropriate to amend the fees or change the policy on their
application. One policy alternative would be to formalize criteria
for waiving fees to encourage economic development. For example,
where the long-term benefit outweighs the amount of a waiver (in
attracting specific types of businesses or businesses within
certain geographic areas), either a partial or full amount of the
fee would be abated and the city's costs would be paid from general
or redevelopment funds. with such arrangements set as policy
instead of being subject to individual hearings, they could be a
powerful tool in marketing investment in Chula Vista.
.-..
At the March 16 meeting, Council directed staff to examine the
impacts that a partial moratorium on fees for affordable housing or
job-creating businesses might have on city services.
On the subject of low-income housing, the city is already very
active in providing support to new projects. In the past year, the
city provided grants totaling $345,000 and a loan of $350,000 to
help support three new affordable housing projects (Dorothy st.
Manor, 22 townhomes, Silvercrest aesidenoe, 75 units, Park Village
Apartments, 28 units). These funds helped support land aoquisition
oosts and payment of applicable development fees. While affordable
housing is also constructed as part of larger-soale planned
oommunities, this is typioally done as a oondition of approval.
One worry is that a moratorium on fee inoreases for low-income or
affordable housing projects could thus represent a paper
transaction understating city subsidies or a discount granted to a
full planned community project and thus may not achieve any real
increase in affordable housing stook. On the other hand, as a
method of encouraging ad hoc affordable housing projeots, such a
Page 6
~
4', V
-:\4. t,
.
.
.
waiver, either total or reduced to the current fee level, would
help fulfill the City's policy of encouraging affordable housing.
Non-development items related to affordable housing include only
the proposed change in housing permit fees (which would cost an
average of $1 additional per multi-family housing unit) and the
ordinance change to raise the minimum income threshold (expanding
eligibility) for low-income senior citizen exemptions from utility
user's tax.
On the subject of future businesses and/or manufacturers, staff has
discussed this concept with Community Development staff and
proposes to bring forward a report on potential waivers, deferrals
or other consideration for qualifying businesses within proposed
bio-technoloqy zones, proposed border environmental zones and/or
redevelopment project areas. This proposal would be structured to
serve the City'S long-term economic development interests, and by
targeting the areas for incentives, could achieve that goal without
"giving away the store" in the form of broad general fund subsidies
to all new development. Specific criteria for waiver or deferral
consideration and data on operating revenue impacts would be
determined in conjunction with the ongoing development of the
proposed zoning categories.
The Planning Department will be returning to Council in April to
present a report on waiver pOlicies as they relate to non-prOfit
entities and churches. To date, most of these non-profit entities
have paid all required fees. Recently, waivers have been granted
for some planning department fees. All such requests have been
processed according to the existing waiver policy.
Since the proposed development fee changes would not be effective
for 60 days following approval of the resolution, and since these
two reports are expected to come forward within that time frame,
Council would be able to consider all waiver issues and their
fiscal impacts prior to any new fees taking effect.
2. FEE PROPOSALS
Recommended changes have been grouped into four categories detailed
below. A complete summary of the fee update recommendations which
follows the same categories is included as Attachment #1. Staff's
cost analyses have been made available in binder form to the
Council with an additional copy available through the City Clerk
. for public review. The figures from staff's analysis were modified
in some cases (e.g. returned check fees) to recognize market forces
or legal constraints which preclude recovery of all associated
costs.
For comparison purposes, a copy of the 1992 Construction Industry
Federation Regional Fee Survey has also been included (Attachment
Page 7
~'7
-rcr=r
#6). However, since many of the fees compared are deposit-based, ~
it is difficult to provide an exact comparison of fee levels in
different cities.
A. Increases in Existing Fees
In light of the fact that the vast majority of fees addressed in
this update have not been revised in six years, the analysis
outlined above uncovered several areas where the existing fees were
no longer sufficient to recover costs.
Plumbing permit fees are a good example of this. These fees were
set in 1987 to recover staff time costs for plan check and
inspection of various plumbing systems and fixtures as listed in
the Uniform Plumbing Code. Although the staff costs have gone up
since then, Chula Vista's fees have stayed the same. Thus, a fee
which once recovered the cost of a half-hour of staff time may now
be recovering only 15 minutes of staff costs.
Sewer construction fees are also set at flat rates and all of these
costs have risen significantly since the last fee update. The new
fees have been set in consideration of the extensive labor,
equipment and material cost data contained in the Public
WorkS/Operations Work Management System.
While electrical permit fees have been updated in response to """
similar cost increases, the principal recommendation is a new fee
structure for set-ups and fixtures not specifically addressed in
the previous fee schedule (e.g. carnivals, outdoor signs). This
structure would mirror the outline of the National Electrical Code,
which more accurately identifies the scope of electrical
installations and practices than the current "per ampere" format.
The schedules and fees recommended for electrical and other
building-related fixtures are industry standards, the adoption of
which would bring Chula Vista in line with charges assessed by
other jurisdictions.
For the processing of returned checks, the Uniform Commercial Code
allows businesses to charge treble damages. This provision has not
yet been extended to cities. Until recently, cities have only been
allowed to charge a "reasonable" fee not to exceed $10. Because
the costs of internal processing and bank clearing fees are much
higher, a recent assembly bill (AB 2274) which is effective January
1, 1993, has revoked this $10 restriction in favor of full cost
recovery (FCR). Staff proposes following the lead of AB 2274 and
adopting a fee of $25 per returned check, with a discounted fee of
$15 for payments received within 10 calendar days after the first
collection notice. .
Following a straight cost recovery calculation, the cost of zoning
permit processing has risen from $15 to $45. Since these permits ~
Page 8
y,,1
-tY-~'
.
.
.
are required to investigate the potential impacts of new land uses,
consideration has been given to the burden these fees place
specifically on new businesses. Also considered was the extent and
significance of the proposed change in use and the variation in the
staff time required for processing routine start-ups in existing
buildings, significant changes in use, and delinquent or "after the
fact" zoning. staff's recommendation is to adopt the new $45 fee
only for those permits for which applications are not filed prior
to business start-up or building occupancy. All other new
businesses would remain subject to the existing $15 fee.
Although a few of the fee increases may seem extreme on a
percentage basis, it is important to consider the changes that have
taken place since some of the fees were last updated. Review of
most environmental impacts is done by deposit due to the
significant variation in environmental concerns from one project to
the next. Where a previous initial study or negative declaration
is to be used, staff felt that a deposit was not necessary. But
because the fee for such review had not been updated in six years
and the amount of staff time required for a thorough environmental
review has increased, staff has updated the fee accordingly.
Perhaps the best example of a fee in need of updating is the fee
for a certificate of compliance. This fee, which is charged to
recover the cost of verifying legal property line aqjustments, was
added to the Municipal Code in 1974. Since the number of annual
requests for such work is minimal (approximately three per year),
the fee was overlooked when the Master Fee Schedule was first
compiled and in subsequent updates. Thus, while the increase from
a $25 fee to a $200 fee might seem inordinate, the proposed change
reflects the true cost of the service and brings the certificate of
compliance into agreement with other similar planning fees (e.g.
adjustment plat examination). Xf this increase were to be phased
in, perhaps going to a $100 fee for the next 12 months, the effect
on city revenues would be $225 (an impact $300 lower than that of
the proposed fee level).
B. Adjustments to Existing Fees
A second category of recommended changes are those that will
result, not in increased fees, but rather in lower, clarified or
more equitable fees.
Dog license fees are a good example of an area where staff has
recommended different procedures and fee structures Which would
effectively reduce the cost for providing a similar level of
service. This is an optimal solution as fees do not have to be
raised significantly, but neither do general city funds have to be
diverted from other services.
Page 9
<?-'7
ILf-?---
The city issues one, two and three year dog licenses.. While the ~
costs for issuing each license are the same, "issuing three one-year
licenses requires three times the staff work, supply and postage
costs needed for issuing one three-year license. Therefore, a
small fee break has been given to those purchasing longer term
licenses.
In this update, rather than increasing fees across the board, staff
recommends minimal increases in three-year licenses and much larger
increases in shorter-term licenses. This will encourage the
purchase of longer-term licenses and enable Chula Vista's fees to
remain lower than those of other County cities. License fees were
actually reduced (20%) for dogs under six-months-old which are only
eligible for a one-year license due to vaccination an neutering
restrictions. The 50% discount for dogs which have been spayed or
neutered is recommended to continue unchanged. These proposed
changes will not result in added revenue, but will reduce the cost
of providing the service so fee levels can be maintained. Since
compliance with animal license requirements is important for public
health reasons, fees have been set at a level below full cost so as
not to discourage licensing.
Among other fees staff is proposing to amend, the existing Master
Fee Schedule contains fees for copying of documents which charge
higher rates for the first page copied or for different types or
sizes of paper. Through more thorough cost estimation, these fees
have been simplified (to one flat rate) and the cost to the public ~
reduced.
Additional charges for after-hours public works inspections were
established prior to implementation of indirect cost allocation
standards. This charge is, therefore, being decreased to reflect
more accurately actual overtime costs. A replac_ent page (Pg. 47)
included in the fee schedule also reflects staff's intent to
recover applicable benefit and overhead (FeR) costs. This change
would have a minimal net impact.
Traffic signal participation fees are recommended to increase from
$10 to $13 per average daily trip (ADT). All other things being
equal, this would represent a 30% fee increase. However, since the
San Diego Association of Governments' (SANOAG) calculation of
residential AOTs has dropped from 12 to 10, the net effect is an
increase of only 8% (from $120 to $130) per equivalent dwelling
unit of development.
When golf course greens fees were updated last summer, an effort
was made to discount costs to residents. That same methodology has
also been applied to adjustments in animal relinquishment fees and
increases in charges for business-related fingerprinting. Both
these fees apply to a considerable number of non-residents. The
proposed resident rates represent a discount from the non-resident
level.
~
Page 10
~~/D
) L/ - ;f)-
.
e
.
Several fees that to this point have been at flat rates are
recommended to be set as deposits or at multiple levels depending
on the amount or complexity of staff work required. This will mean
higher fees for some people and lower fees for others, but the
burden of the fees will be distributed more equitably (e.g.
processing an application for waiver of public improvements is
recommended to change from a flat fee of $284 to a deposit. Thus,
if the end cost is only $200, the applicant would be able to
receive an $84 refund). The net fiscal impact for the City in most
of these cases is negligible and, where appropriate, has been shown
as "N/A" or "Minimal net impact" on Attachment #l.
Also deserving of special note among the fee adjustments, sewer
capacity charges have been updated to incorporate a more accurate
methodology for estimating sewer facility needs. Sewer flow is
typically estimated according to land use and building square
footage. Through a shift toward equivalent fixture units (EFUs) _
a measure which puts more emphasis on the number of drains, sinks
and plumbing fixtures - staff will be able to make a more accurate
assessment of the capital costs of increasing sewer capacity. As
a result, many commercial developments with low water usage will be
subject to a lower sewer capacity charge.
The revenue not collected because of these adjustments would have
paid for facility expansions which the new EFU calculations
indicate should not be necessary. Such adjustments must be made
from time to time to ensure that an enterprise fund continues to
collect its actual costs. Thus, just as inflationary and treatment
cost increases necessitated recent increases in sewer service
charges, a reassessment of the costs covered by sewer capacity
charges necessitates a decrease in the assessments against certain
land uses.
C. New Fees
A third category addressed in this update is new fees which have
not been previously adopted by the Council. While the basic city
services remain somewhat constant, new services frequently evolve
which merit individual attention in the Master Fee Schedule.
Through frequent updates of the Uniform Building Code and passage
of additional mandates, the building process has changed
considerably over the years. In order to keep up with these
changes, the language in the Municipal Code must evolve as well.
Proposed additions in this area include fees for certificates of
occupancy, foundation-only building permits and applications for
appeals hearings. Fees have also been proposed for strong motion
instrumentation, plan maintenance and mobile home park inspections,
each of which is mandated by the State.'
Page 11
y"/I
)Lj-II
Currently, planning fees are collected for initial plan check on a
project. These fees do not recover costs for additional review ~
necessitated by changes made in those plans during construction.
A new fee has thus been calculated to capture the cost of both
summary and on-site review of these construction changes.
Cities occupy a unique position in providing access to and
preserving public records. Advances in technology and data
management have expanded cities I capabilities in this field to
include conducting computer searches, generating printouts and
providing copies of data on magnetic media. As the public's
demands have evolved, the City has responded by tailoring new
reports such as business license listings to annual or monthly
requests. Other new services related to technological change
include fees for faxing city documents and for processing lost
library materials through the City's new automated circulation
system.
In the existing Master Fee Schedule, there are delinquency fees
assessed for late payment of sewer service and pump station
maintenance charges. These fees pass on the added processing and
collection costs to the delinquent payee instead of subsidizing
those costs through the general fund. Staff recommends extending
this provision to cover certain other fees susceptible to late
payment, namely industrial wastewater discharge permit fees,
downtown improvement district assessments and alaPm pePmi~ fees
false alarm assessments (see replacement Pg. 20). Bach of these
fees would be added to the amount of the original charge for re- ~.
invoicing. Thus, if the false alarm charge due is $25 and the
payment is more than a month late, the customer would receive a
revised bill for $27.50, not a separate bill for $2.50.
Staff has also added a reference to delinquent payment in the
definitions section of the fee schedule introduction to standardize
the application of these fees.
Recognizing the potential for environmental damage or explosion
associated with the installation and removal of storage tanks for
flammable and/or combustible liquids, staff is proposing a new fee
to recover the Fire Department's costs for the required
inspections. This fee is one component of the proposed high
hazard/high occupancy fire inspection fee program, the remainder of
which will be presented in a subsequent staff report.
D. Other Changes
Annual subscriptions to agendas and minutes for the City's various
commissions are a special case in that they actually fit into all
three of the above categories. Based on the new copying cost
estimates, the recommendation for this item involves an increase in
one fee, a decrease in another, and the addition of two new fees.
Page 12
""""
~"/~
J ~ -);t:
.
.
The new fees are being proposed to recognize the fact that some
people wish to subscribe to either the agendas or the minutes but
not both, as the fee currently provides.
Al though fees for swimming classes are shown as increasing and
daily and annual swimming passes are shown as new fees, these
proposals are just a reflection of what is already listed in the
department program brochure. These fees have been assessed under
the general authority provided for all Parks and Recreation
activities and classes and, with the other recreation fees, listed
in the seasonal brochure. What differentiates swimming fees from
other recreation classes and programs is that they recover far less
than their full cost (for pool maintenance, utilities,
lifeguarding, etc.). To avoid confusion with other fees which have
been set to recover costs, these swimming fees are being
incorporated into the fee schedule. No changes have been
recommended in these fees and their inclusion in the fee schedule
will carry no fiscal impact.
street marking fees do recover their full cost and are shown to be
increasing. Most street marking, however, is done by contract with
developers at the time of street dedication. Since these
agreements are written to require the work be done by the developer
or to have city crews do the work and assess the full project cost,
individual fees have seldom been necessary. The proposed change in
the fees will have no direct bearing on day-to-day operations and
no significant fiscal impact, but will allow for current costs to
be assessed when there is no formal agreement.
Several other fees being added to the fee schedule do not represent
increases in fees but rather administrative corrections or
refundable charges. Bingo license fees and casino party fees have
been authorized since 1982 and 1988, respectively. Their inclusion
in the fee schedule document formalizes investigation fees set
administratively and through Resolution #13439. In the case of
holistic health practitioner business licenses, a new refundable
fee has been proposed to recognize the fact that most applicants
are legitimate business people, but that investigations are
required to discover those who are not. If a police department
investigation finds cause to deny a business license, the fees will
be forfeited. A similar refundable fee was enacted in December for
live entertainment license investigations.
3. MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGES
In consideration of recent and proposed changes in the Master Fee
Schedule and of previously anticipated changes in the sewer billing
process which have not been implemented, staff recommends amending
certain sections of the Municipal Code to avoid ambiguity or
confusion in the interpretation of fees. Five of these changes are
to provide the general authorization or proper reference to the
. Page 13
?,/~
-'4 !-3
I
Master Fee Schedule for fees discussed above (fire inspections,
bingo fees, et al.). None of these changes would have any
independent effect on fee levels.
.......,
with the completion of Phase I of the Master Fee Schedule update,
the table assigning equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for various
land uses in the computation of sewer capacity charges now appears
in the Fee Schedule. Since the table still appears in the
Municipal Code as well, any changes in the table would require both
documents to be amended. To avoid any possible confusion with the
proposed revisions in the Master Fee Schedule, staff recommends
that the relevant text in the code be stricken. This change would
have no impact on the assessment of fees.
Throughout Title 13, several changes are recommended which would
clarify the assessment and collection of sewer service and pump
station charges. None of these changes affects the rates at which
these fees are assessed.
Lastly, the proposed formal adoption of federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) median income figures to
determine low-income discount eligibility led staff to review other
low-income discounts in the city. Staff recommends a change in the
Municipal Code relating to low-income senior citizen discounts on
utility user's tax to remove the specified maximum income threshold
of $7,500 (set in 1976) and instead adopt the annual HUD low-income
standards as currently listed in the fee schedule'. This change
will broaden eligibility for the discount and maintain fairness by .......,
tying the standard to annual changes in median area incomes.
4. FUTURE UPDATES
While this update addresses most of the
Master Fee Schedule, there are some
unresolved.
issues pertinent to the
which are temporarily
Negotiations are proceeding with San Diego County on the provision
of health-related services. These services are generally covered
by Title 8 of the Municipal Code. The anticipated agreement would
continue the County I s role in performing inspections and other
duties as an agent of the City. Since the City is not directly
involved in the billing for these services, the impact on the
Master Fee Schedule and Municipal Code would be primarily
administrative.
Several other fee-related items which are subject to periodic
update have been incorporated by reference into the appendices of
the Master Fee Schedule. As new indirect cost allocation factors
are calculated by Finance, new construction valuations calculated
by Building and Housing, new low-income standards published by HUD,
Page 14
.......,
r )l/ -N-
d~ IIf
.
.
.
or new industries or pollutants listed by the EPA, these appendices
will be updated.
As for the fees themselves, the reorganization of the fee schedule
and the shift toward more multi-level or variable (deposit-based)
fees are an~icipated to mitigate the need for regular comprehensive
updates of the fee schedule. Instead, as individual fees are
proposed or revised, they will be processed according to the form,
context, and pr6cedures developed through this update. While
future comprehensive updates may not be necessary, staff will
continue to reexamine the individual fees on at least a biannual
basis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The estimated fiscal impact of the above changes is an increase of
approximately $299,400 in annual general fund revenues, an increase
of approximately $10,000 in annual traffic sign nd revenues and
a decrease of approximately $237,600 in annu wer revenues.
This yields a net impact across all funds 0 $ 1,800. he impact
on current year revenues would be prorated fro al based on
the date of adoption of the update resolution (except for
development-related fees, for which the effective date is 60 days
after adoption). The total fiscal impact for FY 92-93 would be
approximately $11,000. .
The primary sources of general fund revenue increases are
development-related services which have been updated according to
current staff time costs (e.g. Zoning Administrator design review,
$22,000 impact) or changes in the National and Uniform Codes (e.g.
electrical, $46,075; plumbing, $55,450).
The decrease in sewer fund revenue is due to the restructuring of
sewer capacity charges (-$290,000). This figure represents the
difference between current estimates for facility expansion costs
and new estimates based on the level of expansion indicated by the
revised (EFU) rates of flow. The overall impact on the sewer fund
is lessened somewhat by the fact that several developments have
already been assessed at these new rates via rebates granted on a
case-by-case basis following official appeals.
Categorizing the proposals according to their impacts, this update
would result in total annual impacts of approximately: $10,200 on
development (e.g. plan review, inspections, sewer construction),
$22,600 on businesses (e.g. housing permits, business license _
change of location, street overload, fingerprinting), $800 on
general services (agenda subscriptions, sewer service variances),
and $38,200 on specialized services (e.g. business license listing,
animal impoundment, inspection of underground storage tank removal,
processing of returned checks and delinquent payments). While the
City would receive these revenues on an annual basis, the impacts
Page 15
-
v,/5
-rH5
on residents, non-residents and businesses are primarily one-time.
For "typical" projects or populations, the impacts would be
approximately: +$5,750 for a 25 unit subdivision (an average of
$230 per unit), -$24,000 for a 25,000 sq. ft. commercial space, and
$0 for current residents and existing businesses. Hew businesses
locating in existing buildings would only be impacted by changes in
sign permit tees (-$5 to +$55). The reduction in commercial fees
is primarily due to changes in sewer capacity charges.
~
Exceptions would include higher tees tor dog licenses (avg. $0.33
per year), animal impoundment ($10 more on a second ottense), home
additions ($98 for a "typical" $25,000 addition), massage
establishments ($50 tor investigation), housing permits tor
apartment complexes or hotels (avg. $1 per unit per year), business
license change ot location ($7), and appeals hearings (by deposit:
cost would vary).
Impacts of individual fee increases, adjustments or adoptions are
shown on Attachment #1.
Attachments:
1 - Summary of Updates/Additions
2 - Resolution
3 - Proposed Master Fee Schedule (EXhibit "A")
4 - Ordinance
5 - Board and Commission Recommendations (Minutes)
6 - Construction Industry Federation
Regional Fee Survey - 1992
7 - Council Agenda Statement, Master Fee Schedule
Update, Phase I
8 - Public Input
....."
MFS113II. JY3
Page 16
-.
-1 ~ "-1ft -
.
.
.
CHAPTER VI
Police
A.
ALARMS
1. Alarm Use Permit
A nonrefundable fee shall accompany each application for an alarm user
permit as follows:
a. A fee of ten dollars ($10.00) for both business and residential
applications.
b. A two dollar ($2.00) renewal fee will be required every
twenty-four (24) months.
/Resolution 165791
2.
False Alarm Assessment
When any emergency alarms, messages, signals, or notices are received
by the Communications Center which results in a police response and
in which the alarm proves to be a false alarm, .the owner and/or
occupier of the property shall pay a false alarm assessment to the City
as follows:
a. The first two (2) false alarms within a twelve (12) month period
shall be considered accidental and no fee shall be charged. The
alarm permit applicant shall be notified in writing by the Crime
Prevention Unit after the occurrence of the second false alarm,
notifying him/her that any further false alarms will result in
penalty assessments.
b. For false alarms exceeding the initial two (2) false alarms within
. a twelve (12) month period:
1) Third (3rd) false alarm Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00).
2) Fourth (4th), Fifth (5th) and Sixth (6th) false alarms -
Fifty Dollars ($50.00).
3) All additional false alarms One Hundred Dollars ($100.00)
each.
[Resolution 165791
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter VI . Police
~,/7
Iq +-7
r
Page 19
(Rev. November 16,1992)
f:.
The fee for delinauencv in Davment of a false alarm chame shall
be a basic oonaltv in an amount eaual to ten (10) oorcent of the
false alarm charl!e. Dlus one and one half (1-1/2%) Dercent Der
month for non-Davment of the charl!e and basic DenaItv. -False
alaJ:m. fees .ahaU-lIe-GORSider.ed. .deImllw.ent-i&. llOt-.>>aid-witJUa.3Q
88'\'&-8t: iRStaYatioR <<-tB8-&.arm-&~-
~
B. BICYCLE LICENSE
1. Application
A license fee of one dollar shall be paid in advance to the city before any
such license is granted. Renewals are valid for three years and shall be
indicated by a renewal sticker affixed parallel to and above or below the
license. New registrations require the purchase of a bicycle license (one
dollar) and a renewal sticker valid for three years (three dollars).
[Resolution 165791
C. PROPERTY RECOVERY
1. By Owner
The fee for recovery of property in possession of the police department ~
shall be the City's full cost including overhead and charges for storage.
[Resolution 165791
2. By Finder
The fee for title to property to be vested in the person who found or
saved the property or in the successful bidder at public auction shall be
the City's cost for publication.
[Resolution 165791
-...
Master F~~ Scludule
Part I . G~Mral
Chapter VI - Polk~
~"'Ir
J I / I :'2...
1'1 10
P.,~ 20
(R~v. MfJl'Ch 3, 1993)
.
e
e
6.
Preliminary Parcel Map Fee
Prior to the submission of a prelim;nl'llj' parcel map to the city Engineer
for processing, the property owner shall submit a deposit to cover the
City's full cost including overhead. Should the map be withdrawn at
any time the deposit shall be adjusted to cover the City's actual costs
including overhead up to that time. Said deposit shall not include
checking of any required improvement plans or inspection of
improvements. Fees for encroachment permit, plan review and
inspection shall be computed pursuant to Section XI.B.5 (Open Space
District Enroachment) contained in the master fee schedule.
[Resolution 16579]
7. Public Works Inspection
a. Following Council approval of the final map but prior to the
recordation of said map, the property owner or subdivider shall
submit a deposit to cover the City's full cost of inspection, and
administration during the construction phase of the project,
including plan revisions and any special investigations including
soils and geology reviews and City consultants. The deposit shall
be adjusted to cover the City's full cost, including overhead prior
to acceptance of improvements and/or release of bonds.
b.
In addition to other fees contained in the Master Fee Schedule
relative to Public Works inspections, subdivider or contractor
shall pay to the City, prior to the acceptance of public
improvements in any subdivision or street right-of-way or
easement for public purposes, the sum 3:& 1.5 times the
inspector's hourly rate of pay (aM including fringe benefits and
overhead) per hour for those Public Works inspections
undertaken outside of regular working hours on Saturdays,
Sundays and legal holidays during the course of construction of
any public improvements.
[Resolution 16579]
c. PERMITS
1. Construction Permits
An $8& ~82 administrative fee shall be collected with each application
for a permit to construct public improvements, provided however, that
no such fee is required for the application for a utility construction
permit. Plan Review and Inspection fees shall be. collected as
appropriate. [Resolution 16579]
Master Fee Scludule
Part 11 . Development
Chapter XI . Engineering
~..11
I' 9-
,~ I
Page 47
(Rev. MtIl'Ch 17, 1993)
~ Construction Permits - Utilities
!h The fee for a utility construction permit for a iob for which the
cost of replacement of the surface improvements (includine- the
top three (3) feet of any trench or other excavation) within the
City rie-ht-of-wav. is estimated to be less than ten thousand
dollars ($10.000) shall be $~
""'\
b. The fee for a utility construction permit for a iob for which the
cost of replacement of the surface improvements (includine- the
top three (3) feet of any trench or other excavation) within the
City rie-ht-of-wav. is estimated to be ten thousand dollars
~1O.000) or more. shall be a cash deoosit in an amount sufficient
to cover the City's full cost of administerine- the permit and
inspection of the work. includine- overhead. [Ordinaru:e 25211
3. Construction Security Deposit Bookkeeping Fee
A fee of one percent (1%) of the total amount deposited with the city for
each construction security deposit shall be submitted with each such
bond. [Resolution 165791
4. Driveways; Excessive Width
a. $49lM filing fee
.........
b.
$200 .$250 appeal fee
[Resolution 165791
5. Encroachment Permit, Application
The application fee referred to in Section 12.28.050 of the Municipal
Code shall be:
a. ~ ,$105 for those permits reviewed by the City Engineer; and
b. ~ ,$250 for those reviewed by the City Council.
[Resolution 165791
6. Temporary Encroachment for storae-e ofbuildine- materials in City rie-ht-
of-way Permit Application
$M .$30 nonrefundable application fee
--.,
Master Fee Scheduu
Part II - Development
Chapter Xl - Engineering
Page 48
(Rev. JanUJlry 29, 1993)
'8...~
~
SECTION DI: That Section 9.12.160 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code be amended as
follows:
. Section 9.12.160 Bln&o-Term ofHcense and fees.
A The term of a bingo license Is one year and may be renewed for a period of one
year upon application therefor.
B. The fee fer a Bffige lieeRBe Ma a FeRev.'&llieense Bh&R Be as present:ly aesigBatea.
SF HHlY iB tee ftltlMe Be amended, in the Rl8Ster fee 8ekeeh:tle. The appP6,Flak fee
shaD aeeempany the saemlssisR sf eaeh a"lIeMi8H, &BEl in the evalt an
applieatieR Is aeniea. Rfty pereeHt ef tHe fee skaR Be refwulea.
C. Forll;b~Mq~~3PpMp~tlcm9tr(lt each change in the bingo chairpersons who
will manage the bingo game. there shall be a fee for ~t1p~I~f()r
processing the applicant's fingerprints. aB set feFtli lR the master fee 8eaeat:il.e.
The ItIlprepf'late fee ~~F~(~) shall accompany the submission of each
application. ~j;i.tlj.I::~~(im...APpM~tl,cmJ~9~9;.~~t9f~rf##.!'jtm..QI::
refiliided!
D. A fee ~. not to exceed one percent of the monthly gross receipts over five
thousand dollars derived from bingo games shall be collected monthly by the city.
SECTION IV: That Section 9.12.280 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Is amended to
read as follows:
. Section 9.12.280 Casino Parties-AppHcation. Fee.
An application for a casino party shall be made to the Chief of Pollee on forms
prescribed by the Chief of Police notless than fifteen (15) days prior to the proposed date
of the party. The application shall be accompanied by a fee fer eeRatletffig an
iFr.~atigatieH as set faith in the Af8B~ Fee 8ehestlle as it eti:W~ efBSis 8f' msy in the
ftlhlre Be lffiieRaea tlj.~g~q-u~i!ff##!$). The application for a casino party shall contain
ata minimum the following: . .
A A list of all volunteers who will operate the casino games or devices. including full
names of each volunteer. date ofb1rth. place ofb1rth. physical description. home
address and home telephone number.
. B. Name and address of company or individual that will be furnishing casino
equipment or devices.
C. The date. hours of the date. and place of the proposed casino party.
D.
Casino Manager. Concurrently with the ftl1ng of an application for a casino party
license. each applicant shall me a statement spec1fY1ng the name and address of
two persons who shall manage. supervise and be responsible for the conduct of
the casino party. The casino managers shall be present on the premises at all
times during which a casino party Is being conducted.
.
WPC F:\home\wpc\gc:raJdy\1065I.WPF
''I-'9-J-
~, ,
ff- ~ 3
Attachment #4-3
SECTION V: That Section 9.13.050 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 9.13.050 AppUcation and deposit forUcense.
""'"
The applicant for any license or licenses In this chapter shall Be _tie te tfie elUef
Bf pellee ana shaY he aeeslBfJanieel By a aep881t in the ametlat sf eRe httndPeEl flfiy
eeHMs. VI-hiefi eelleelt sa~ Be BeB Fefi:mdaBle ~yg~9!t~F~~). If the license Is
Issued. said eellesU [~~ shall be &Jl1l1ie8 in t:fte Il&ymeat ef tfie Yeense fee ~~Q!~.
SECTION VI: That Section 13.14.090 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
Is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.090
Sewer Capacity CI1a1'ae.
A: The owner or person making application for a penn1t to develop or modify use of
any residential. commercial. industrial or other property which Is projected by the
Director to Increase the volume of flow In the City sewer system Qy at least
one-half of one equivalent dwelling unit of flow shall pay a Sewer Capacity Charge.
All revenue derived from such fees shall be deposited In the Trunk Sewer Capital
Reserve Fund. The amount of such charge shall be the Required Feels).
B. ORe etllii'lfIleRt e'.velliBg tHlit (gnU) sfilll'\'; Is eefinee te Be 266 geHsne lieF day sf
sewage geBeret:lsB. Tae fee feF IlFl3flerty IwfflWIBg a mstiilleat:lElfl iB liee Sft~
reReet ailly the inerease in B~-;age geReF&t:ien prejeetea waHl tHat prepePly. The
feRe-,;JiAg Fates sf Q6Q; feT -r.~etla land tlSeB sBaY Be tlt:ilmea in aeteHRilllng the
t8t81 fee clue fer any gt-.reR ~repeFty:
""""
Lana Use
EDUa sf RevI
8lRgle family reslaeBee
..^.p&TtIRent/CsFl8eH1iRiHIB lFlImg ttnit
Hssll11&l. Bea
MaBile HBHl.e
'-fetel, hetellY~'ing HAit
Cfiaren, tHeater. BtlEYtanuHi
Per eaea 'tlRlt sf seatID:g eal3aeity
(ORe unit BeiHg 11 e peF8SflB 8F
~- net::isR thereaij
Rest:a.arant
12.671l1tls seating ~8eat:lSft sf
1.0 (er eaeh 10 seata 8f" ft:e.et:t8R
t=Bereaij
1.0
9.76
1.9
1.0
.ag
1.0
1.9
SePL"4ee StatleR
Self S8mee latlReUy per w86fter
Other (see 'Bele-l;)
2.871
-;tlria'Ble
la.69
.76
In the ease sf eSHHfteFeiM, iBatls8i&l ana ether Ele\~eJiRleRt:a ft6t lneltldeEl &B8 ~.
tHe BHHtBeF sf elltlt"lfIleBt a'i\'eIImg tHlit:s sf AM. sfts:ll. Be deteHniftee iB e&e8 ease
By the Direeter ana SHall Be Based tilleR the est:im&te.EI \"81WBe sf 8e9.1tge te Be
Elisehargea intxa the City se~~ system. The flew Pate fer PRiIl_lJ" In''lel\J~ a
""'"
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraldy\10651,WPF
__IV'? ~ f'-
f ;~lf
Attachment #4-4
e
e
e
msaUleatisH bl laRa HSt SHaD peReet 8flly the inereaee in 8e\\~ geHEP8.tiSR
pFejeet waHl that 'PapeRy ll.iHdi eJfeeeels .69 eqtW~ent ~lh~ Hnlts sf ile-,:t;,
SECTION VII: That Section 13.14.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.100
~e Pump Station Charle - DilIpoattion of Revenue -
Detenn1nation of Charles
A The owner or occupant of any parcel of real propert;y connected to a sewage pump
station which is a part of the wastewater system of the City and situated Within
a Special Sewer Service Rate Area established by the City Council shall pay aP
~9lq Sewage Pump Station Charge in the amount set forth in the ordinance
establishing such Area, or as amended by the City Councll annually by ordinance,
as designated for administrative convenience only in the Master Fee Schedule.
1tbe...~9lq....~~.~~1l.~.p~mtf4'lf9t~pt~~.~i~!!~>lII...l:le
eal ill t d ............d~.....um.tahtt6.tbI&.!bdtvJsl...........imd......bdbi,(slCneteof
~~~~1'i~#~rt1~~i~i~gnrl~~;~~;n.9PP
B. All revenue derived from sewage pump station charges shall be deposited into !t
the separate fund m:~999'\J:t\t deemed appropriate by the Director of Finance. ....
C.
Se tati h hall b b d ".u.. .. .t.. .... .... .faU ....ty
wage pump s on c arges sease upon ~~J;l)$.~J'.<I ... ...;. .
expenses,incliid1ng.blitrtotlJmU.edt(j; ftEJ~allabor. ma~, equipment. power
and water costs, emergenl;)' ~.. eBeFgy and overhead costs experienced by the
City relative to each sewage pump station;hidtii:lplgp~tcmj)Iah!iseiVe [for
t8sh flow wda ~a:sonablebUfferagaitiSt latge~~f4~\1al~sessmcmts),
not less thlln 25 percent not more than SO pett;ent (lIthe ~11iX!a~<iO$ts for
maintenance and operation for theensuingyeareteepffer ftf.8t YeMeeSfs 'W\4ticli
saaH Be esthBateEl By the Dit'EJEJter. Any .deftclt9~~ci$$~~illtmgfi'oma
difference between . theestlnia~CQ$tsllri(lilctufd~~ ~.1:>e<<iOlT~~ . by
adjustments to the rates cl1a.rgf4'l to .tb#Ptopei'tyoWtielsd@i'lgthe$l1j:l(;eeding
After th . ch tl t 25 t,b t not . than50 . . t.
ite:-hall be..n1~~=~..~~~~~~~rJff~tlcin:r=a
reasonable bUffer agalnstJarge ~11OnS bilillJljl.l~s~~~~ B1BtftBtlt:lsa sf
sewage Hit StfHiSFI essfs _SBg BeHetlf:t;eEl plH'eel.s sh~ Be ftB speei6eEl in iRe
8FSisaRee eataelishmg the .~ea, as reAeetea feF aalllinlstft.1i";e eeBvenienee enly
iH iRe MaBteF Fee Eeaeatde. ~y~,.~~tiii~~a~f()pQwtng
<: Ii/! -;.c
8"..~r
Attachment #4-5
WPC F:\home\wpc:\goraldy\1065I.WPF
A.
B.
C.
~~c~~~~~~~;==~=a;:~:::o:;r~~
th City OJ II: uall m..... forth the A_.........,tlOn teach... . a1fr'-'..... d
· e er ann .Y $e~""-6 .. ~..t'. !> .P~~ ......;.,. an
tbeamountof the proposed Charge. .. .
The charge shaD be COllected lriinOrithly Oi-bFmorttb1t~t~1)~tSWlththewater
::r;:~a:;~~e::.:rl1l;sr==~t~=J::r~~
forth Iri $ectt0l}~3.14.150.
f;. ?:be charge. togefuer Wit01nterc;;t ~ts:~J1lte ~)uid~~ah~attomey'$
':~~~:.~~~~d::n~~:=::t~~~~~
Sections 1367lind 2924.lindenf~~l1ttbej'18~~~g~~uent
tax, if c6l!ectedontl;letalt pill.
-..
D.
F.
~tlsapUtpOseand 1ntent.(lftWJ~p .#l~p1y~Pl~~~Wi tOtb.e
:f:o~;~~~~<:ju~~C:b~~~~::~~~l~l~~=:
collected. and enforcedl,lPondefal#t Iri.the~ ~#~AJ1p~ousagreements
=~:;!1!1~~w::a=~r:.~=:!U::1~
~~~:~:'~~~a:~~:~~~s:.~~~'IlJ~=~~~t1~x:
~~=:::l:;!l;;~~:~~~E:5~J$
Council.
......,.,
SECTION VUI: That Section 13.14.11 0 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.110
Sewer Service Charges Deslinatecl - Payment Required _
Domestic Purposes - >>elIDed.
Amount. In addition to other fees. assessments or charges proVided by the City
Code or otherwise. the owner or occupant of any parcel of real property which said
parcel is connected to the sewer system of the CUy and to Ii! water system
maintained by the Sweetwater Authority. the Otay Water District or the California
- American Water Company shall pay the Required Fee(s) for. Sewer SerVice
=~~~~~_~~lIm:fnI~~I~~~~~;~~;prJmr
:;~~;~~_~4r..==~R_I~~
Tn ..Ditct. .....Sball.me.... ............OftWlth'theClf3T,CJetk...........uau.........toJM.f....tlQ
~ttirt~~~~~~~~i~.~i~~lIiir~~~gj~'im~
prop .... ......arge.
~~~~~~j~~~~.~...~_T~tllJ=II=r~r~~
......d con. .tedm.... ccotdah ...Withsecuon131i4150. ... .
M..............~......................Jt.............. .......!;l:..........................................t..........A...................\
......,.,
JI~ ~-
{ ,
7
f'...;;t,
WFC F,\home\wpc\geraldy\1065LWPF
Attachment #4-6
e
e
e
BD. All.r~ue d~rlved from such charges shall be deposited Into the Sewer lHeeHle
~~~~qe Fund.
€E. For the purpose of this section. real property shall be deemed to be used for
domestic purposes when such property Is used solely for single-family residences
or the furnishing of lodging by the operation of hotels. auto courts. apartment
houses. bungalow courts. housing units. rooming houses. motels. trailer parks.
or the rental of property for lodging purposes.
D. Se:-,.r.~eF aePlJ"iee ella:rges t8 tlsers 1ft the AfBHtgefftely ..A_-.neHtH:iSR ..\rea SHaH he
eeHeeie6 In Hie fefftl ef lIf".fitIaI eharges 'All pFep~' t&K BIBs prepaFeEi By the S!Ifi
Diege CS1:Ul1:y.:\ssesseF t.mStlgB the ens sf '91 '92 ftseal year. M8Btgamety 1\Pea
eba:Fges aha:U he eSlRpaFaele 16 these efthe pa--z-eler erUle C~. after erealt fer
tmtlSe8 resep\"e Blsmes, aeEftHreEl hy the CUr ElttFL""lg the ..vea BDneJll1tiSfl ,Fseese,
Ras Been applied. Begtr..-HHg~" 1. 1992, 8~reF eer.iee ehergea feF the
MSHtgSRlei=Y A-.nemt:iSB &:Fee. sha:l:l. ae hilled ana eeHeeteEl in the same 1Ilftl1fiet" as
lfl. ilie FeBt ef Hie City.
SECTION IX: That Section 13.14.120 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
Is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.120
A.
Reduced Sewer Service Char,es Permitted
Wben-AppUcation-COntents-Refunds-Vees.
The Director of Finance shall have the authority to certifY el1g1bUlty for a reduced
sewer service charge. In the amount of seventy percent (70%) of the rate charged
other residential users. upon investigation. or upon application by the occupant
of a single family residence. apartment. condomlnlum or mobllehome when the
occupant:
1. Meets the low Income eligibility criteria as presently designated In the
Master Fee Schedule. or as may In the future from time to time be amended
by city counc1l resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule. or
2. Provides proof of payment of a monthly sewer charge greater than the
Required Fee(s) for mlnlmum sewer service charge.
B. The occupant of premises subject to a sewer charge may request a reduced sewer
service charge by filing a completed City application form. The applicant shall
furnish data regard1ng the type of unit. number of people In the household and
proof of total annual Income (gross) of the household. Application fonns may be
obtained from the Clty's Finance Department. Certification of eliglbUlty shall be
annually established with the Director of FInance.
C. Eligible occupants of single family homes subject to the sewer service charge shall
have the option of either requesting an annual refund from the City or requesting
the reduced sewer charge be applied on the sewer billing Il6 Sftewft 8ft ilie lB6Bthl:y
aT eiIR8Bthly 'W8.ter haIs.
D.
Residents of apartments. condomlnlums or mobllehomes who are eligible for the
reduced sewer service charge shall receive the reduced sewer charge as an annual
refund only.
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraldy\10651.WPF
r Ib~/I"7 -
...;l. "7
Attachment #4-7
C.
E.
Requests for annual refunds shall be made by eligible households between August
1 and September 30 of each year for the past fiscal year beginning In July and
ending In June. The applicant will be notified of eligibility status within thirty (30)
days of application and. If eligible, a refund shall be fOIWarded within ninety (90)
days of application.
.-.,
F. Resiaems sf the me8ffl8Fated Mestgemery DlstFIet ~iR Bet l:le eligihle fer eit:l1eF
l"ef\iRBS BF a redl:leea 8~er serJiee eha:rge at the I'reaeat time; they will, Bewe\~er ,
Be eligible fer the RBtlees 8~U ser.iee eh8:Fge 8Bee tft~. &:Fe Sl:l13Jeet te the fWI
B~:..€f' semee efiMge set ~. the ~f8Bter Fee SeheatHe aeeat:lst the slJe€ial
supplement funs is exh&tlstea.
SECTION X: That Section 13.14.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Is
amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.150
Payment of Sewer Service and Pump Station Charges -
Penalty for DeUnquency - DiacontJDuance of Service -
When - Unlawful Connection - Backbllllni and Penalty.
A ~llli.r1g ll.Xld1>ayni~t. All sewer service and pump station operation and
maintenance charges, eKeeflt theee eeBerteee in stteseetiss F fteFelftBelS9.', shall
be eSffifll:ltee Plll~d upon a monthly or bl-monthly baslsi9rPP~!t~~m. as
determined by the CltyQi.lAA~ SF the suliftgweteF agese,'..and shan be payable
upon the billing of such charges to the owner or the occupant.
B.
1.
Director's Report. Annually. notlalet than August 10. the CftyClerksl1'111
se the Re ort of the Director of Public Works tlled iillotto SeCtion
i3~ 14.100 ~d/or 13. 14.nOforpublic hearlngbefOre~a.tYCounCll and
dulfcause Notice thereof and of thellUtlgof ~Id repOtt to be pilbl1shed
once at least ten days :Iti advance the/eof in a newsPaper of general
circulation .pub1lshed in the City of Chula Vista.
..................-...,<.:.:...:. ,...,-...,....-,..-:._.:-:._:-,,-':'....,......'........,...:-:-_.,-_._..-.'-',-.....,...,...,-.:'--:-.'--.'_.......-.............-,-,.,._._-.._'--'-............-,..-.-....,-..
""""
2. Notice to Property Owtler.Wbert the Director of PUbltcWWks reQUeSUithat
such charges bec6l1ected onU:ieTu:B1ll forthe.fu&~~~;U:i~Ci~C1erk
=~d~o~~;~~:~=~:~:;~~~;iri~~~o~~
~eo~~:::p~=dO~t~~~~:v:~~7::;t~j::~~=
ther~n,Ifsuch ~barges~ ~ec~.9Ji;~T~J;lJ:ijPt1i:'sU~tQ8Uch
=~:l,ya:~~~t~=e=~~~<~~tit,it()i11y the
~=~~~~~~~~~~!=~il!=l;
is subject to.!l, maJort9' Protelilt; . .
i~ BJ1.~~~:r~::~~11::f:e~~=~=~t~~~?Cr:
Council Resolution and Cl:illecttid P~ll~!ittj)~bs~riJ;)bP.feOf;
~harge~ :e::e~~~~:t;;~:xa:~~~~:::~~:t~~
........
,)'/;IJ-Y-
rs ...;).(
WPC F:\home\wpc\j!enoIdy\ 1065LWPF
Attachment #4-8
e
.
D.
.
WPC F,\home\wpe\geraldy\10651.WPF
~ JI/!1 1-
y:..~
Attachment #4-9
~~~~Sr=_ii!!!Si~~EE
-
-
:=tJ~~~~;:~~~~=~~I~~~::=
j)t'dinance;tbe.~tyEtlgtr\eet'~~ll (<:col'd.(l~~~lce;8h'9:'!...rb'~~sta.ttng
~. satlsfactlori l!i:lc1. rel~~~ Of~\,l~Jien.
~. Jienmay .!)ef9reclosedas~~bl.tbe..~..~.....thef~ecJtlsureof a
~~e ;~~~to~~:=<l~~~~~~~~~~f~lai3t7~iY~~
G~llrorrua Civ:il, COde;4rariY$uooesSOl'$ta.h1tei>t1a",.ati(ilQ t.batetid.the light
to enforce th~ lien bysa~ts heIeby e<>IlferTedujJon theCi1yarid Its trustee
C1estgriate4ln~~~ptJce of ~u~tql!a~ge. ora,tt:u~tee~ubst:Jplted pursuant
to CalIfornia CiVil. COde~t10rl~~~4a.. .11:1~ Gjty.~l:J~11 ~V:t: tht:. lXYWeJ: W bid for
the property setVed.ata fOteeli:lS~sale;. i!ridJoa<:qU,Jte1lridl1Q1~;~e;mbrtgage
and convey the same. ....Sutt. to recover a ~jtii:tgmenU9r~pilld ..C'h/l.-ges.
costs. late penalties .arid att.iJj..ieys.'j"ees .$fuill!)emaJn~ble ,ntliout foi'ecl()slrig
aMn th 1l... ~ th . .In . .. .ctlonpy th . City to .11
~e:quen~~g:.acrompart~~;e~~t~~~~...fheep~~~
shall be entitled ~o ~ery of its costs 8P4 reasonable.a~ot4~$"Jees~
€E. ~tyfol'I>ijpi:iqu<mCY. If the sewer service and/or pump station charge fat'
\:iSef'5 etlu:f' t:ftan tftsse aeseFiBea in BtlBSeetisa F. is not paid before the close of
business or postmarked before midnight of the final date for payment as shown
on the billing, the Re~ttkell pen<y Feelsl a !l~~ppenalty of w,;eaty ~i(!O)
ercent of the charge(s} shall be added theretolUsdana.hlUf(Fl12}
~cerirP~~On~r%~?PR~~9f~~P~~~4~~~p~ilrdi!&t~(<>r
,,~str'i:l,1;!1m...~~<mP!;9mY...m..tP~MM~E~~h~41!;); provided, however,
that when the final day for payment falls on Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday,
payment may be made without penalty on the next reguIar business day.
~:F. ~c!;I>I~1;!Pjl~nAA; In the event the owner or occupant of any premises shall
be delIn uent In a ent of the sewer service andZot\itatldri char e and
q p ym......................~lt................. g
such delinquency continues for a period of five days after the final date for
payment of such charge, the dty shall have the right, forthwith and without
notice, to discontinue sewer @Agl9rP9P!P(iw,Yi:!fl. service to such delinquent
owner or occupant, and sewer aZgrpj!!'9P'!!4.y9rt service shall not again be
supplied to such person unW all delinquent sewer sezvlce ~~P~~~Pli!t4.t!WJ
charges plus the penalties thereon as herein provided have been paid. The sewer
service ~Pi:'!lQ1i~~ta.1;!pfi charg~ may be collected by suit In any court of
competent Jurisdiction or any other manner.
""""\
--'.
EG. Pril8.\!ftUco~~j)Q: In the event that any parcel or building Is determined by .........
the DIrector to have been unlawfully connected to the public wastewater system,
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraldy\1065I.WPF
Jd~ .-
--, I "ICI
~"3.D
Attachment '4-10
.
.
.
the City shall have the right to tennlnate sewer jij'jd.lj;ffj~mStii600 service to
.................1IL.......1I..............................
such parcel or building as provided In section 13.06.110. Sewer ~Zj;ffp~p
$p..t1l?!! service shall not again be supplled to such parcel or buildiilg untll all
delinquent sewer service ~Zj;ffrpg!~1;I,9n charges which have been
accumulated durtng the current ownership of the parcel or building. plus i"~J~
PJ;:h;P!YP~!Q9@9f the delinquent sewer service ~j;ffP!!HlP~p!'~ChaIge
~e;~:~~~~~~~_i=t=.~tLf:=:~l1i~
#jj;p!;M"~~rE'*~!!9W!;). has been paid.
F.
Se-,.1ll€F s~iee eba:Fges far HaeM iR the M8fttgeJBepY .A:.nefiB.1:is8 AVes shall 13e
eaReeteEl iH tl1e f8RB aT 8r.fttlal ehal'geB ...1a preperty 1:a:Jf BiHs prepllft!d By tfte 8an
Dlege C81mty Assesser threttgft the end ef 1991 1992 iseal ye&f'. M8R~lBery
.:\Fea ehMges shall he eelBparahle te theee efthe fm A.I-dtt eetke City, after ert:dit
far ttntlsea reBef\~ Jft8flieB, a~d By tHe City 8tlr'.Rg tfte !kI'e8 ar-.neH&t:i6n
pffleess, aas BeeR 8:ltplieEl. Beginning J1tiy 1, 1992, ae..uo ser.iee ehar~8 fer the
MSHtgBmefy..A_-Jieuai:ieB area _'-_11 Be hiBee and eeYeeted iR the same lD8r..ReF as
In the rest af tl1e Oily.
SECTION XI: That Section 15.36.015 be added to the Municipal Code to
read as follows:
$ecUonllS.36.0 15
APplicaUon 101' hnDlt8
Section 4.103 of Article 4 of the Uniform Fire Code asttappl1esin the City of
Chula Vista is hereby amended to relid as follows:
Applications for pt::iu!lts shall bem~de to the fttepreVeiltlOildJvislOillnsuch form
and detail as prescribed by the division. . Appllcatton for Pflrii11tli $bl'll be acCompanied
by such plans as required by the dMslon and by the RequfredFee(s).
SECTION XII: Effective Date. ThIs ordinance shall take effect and be In full
force on the thirtleth day from and after Its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Jl10{~J~
D. Richard Rudolf
Assistant City Attorney
Lyman Christopher
Director of Finance
WPC F,\home\wpc\Jer8ldy\1065LWPF
JJfA - I L
-, II
~~ 3/
Attachment #4-11
""'"
1HIS PAGE BlANK
""""'\
-...
~
!s-"'3d-
.
~~
.
.
g...3:]
PHASE II
AlTACHMENT #1
f-u- ~
A. INCREASES IN EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
ANIMAL CONTROL
1. Animal Impoundment Fees
First Offense $20 No change
Second Offense $30 $40
Third and Subsequent $30 $60
Fiscal Impact: $2,830
BUILDING AND HOUSING
2. Electrical Permits
Permit $10 $15
Supplemental Permit $4.50
f!li1Ar(l.t4...#CJW4!il~fqf. .fiJ4fvft1Uill...syst/!1tl$,fixtufcs.Or. ..lIiJ~t$/.. il$...p~r...f.~~*...!*n.ffi,jtfft
..4j:!ffti#istfilff'iiCC04e
Fiscal Impact: $46,075
3. Housing Permits
1-6 units $62.60 $78
7-10 units $85.30 $106
11-15 units $102.40 $127
16+ units $102.40 + $127 +
$2.30/ea $2.901 ea.
Fiscal Impact: $17,400
4. Plumbing Permits
Permi t $10 $20
Supplemental Permit $10
Nl:Wtates~hcduJtforitldividualfixtures;as perl@lUpC
. Fiscal Impact: $55,450
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ~ ~
FEE UPDATES/ADDITIONS
~!r:f-
~
.
<t ~ ;fL(
Attachment 1-1
A. INCREASES IN EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
5. Business License - Change of $5 $12
Location
Fiscal Impact: $250
6. Closing Out Sale $25 $30/first 60
days
$25/ extension
of 30 days
Fiscal Impact: $75
7. Massage Establishment/T echnician
Investigations
Work Permit $25 $30
Establishment $100 $150
Fiscal Impact: $50
8. Pawnshop Employee ID Card
Investigation $20 $30
Change of $10
Address/Replacement
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(low volume)
DOCUMENTS
9. Engineering Documents
Annexation Plat, $.40/SF, $.65/SF,
Legal Description Minimum $2 Minimum
$3.25, as per
misc. maps
Rff4rg~4vn~*#ti()IJ...plats...tilid....1~gtil~...t1t. .satne..ratg...as...o@f...evg}tltm;lt!kW!lp$llnd
iifm.iHi]g$
Fiscal Impact: $100
10. Master Fee Schedule $2 $6
.8Afl~ctscurrentqopyivgcost
Fiscal Impact: $40
?r3~
Attachment 1-2
A. INCREASES IN EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
11. Meeting Tape Set-up $3 $5
Fiscal Impact: $50
ENGINEERING
12. Adjustment Plat Examination Fee
Adjustment $231 $420
Consolidation $148 $360
Fiscal Impact: $6,518
13. Certificate of Compliance $25 $200
(independent of adjustment plat
examination)
&ef#~flqJ~efijiJp4at(!tlsirli;eit$qdqptiqrlinJ~74(Qrd.ft1.q~Q); 1?t9P9~g4f~~
tfflet~.4c:tuiir.~t4fj....tiiftg.feqiJ.itiN.f...a11d...c@rellt...hQYrly...Cqst~.
Fiscal Impact: $525
14. Construction Permit $62 $82
Fiscal Impact: $1,620
15. Deferral of Public Improvements
Filing Fee $234
Single Family $250
Multi-family, $335
Commercial, or
Industrial
Extension $30
Appeal $200
Fiscal Impact: $1,351
16. Driveways, Excessive Width
Filing Fee $46 $58
Appeal $200 $250
Fiscal Impact: $120
.
~~3~
Attachment 1-3
A. INCREASES IN EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
17. Encroachment Permit
Reviewed by Engineer $81 $105
Reviewed by Council $220 $250
Fiscal Impact: $528
18. Sewer Service Variances
Variance $80 $150
Minimum handling charge $2 $3.75
Fiscal Impact: $140
19. Sewer Construction Permit
Permit Fee $17 $30
..
4" lateral $884 + $24/ft. $3,015 +
in excess of $86/ft. in
35' excess of 35'
6" lateral, in addition to costs $3 $3.80
for 4" lateral
Tap-ins 4" diam. $180 $317
6" diam. $180 $339
Fiscal Impact: $52,240
20. Street Overload/Transportation
Permit
Single Move $5 $8
Single House Move $55
Multiple $25 $40
Copies of Permit $1 $.15/pg.
Fiscal Impact: $1,431
21. Temporary Encroachment Permit $15 $30
Fiscal Impact: $110
22. Library Fines and Fees
Non-Calif. Resident Card $10 $20
Fiscal Impact: $1,800
$/37
Attachment 1-4
A. INCREASES IN EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
PLANNING
23. Environmental Review Processes
Review of previous initial $140 $600
study and the use of previous
Negative Declaration
Fi;~~tlq~~~i#iI4qtli#.~i~~!l~?:;;gt~AA4fli~rqf~J#im~lm~t#fftiiJi~
t~!tliqr!!il!r!!~t#lr~!
Fiscal Impact: $3,600
24. Modification/Extension of
Conditional Use Permit or Variance
No Hearing $140 $185
With Public Hearing $280 $380
Variance; Miscellaneous
No Hearing $200 $350
Fiscal Impact: $10,000
. 25. Zoning Permit $15
Obtained prior to occupancy $15
Obtained after occupancy $45
Fiscal Impact: $1,200
,
PROCESSING FEES
26. Fingerprint Request
Residents $6 $8
Non-Residents $8 $10
Fiscal Impact $3,400
27. Returned Check Processing Fees $10 $15 if balance
paid within 10
calendar days;
$25 otherwise
Fiscal Impact: $1,500
:?' -3 ~
Attachment 1-5
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
ANIMAL CONTROL
" . '"
1. Animal Impoundment Fees
fl{~~pt~fPrf~~tt9ilm~~ptp!mtf#9t~##mY!~
Fiscal Impact N/A
2. Animal Relinquishment
At Shelter $10
At-Home Pick-Up (Residents $10
only)
Resident
At Shelter Licensed $5
Unlicensed $15
Picked Up Licensed $15
Unlicensed $25
Non-Resident @ Shelter Only $25
Fiscal Impact: $17,600
"
3. Boarding $4/day
Dogs and Cats $5/day
Birds and Fowl $3/day
Goats, Sheep and other $8/day
Fiscal Impact $1,440
-..
Y/J;
Attachment 1-6
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
4. Dog Ucenses
One Year $10
For dogs 6 mo. old or $8
younger
For dogs over 6 mo. $18
old
Two Year $18 $24
Three Year $26 $28
~q""geTd()gsCtliI9I1JY!W!4a one:..YearlififrJs~..4#~...f()..gl1,9tter-;t~m~.~W9~i##
~..kS
......... .u....
Fll!'$P4Yeqpt~q.tJerP4J;?pgic1Jlttg~sh4nke5a.o;p6fl~~!!'lgfee$
Penalty Ilate application $1 .50 $3
License Replacement $1 $2 in person,
$3 by mail
License Transfer $2 $5
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
BUILDING AND HOUSING
5. Additional Plan Review, Inspection $30 or deposit Deposit
Fees
M~ptiJj&:t#~lr~yqwert4bfi4q,osJt;Ptimqg91g!@!!'lqt~#lt~w#l!Yf;ifliitf~
;#.f9Pll!'...(Jf..9ff#4!....f?~~
Fiscal Impact: $1,000
6. Additional Plan Check and + an + an
Inspection - Energy Conservation additional aclditional
15% for plan 15% for plan
check and check and an
inspection additional
15% for
inspection
$~nffFF4imti##;~~#?!'lt...f1Jm~y#JJ!!qt~#g~;
Fiscal Impact: NIA
?-iiJ
Attachment 1-7
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
7. Additional Plan Check and + an + an
Inspection - Disabled Access additional additional
10% for plan 10% for plan
check and check and an
inspection additional
10% for
inspection
$~rit-i~...c14fifiqlti1W{.4~~r!t...gJ..f~~.wq{....tlgt.l!!!#tlg(
Fiscal Impact: N/A
8. Compliance Survey Inspection $.75/SF, min. Deposit
$75
Fiscal Impact: $375
BUSINESS
8. Special Permits
Temporary Outside Sales $50 $45
Special Sales Event $35 $45
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
DEFINITIONS
9. Delinquent Payment
~4~.#~Ji#itig#i...n1W~..pt~lg~Y...~*lilt(#
Fiscal Impact: N/A
10. Low Income Standards
Ritfl~t41J44t4!J4$p~~#RgJ?$Ji#j4.4r#llY~4?ifi##ir:f#tg#~l!Q#RI.rf?~t##44r4~
~..#PC{#~f4....if#9i...Yif#r;
Fiscal Impact: N/A
11. Bid Documents
Postage/Handling $3 cost, $3
minimum
1- Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
cost)
tr-i;
Attachment 1-8
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
12. Copying Fees
First page $.75 $.15
Additional pages $.15 $.15
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
13. Adjustment Plat Examination Fee
II....... I..iJj........ C..... ..Iffff9.....pj . G.... ..... ... r. .... ... ... .... .... ... ..... ......... ... lfit ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ... ...... ... .... .... .... ... .... ......... ..... ... ..... ..... ....hd. ..... .....
r~I~I~4'~~~ljUt~!l!m1!!!t!g~i!f~~;~t#!l~ft~F~t;#!!~ng~
Fiscal Impact: N/A
14. Deferral of Undergrounding Utilities $556 Deposit
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
15. Plan Review, Encroachment and
Construction Permits
Plan Preparation and $36-$504, Fees
Construction Survey Fees depending on eliminated; no
valuation longer
applicable
Construct Cost @ $10,000+ % of building Deposit
permit cost
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
16. Public Works Inspections - After 2.5 x hourly 1.5 x hourly
Hours rate rate wlFCR
l!r9j@$i.~f#!J~~mfiW!!pti,,_19~m!!!€9iitr~Rqpffl'Y
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
.
7--1 ;L
Attachment 1-9
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
17. Sewer Capacity Charge
.. ,
~rl?PPiiiYM~!Y;WE~~91~ti!tW!'i~f!!~~mgr~~~r!!t!iiWtWl9~!'e!'i
g.f~qp~mg~~tYn~~!!!m!!R~~qii~~rmq~PffiJ~~!!
Fiscal Impact: -$290,000
18. Street Name/Regulatory Signs
I'Xqpt#t!i~!iI!ipy!!~!!!m!YPi!ilf!!igWiq!14pg'~; E~b!!Pi!!1!i~!!ilt!i4#t
cost
Fiscal Impact: N/A
19. Traffic Signal Participation
Fee per Average Daily Trip $10 $13
(ADT); ADT factors as
adjusted by SANDAG
Fiscal Impact: $10,000
20. Waiver of Public Improvements
Application $284 Deposit
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net..,
impac "
(enhanced
equity)
PLANNING
21 Appeals and Requested Actions 1 /2 Deposit
application
fee, minimum
$125
Fiscal Impact: $4,000
22. Design Review $500 Fee Units
$390 1-4
$590 5-15
$1,000 16-100
Deposit 1 00+
Fiscal Impact: $21,000
-
[5-13
Attachment 1-10
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
23. Sign Permits
By Size $20-$50 $45
Ground and Pole Sign $105
Special/Temporary $50 $45
Fiscal Impact: $4,000
24. Site Plan and Architectural $100-$250 $0-$720
Approval
~i!...Pi,!t~g~!#g.?m...m!!4~!igP!!!Wmp!;
Fiscal Impact: $16,000
25. Variances - Miscellaneous, requiring $440 Deposit
a Public Hearing
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
26. Zoning Administrator Design
Review:
Processing Fee $200
Single Family Res. $200
2-4 units $300
5+ units Deposit
Fiscal Impact: $22,000
C. NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impact
BUILDING AND HOUSING
1. Board of Appeals - Administrative Deposit
Hearing
Fiscal Impact. $2,400
.
<;!>{tj
Attachment 1-11
C. NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impact
2. Certificate of Occupancy
Final $70
Temporary $70
Fiscal Impact: $9,100
3. Foundation-Only Building Permits 25% of permit
fee or as
otherwise
determined
following
request for
Building
Official review
Fiscal Impact: $10,000
4. Mechanical Permits
Supplemental permit $4.50
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume)
5. Mobile rIome/i\ccessory Structure Per state
Permits requirements
Fiscal Impact: N/i\
(currently
collected)
6. Plan Maintenance/Microfilming 2% of permit
Charge fee,
Minimum $5
F~~...r~qQPI1r$ftl$t...Ql...$fi#~.W4w!4te4....W4int~t!4y~...6f...prpj#f:tp.l4#~...pi4
'tf#qr?iEln#~g
Fiscal Impact: $20,000
7. Strong Motion Instrumentation Per state
requirements
!ii9$t$i!tef#tti#1tlY.hll~ygpiW~4tnrqygl!{pi'ppp.mlw~lInqt:4ffIlf:tij$$~mw#lif
fll?f!
Fiscal Impact: N/i\
>l>tf~
i\ttachment 1-12
C. NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impact
BUSINESS
8. Holistic Health Practitioner
Refundable investigation fee $100
Rtppq$illm~Ut#ootq~pplw~~n~~~g4twnP9$m:j14ppl~f4'1!tl$#q~#I~g!~~'Iim~~
~~t!~Ptm~y
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(refundable;
low volume)
9. Live Entertainment
Refundable investigation fee $150
li_r,l~pg((1I~(ijRi~(g4tw!!~~lqpp{mti~'I!i#9I~g!~nWU~
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(refundable;
low volume)
10. Mobile Home Park Annual Per state
Operating Fee requirements
i1n#w~i,if<<ty#n4l!~lt<<f~~~,g~!M!!!4pjj!<<~~t#t~
Fiscal Impact: N/A
(currently
collected)
DOCUMENTS
1 1. Computer Records
Printouts $5, +$.04 per
page
Data media 3-1 /2" disk $1 .00
5-1 /4" disk $.60
8" disk $2.50
1200 ft. tape $8.50
T Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume)
g--/c(~
Attachment 1-13
C. NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impact
12. Engineering Documents "
Street Design Standards $3.00
Policy
Annual Traffic Flow $3.00
Resale of Publications @ city cost
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume)
13. Faxing $.40/page;
$.50/page
outside SD
County but in
US; $4/first
pg.,
$3/ additional
pgs. for
international
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low"," ~.
volume)
DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
14. Delinquency Fee 20% of
assessment
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volurrte;
enhanced
equity)
LIBRARY
15. Processing Fee for Lost Books or $5
Audio/Visual Materials
l"l:WPf.iY@w#tlj;g!W.wt;(q~Ii!~I#!19#g~r~U~i!l'qrr~€~ij:iftgtqirptlfl!
plf!i!fiii~;Pi~r~&q~Pr?!!i~rm~riiPf!#u~w~i~4i~RYrt~i!~(ijm;?#g~t
Fiscal Impact: $2,500
-.
?~i7
Attachment 1-14
C. NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impact
PLANNING
16. Construction Changes; additional
plan review and inspection
.--.--.,.,
No site visit required $45
Site visit required $90
Fiscal Impact: $900
POLICE
17. Alarm Permit - Delinquency Fee 20% of fee
..
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact C
mw
volume;
enhanced
equity)
18. Waiver of Public Improvements
Appeal Fee $200
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume)
ENGINEERING
19. Industrial Wastewater - Delinquency 20% of fee
Fee
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume;
enhanced
equity)
20. Industrial Wastewater - Compliance Pass through
Charges costs
R.~COf!cryoLCJjiti.pliancr tharg~bJllcd ..to .Chtlla\lista fdttri{atit{{!~tltt$~hPi~gq
fa9ilities . ando! City' sqD.ststo.. billnon.complyingiruiustfiesdiredtiy
Fiscal Impact: N/A
.
?5-/cf7
Attachment ]-15
C. NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impac\:
21. Storm Drains - Delinquency Fee 20% of fee ..
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume;
enhanced
equity)
FIRE DEPARTMENT FEES
22. Flammable and/ or Combustible
Liquid Storage Tanks
Installation $50
--
Removal $50
-_._---
Fiscal Impact: $10,000
"""
-..
g>17
Attachment 1-16
D. OTHER Existing Proposed Impact
BUSINESS
1 Bingo License Investigations - New
and Renewal
Chairperson $50
Co-chairperson(s) $27
~9PlwnPf~~mgrg~mlr~1!f~!p!ii9M~!:it~qy~q!~f~~4
Fiscal Impact: N/A
2. Citywide Business License Listings
Full Listing $40
Monthly Lis tings $10
Subscription - Picked $50
Up
Subscription - Mailed $80
r;iif!$fqtitt!U!#I!prfWmiqn9Jrli1mtt~prliRWY~~yt!i:l~~4Wf!~lr~i1i!it€~
rsf~
.~.........
Fiscal Impact: $525
DOCUMENTS
3. Agenda and Minutes Subscriptions (per year)
SgyVfMfl!lil!:!#!ngY~!rP!!~P!:!I~~'~Pm!!!!]t~g!!!!]9i
Agenda and Minutes $70 $90
Agendas Only $30
Minutes Only $65
Other Boards $20 $12
Fiscal Impact: $540
ENGINEERING
4. Construction Permits - Utilities
~qpgP!:!Pf~i!;~J#g.t:~tiYit~'.Mt!q!!i(o/rq;~~g4i
Fiscal Impact: N/A
.
<ff' /50
Attachment 1-16b
D. OTHER Existing Proposed Impact
5. Street Marking Fees Existing rates
added to
M.F.S.
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(curren t1 y
assessed by
agreement)
6. Sewage Pump Station ! Existing rates
added to
M.F.5.
Fiscal Impact: N/A
(cUe"o'I1'h.
.../1.'_ "_j
assessed by
ordinance)
RECREATION
7. Swimming Classes
Beginners $10.50 $18
Advanced $16.50 $18
Tiny Tots $16.50 $19
Parent and Tots (per pair) I $16.50 $19
px:iSti1tg fees jnMltstifFetScheduleariFout.'ofdMi!. Fee$.cu.tJ"e1i@(:lul.rged.'.~,
per,. Paries and,' R.eprea;tionprograril ''brOchure.
Fiscal Impact: N/A
.
r~/I
Attachment 1-17
D.
OTHER
8. Swimming Fees
Daily Pool Admission
Existing
Proposed
Impact
Annual Passes
Family
Senior
$.75 per
person
.......-.-
$50
$30
$40
. . _...
$15
er Parks and Recreation program brochure
. ..
'd ! .\
-.,:'.,
~ ~ \
Adult
Child
Fees currently charged as p
Fiscal Impact:
FISCAL IMPACT TOTALS
General Fund
Traffic Signal
Sewer Fund
Net Annual Impact
$299,400
$10,000
-$237,600
$71,800
-..,
-.,
sY'5:J-
Anl~frrnt?r!~ J~]8
.
.
.
Y'~ 53
.
v~~~
.
.
5>51
;;~/J
.
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
lJ'i1bfe of Contents
CHAPTER I............................................. 1
Introduction ............................................. 1
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
General .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. ... 1
Fee Waivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
Master Fee Schedule Copies ....................... 2
DEFINITIONS ...................................... 2
Full Cost Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
Delinquent Payment ............................. 3
Low Income Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
.
CHAPTER II............................................ 4
Records, Documents, Research and Processing Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
GENERAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
Research Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
Records and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
ENGINEERING ..................................... 7
Records and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
POLICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Records and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
C HAP T E R I I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Animal Control ........................................... 10
DOG LICENSES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Purchase ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Penalty for Late Application/Payment ................ 10
License Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
License Transfer ................................ 10
ANIMAL IMPOUNDMENT AND RELINQUISHMENT. . . . . . .. 11
Impoundment .................................. 11
Boardine ofImpounded Animals .................... 11
Relinquishment of Dogs and Cats (Live or Dead) . . . . . . .. 11
.
C HAP T E R I V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Business Fees ............................................ 13
GENERAL BUSINESS ................................ 13
Business License - General ........................ 13
Sales - Special . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
SPECIFIC BUSINESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Art Figure Studio ............................... 13
Y'>~5
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
lJ'abfe of Contents
-
Bath House .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Bingo License Investigation Fees - New and Renewal .... 14
Card Room .................................... 14
Casino Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Fraternal Society Gameroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Holistic Health Practioner Investilration Fee ........... 15
Junk Dealer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Live Entertainment License Investilration ............. 15
Massage Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Massage Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Mobile Home Park Annual Ooeratinlr Fee ............. 16
Pawnbroker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
Peddler ....................................... 16
Public Dance ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
Second Hand Dealer ............................. 16
Solicitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
Transient Merchant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
Business - Other ..................................... 17
Curb Loading Zone Permit Fee ..................... 17
-
C HAP T E R V............................................. 18
Library ................................................. 18
SERVICE FEES ..................................... 18
Library Cards .................................. 18
Audio Visual ................................... 18
Books ........................................ 18
Darkroom ..................................... 18
Lost Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 18
FINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
Overdue Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
AudioNisual ................................... 18
C HAP T E R V I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
Police .................................................. 19
ALARMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
Alarm Use Permit .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
False Alarm Assessment .......................... 19
BICYCLE LICENSE .................................. 20
Application .................................... 20
PROPERTY RECOVERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
By Owner ..................................... 20 -..
By Finder ..................................... 20
~;,3?
.
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
rrafJfe of Contents
C HAP T E R V I I .......................................... 21
Recreation ProgramslFacilities ............................... 21
PROGRAMS ........................................ 21
Swnnrmng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
FACILITY USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
General Facilities - Use Permit ..................... 22
Picnic Shelters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26
Ballfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
.
C HAP T E R V I I I ....................................... .. 28
Greens Fees, Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
STANDARD GREENS FEES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
LADIES DAY GREENS FEES. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. 28
RESIDENT DISCOUNTS .............................. 28
JUNIOR MONTHLY TICKET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
SENIORS RATES .................................... 29
Qualifications .................................. 29
Seniors Discount Cards (Yearly, Monthly) ............. 29
Seniors Greens Fees (Residents only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
RAIN CHECKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
LEGAL HOLIDAYS. . .. ... .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. 30
C HAP T E R I X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
Downtown Improvement District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
DOWNTOWN ....................................... 31
Downtown Improvement District Assessment .......... 31
Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
.
C HAP T E R X............................................. 33
Building and Housing ...................................... 33
APPEALS .......................................... 33
Board of Appeals and Advisors, Hearing Application ..... 33
Building Move, Relocation, or Demolition Appeal . . . . . . .. 33
CODE ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
Nuisance Abatement: Appeal fee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
Nuisance Abatement: Noncompliance with order to
abate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
Sign Structures - Charges for moving, removal, correction
or other work performed by the city . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
BUILDING PERMIT FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34
DETERMINATION OF VALUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
l!'--- S' 7
~~~nr~~~~n~uu~~
TaDfe of Omtents
HOUSING PERMIT FEES ............................. 39
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES ............................ 42
CHAPTER Xl............................................ 44
EnglIleenng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
DEFERRALS/WAIVERS ............................... 44
Deferral of Public Improvements. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 44
Deferral of Undergrounding Utilities ....... . . . . . . . . .. 44
Waiver of Public Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 44
PLAN REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
Adjustment Plat Examination Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 44
Certificate of Compliance ......................... 45
Final Map and Improvement Plan Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45
Final Map Recordation Fee ........................ 45
Plan Review and Inspection, Encroachment and
Construction Permit~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46
Preliminary Parcel Map Fee ....................... 47
.
Public Works Inspection .......................... 47
PERMITS .......................................... 47
Construction Permits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47
Construction Permits - Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48
Construction Security Deposit Bookkeeping Fee . . . . . . . .. 48
Driveways; Excessive Width ....................... 48
Encroachment Permit, Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48
Temporary Encroachment for stora~e ofbuildin~ materials
in Citv ri~ht-of-wav Permit Application .......... 48
Watercourse and Grading Permit Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49
STREETS .......................................... 49
, Street Marking Fees ............................. 49
Street Name and Regulatory Signs .................. 50
Street Vacation Fees ............................. 51
TRAFFIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52
Street OverloadlI'ransportation Permit ............... 52
Traffic Signal Participation Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52
TREES ............................................ 53
REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53
Reimbursement District Formation .................. 53
CHAPTER XII.......................................... 54
Engineering - Sewer ....................................... 54
CONSTRUCTIONIDEVELOPMENT ...................... 54
Minimum Front Footage Charge. . ................... 54
2r~r
-,
-
-
.
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
lJ'aEfe of Contents
Sewer Construction and Connection Fees . . . . . . . . . .. 54
Sewerage Capacity Charge ........................ 55
SERVICE CHARGES ................................. 58
Sewer Service Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58
Penalty for Delinquent Payment of Sewer Service
Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60
Sewer Service Charges for Low Income Households . . . . .. 60
Sewer Service Variance Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61
STORM DRAINS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61
Storm Drain Fees ............................... 61
PUMP STATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
Sewa!!'e Pumo Station Char!!'e ...................... 62
Penalty for Delinquent Payment of Pump Station
Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
INDUSTRIAL ....................................... 63
Wastewater Discharge Permit Fees (Industrial) . . . . . . . .. 63
Compliance Charges ............................. 64
Penalty for Late Payment ......................... 64
.
CHAPTER XIII ......................................... 65
Parks .................................................. 65
PARKLAND ACQUISITION IN-LIEU FEES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65
PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT IN-LIEU FEES .............. 65
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ENCROACHMENT FEES. . .. . . . . .. 65
.
CHAPTER XlV.......................................... 66
Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
ANNEXATION ...................................... 66
Annexation Deposit . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
APPEALS AND HEARINGS ............................ 66
Appeals and Requested Actions before the Planning
Commission and Zoning Administrator .......... 66
CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
Conditional Use Permits and Variances. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION ...................... 68
Design review .................................. 68
Environmental Review Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69
General Plan Amendment .................. . . . . . .. 69
Landscape Plan Review/Landscape Inspection .......... 70
PC Zone - General Development Plan and Modifications .. 70
Planned Unit Developments and Modifications ......... 70
Plan Review - Construction Changes ................. 70
Precise Plan Approval and Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70
g>S'f
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
lJ'ahfe of Contents
Sectional Planning Area Plan and Modifications ........
Site Plan and Architectural Approval (Zoning
Administrator) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Specific Plan Development Proposal and Modifications ...
Tentative and Vesting Tentative Map Fees ............
SIGNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sign Permits ...................................
Signing Program Application and Modifications . . . . . . . . .
ZONING ...........................................
Rezoning ................................ . . . . . .
Zoning Code Applications subsequent to a violation . . . . . .
Zoning Permit .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER XV...........................................
Fire Department Fees ......................................
PERMITS ..........................................
Flammable and/or Combustible Liquid Storage Tanks . . . .
CHAPTER XVI..........................................
Other Fees ..............................................
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ........................
g>c?O
-
71
71
71
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
73
74
74
74
74
75 -
75
75
-
.
CHAPTER!
Introduction
A.
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
1. General
a. The City Council shall adopt, by resolution, a Master Fee
Schedule, indicating therein the fees for all services,
administrative acts and other legally required fees, which
resolution may be amended from time to time and shall be
effective upon first reading and approval; provided, however, such
resolutions may specify therein their applicability, if any, to
applications currently in the process of review.
b. A copy of the Master Fee Schedule shall be maintained in the
office of the City Clerk and in each department of the City.
[Resolution 16579]
2. Fee Waivers
.
.
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter I - Introduction
a.
The fees set forth in the Master Fee Schedule may be waived by
the Waiving Authority, as defined hereinbelow in Sl,lbsection b, in
accordance with the following procedures: : ~oIi.~
1) Any person requesting an abatement of a fee herein ~.J_ '.
charged shall request said abatement in writing, addressed
to the Waiving Authority, and shall set forth therein, with
specificity, the reasons for requesting said abatement of all ".r d~ ~
or any portion of the fees. ~ 1""
2) The Waiving Authority shall conduct a public hearing, ~ .AA~)
notice of which is not required to be published. Notice of ~,... . lj
said public hearing shall be given to the applicant and to
any party or parties requesting notice of same.
3)
Prior to abating all or any portion of a fee established in
the master fee schedule, the Waiving Authority shall find
a peculiar economic hardship or other injustice would
result to the applicant which outweighs, when balanced
against, the need of the City for revenue and the need for
a uniform method of recovering same~rom t se ag .nJIt..
whom it is imposed. \0 J.. -h . ~ ' \VoI--
~ b'\ ~ \'I'Jo- . "
() --i~ (
~Tit3tth
b.
Waiving Authority, as the term is used herein, shall mean the
City Manager, or his designee, if the amount of such waiver is
less than or equal to the greater of(1) $2,500 or (2) 25% of the fee
imposed by the master fee schedule. If the amount of the waiver
is greater than the greater of $2,500 or 25% of the original fee
imposed by the master fee schedule, the Waiving Authority, as
used herein, shall mean the City Council.
-
c. If the Waiving Authority in a particular fee waiver matter is the
City Manager, or his designee, the decision of the City Manager,
or his designee, may be appealed to the City Council by any
resident of the City ofChula Vista, including, but not limited to,
the members of the City Council. If the Waiving Authority is not
the City Council, then the Waiving Authority shall provide notice
of his decision to waive a fee set forth in the master fee schedule
by distributing a copy of said notice of decision to each member
of the City Council and to the City Clerk. Said notice of decision
shall be deemed a public record.
[Resolu/inn 16579]
3. Master Fee Schedule Copies
Copies of the Master Fee Schedule may be purchased for ~ .$6.00. ......
[Resolutinn 16579]
B. DEFINITIONS
1. Full Cost Recovery
In this schedule, "a deposit to cover the City's full cost, including
overhead," or "the fee shall be the City's full cost including overhead" or
any similar phrase shall be understood to mean that:
a. The department shall determine the appropriate deposit for each
application and shall attempt to limit that deposit to a reasonable
amount. If, at any time, it appears that the deposit amount will
be insufficient to cover accumulated City costs, the applicant shall
deposit additional amounts as required by the Department Head.
b. If the City determines that consultants are required to assist in
the processing of any permit, the City reserves the right to retain
and pay such consultants from fees collected from the applicant.
......
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter I . Introduction
g>kA
Page 2
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
.
.
.
c.
The City's full cost shall include any consultant fees paid by the
City all other direct expenses or pass-through charges. plus all
City operational direct salary costs multiplied by the appropriate
departmental full cost recovery (FCR) multiplier. The multipliers
are as determined from time to time by the Department of
Finance and included herein by reference. (SEE APPENDIXES)
[Resolution 16579]
~ DelinQuent Payment
Unless otherwise specified by ordinance. resolution. master fee schedule
or inyoice. a payment shall be considered delinQuent or late if it is not
received within thirty days of billing. No payment shall be considered
delinQuent if the billing notice is sent more than 90 days after the
charge has become payable.
~
b
Low Income Households
Elicibility for City programs or fee schedules restricted to low income
households shall be based on the 50% level of median family income for
the San Diego Metropolitan Statistical Area as determined annually by
the federal department of Housing and Urban Development and adopted
herein by reference. (SEE APPENDIXES)
Eligibility feF ls\y: iReeme as\iseBsld redaeeel sev,yeF seniee Fates shall he
determined aeeeFding te the taBle in 141Jlenm B. (SEE
.\PPElImlXES)
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter I . Introduction
Page 3
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
?~J. ;5
CHAPTER !!
Records. Documents. Research and ProcessinlZ Fees
-
A. GENERAL
1. Research Requests
a. When an individual requests a City department to research and
investigate its files and records for general information then that
person shall be charged a fee 13ased SIl. of the full cost includinl!
overhead for the time to conduct such research and investigation
aad tae eempeaGatisR east aftae staffpemaftftel as detemHaed13y
the DiFseteF sf FiRBRee.
b. General information is defined as "any data contained in City
files or other records."
c. In order to guarantee payment, the City department responsible
for conducting requested research or investigation shall estimate
the time to complete such work and require a eash deposit to
cover its estimated costs.
d.
City departments shall not charge for requests for research and
investigation that involve a minimum amount of time (less than
10 minutes) to obtain. This section cannot be used to divide up
a large request for research and investigation into smaller
requests for the purposes of obtaining free research and
investigation.
-
[Resolution 165791
2. Records and Documents
a. Copies of Records
1) Copies of any Official Record
(from COpy machine. microfilm. or microfiche)
Silae aad Type ~
8 1'2 K 11"
$.75 Brst page (1 espy)
$.le eaeh aerlineRsI page SF eapY';
-
Master Fee Scheduk </'- / i
Part 1 - General 0 - tR
Chapter 11 - Records, Documents, Research and Processing F es
Page 4
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
.
.
.
8 lt2 X 19"
$.71i Hl'at page (1 espy)
$.11i eaea aGditiaBal page aF eap)';
ReadeI' $.78 HFSt page (1 eapy)
PrieteF $.11i BaeR additiaRal page aF eapy.
$.15 perpaee. [Resolution 165791
b. Subscriptions for AgendalMinutes
1) City Council
2) Redevelopment Agency
3) Planning Commission
Agenda and minutes of the meetings of the Council,
Planning Commission or Redevelopment Agency may be
mailed to applicants for an annual fee of $7Q.99.$90.00
[Resolution 165791
Aeendas onlv. Annual subscription .......... $30.00
Minutes onlv. Annual subscription . . . . . . . . . .. ~65.00
4)
Other Boards/Committees
Agenda and minutes of meetings of other commissions,
boards or committees may be mailed to applicants for an
annual fee of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $29.09 $12.00
[Resolution 165791
c. Transcripts of Public Meetings
Transcripts of all or a portion of any meeting or public hearing
of the City Council, Planning Commission, or any other board or
commission which are recorded may be obtained upon the
payment to the Director of Finance ofthe aeteal ae\H'ly Fate full
cost inc1udine overhead of a City employee transcribing said
record, phiS the iBeideRtal ElVeFReaa eesta ta he estalllisaeelhy the
DiFeetaF af FiBBBee, plus a charge per page for copying as
established herein.
[Resolution 165791
r--u5
Page 5
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
Master Fee Schedule
Part 1 . General
Chapter 11 . Records, Documents, Research and Processing Fees
d.
Intergovernmental Document Requests
-.
Copies of any of the documents, minutes or records referenced
herein will be furnished to any federal, state, county,
municipality, district, department thereof, governmental agency
or any federal officer acting in his official capacity without charge
except in the case of a request for a transcript of the recorded
proceedings of any meeting or public hearing; provided, however,
that any such governmental agency shall be required to pay the
fee herein required for all copies in excess of one.
!h Fax Transmissions
12 To a number within San Diel!o County - $.40 per pal!e
~ To a number outside San Diel!o County but within the
continental United States - $.50 per pal!e
ID To all other numbers - $4.00 for the first pal!e
:-$3.00 for each additional pal!e
f. Business License Listinl!s
-.
12 Listinl! of all licensed businesses - $1Q
~ Listinl! of all newlv licensed businesses
.$10 per monthly listinl!
$50 for one year of monthly listinl!s (if picked up)
$80 for one year of monthly listinl!s (if mailed)
K:. Records stored on Computer
12
Printouts. Mainframe Reports
.$5.00 per printout
J?lus $.04 per pal!e
~ Copies of data on disk. tape. or other media
Per 3-1/2" disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,$1.00
Per 5-1/4" disk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ul!
Per 8" disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,$2.50
Per 1.200 ft. tape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,$8.50
-.
Master Fee Scheduu
Part I . General
Chapter II . Records, Documents, Research and Processing Fees
~/tv
Page 6
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
.
.
.
Ql
Anv reauests which reauire research. orol!1'ammine: or
orocessine: time of at least ten minutes shall also be
subiect to research chare:es (See Section II.A.1.).
3. Processing
a. Election Recount
The fee for an election recount at the request of a contestant
shall be a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
[Resolution 16579]
b. Returned Checks
Any check returned for non-payment shall cause the issuer of
said check to be subject to a $W returned check fee .2L$15 if the
balance due is oaid within 10 calendar davs of the first collection
notice: $25 if the balance due is not oaid.
[Resolution 16579]
c.
Tape Recording Set-Up
The City Clerk shall make available to any person requesting
such service the use of the tape recordings for use within City
Hall at a flat set-up charge of ............... $3,QQ ,$5.00
[Resolution 16579]
B. ENGINEERING
1. Records and Documents
The City Engineer is authorized to furnish any person applying therefor
any of the following documents, papers, drawings or official records of
the Engineering Department upon payment of the fees herein
established:
&- 1\nftexatiea Plate, Legal DeeeriptiSB.B
$ .4.9 lieF SEflare feet ':nth a minimwB fee Bf $2.90
a. Bid Documents
$6.00 per complete plan and specifications; plus $1.00 per plan
sheet in excess of five sheets; provided, however, that any
?/'~ 7
Page 7
(Rev. January 14, 1993)
Master Fee Schedule
Part 1 . General
Chapter 11 . Records, Documents, Research and Processing Fees
primary contractor purchasing one set of plans shall be given up .......
to two additional copies without additional charge and for
payment of two sets of plans and specifications, the contractor
may receive up to six copies of bid documents; a Readling aaa
JlBstage eharge Bf $3.99 postae-e and handline- costs. with a
minimum chare-e of ~ will be collected for plan sets mailed
at request of the Contractor.
b. Design and Construction Standards - $3.00 each
c. Maps and Drawings
Various master street and sewer maps annexation plats. lee-al
descriptions. and miscellaneous drawings: $.65 per square foot,
with a minimum fee of $3.25
d. Aerial Topo Sheets
$9.00 per sheet, plus $1.00 per additional copy of same sheet
e. Title Sheets
1)
2)
3)
4)
Mylar title sheet blank ............ $4.00 per sheet
Mylar title sheet profile . . . . . . . . . . .. $5.00 per sheet
Vellum title sheet blank. . . . . . . . . . " $1.50 per sheet
Vellum title sheet profile ........... $1.50 per sheet
.......
f. Subdivision Manual - $7.00 each
g.. Street Desirn Standards Policv ............... $3.00 each
h.
Annual Traffic Flow
..................... .
$3.00 each
!.:. Resale of Publications from other
e-overnment ae-encies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. at City's cost
!Resolution 165791
.......
Master Fee Schedule
Part 1 - General
Chapter II - Records, Documents, Research and Pro~essing Fees
~~kr
Page 8
(Rev. January 14, 1993)
.
.
.
C.
POLlCE
1. Records and Documents
The Police Chief is authorized to furnish any person applying therefor
any of the following documents, papers or official records of the Police
Department upon payment of the following fees:
a. Accident Reports - $5.00 per copy
b. Crime Reports - $5.00 per copy
c. Photographs - $12.00 per copy
d. Record Check Letter Request - $2.00 each
[Resolution 165791
2. Processing
a.
Fingerprint Requests
The Police Chief shall furnish fingerprint identification service to
any person applying therefor upon payment of a fee
for City residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $-e:OO $ 8.00
for non-residents of the City of Chula Vista . . . . $-8.00 .$10.00
[Resolution 165791
<? ----h r
Page 9
(Rev. January 14, 1993)
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Clulpter II - Records, Documellls, Research and Processing Fees
CHAPTER !II
Animal Control
-
A. DOG LICENSES
1. Purchase
a. ,For license expiring one year from date of issue . . . . .. $19.99
.!:. do~s 6 months old or voun~er . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ 8.00
2. do~s over 6 months old ................... ~18.00
b. For license expiring two years from date of issue $18.99 ~24.00
c. For license expiring three years from date ofissue$28.99 ~28.00
Any dog license issued pursuant to this section shall be issued for one-
half the fees required hereinabove for any dog if a certificate from a
licensed veterinarian is presented or an affidavit is received stating that
the dog has been spayed or neutered. For all licenses. the license period
cannot exceed the exviration date of the rabies vaccination.
[Resolutwn 16579]
2.
Penalty for Late Application/Payment
-
The penalty aut~~orized to be collected for late payment shall
be ......................................... ~ .$3.00
[Resolutwn 16579]
3. License Replacement
$1.99 pl'aeessiBg fee
l!.:. Processin~ fee in person. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~2.00
b. Processin~ fee bv mail .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~3.00
lResolutwn 16579]
4. License Transfer
The fee for all types of dog license transfers shall be $a . . . . . . $5.00.
[Resolutwn 16579]
-
Master Fee Schedule
f!JrJ/te; 9~'lf.imol Colllrol
g---? 0
Page 10
(Rev. December 11, 1992)
.
.
.
B.
SALE OF DOGS AND CATS
I I Do!!s I Cats I
Adoption $5 $13
Neuter Deposit $25 $12
Spay Deposi t $25 $20
Rabies Shot Deposit $8 N/A
[Resolution 13201]
C. ANIMAL IMPOUNDMENT AND RELINQUISHMENT
1. Impoundment
For the picking up, transporting and impounding of any animal
including a dog, by the use of equipment, personnel and regular
facilities maintained by the City. the City shall assess fees as shown
below. Offenses shall be counted per owner. not per animal (e.!!.. if a
person has two do!!s and each is picked UP three times. the owner is
ruilty of six offenses).
$20.00 - first offense
$29.99 eae5 s\l.eSeliaent aft'ense
$ 4.99 per aay for keepiag saeh animal
$40.00 - second offense
$60.00 - third and subseauent offenses
[Resolution 16579]
b Boardin!! of Impounded Animals
$4 per aay
.!!:. .$5/per day for do!!s and cats
b. $3/per day for birds and fowl
c. $8/per day for !!oats. sheep and other animals
~ 3.
Relinquishment of Dogs and Cats (Live or Dead)
Fel" the FeliFlElliisRmeFlt sf <legs 9F eats hy tRail" a":meFB, tRape shall he
B8 ehaFge pF9\iaea the FelifulliishmeBt is made at the 8.....:......&1 &helter,
if the S""VBeFB BFe FemaeBts eftBe Cito..; ae..":eveF, ReR Fesideats may \lse
the sernaes Bf the shelter ey aelweRag the animal theretB ana ey
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter III . Animal Control
Page 11
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
8-~1
payiB:g a ~ee sf $19:99 reF a asg SF eat. Resiaeats sf the City whe wish
te rehBElwsh an ammal at their plaee sf Fesideaee lBas de 89 hy paying
a fee sf tea asllaFs ts haye the animal piekea up.
"'"""
[Resolution 16579J
I I Bro~~ht to I I
S e ter Pick Up
Resident
Cats. Licensed Dogs $ 5.00 $15.00
Unlicensed Dogs $15.00 $25.00
Non-Resident
Cats, Dogs $25.00 N/A
"'"""
"'"""
MaSler Fee Schedule
ParI 1 . General
Chapter 111. Animal Control
~,- ?OZ
Page 12
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
.
.
.
CHAPTER !V
Business Fees
A.
GENERAL BUSINESS
1. Business License - General
a. Duplicate License
$5 processing fee
[Resolution 165791
b. Change of Location
$& lli processing fee
[Resolution 165791
c. Home Occupation Permit
$25 filing fee
[Resolution 165791
2. Sales - Special
a.
Closing Out Sale
$25 filing fee for first 60 davs
.$25 filinl! fee for one extension of 30 davs
[Resolution 165791
b. Special Sales Event
$3e 145 application fee
[Resolution 165791
c. Temporary Outside Sales Permit
$eo .$45 application fee
[Resolution 165791
B. SPECIFIC BUSINESS
1. Art Figure Studio
a. License Investigation
Application - $100 nonrefundable filffig investil!ation fee
[Resolution 165791
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter IV - Business Fees
g-- ---7 ;S
Page 13
(Rev. January 13, 1993)
b.
Work Permit
""'"
Model Permit - $ 25 nonrefundable filing investigation fee
[Resolution 165791
2. Bath House - License Investigation
$100 filing non-refundable investigation fee
[Resolution 165791
Q.. Bingo License Investigation Fees - New and Renewal
Chairperson ,$50
Co-Chairperson ,$27
In the event an application is denied, fifty percent of the fee shall
be refunded. Applicant shall also pay the required fees for
fingerprint processing for each change in the bingo
chairpersons. [Ordinance 19871
4. Card Room
a.
License Investigation
$500 nonrefundable investigation fee
-
b. Work Permit
New: $50 - card room managers
$30 - card room employees
Annual renewal:
$20 - card room managers
$10 - card room employees
[Resolution 165791
5. Casino Parties
$50 investigation fee
[Resolution 134391
6. Fratemal Society Gameroom
a. License Investigation
$50 investigation fee
[Resolution 165791
-,
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter IV . Business Fees
S~?i
Page 14
(Rev. January 13, 1993)
.
.
.
1..
Holistic Health Practitioner Investieation Fee
.$100 investieation fee. refundable uoon issuance of a business license
8. Junk Dealer
a. License Investigation
Business License - $80 nonrefundable investigation fee
[Resolution 16579]
b. Work Permit
Employee ill Card - ~ .$30 nonrefundable fiHBg investieation
fee
.$10 chanee of address/reolacement fee
[Resolution 16579]
9. Live Entertainment License Investigation
$150 investigation fee, refundable upon issuance of a business
license
10. Massage Establishment
a. License Investigation
Massage parlor application - $WG .$150 nonrefundable
investigation fee [Resolution 16579]
b. Sale!l'ransfer
$25 filing fee
[Resolution 16579]
c. Change of Location
$25 filing fee
[Resolution 16579]
11. Massage Technician
a. Work Permit
$29 $30 nonrefundable investigation fee.
[Resolution 16579]
Master Fee Schedule
Part 1 . Genertll
Chap"r IV . Business Fees
~~?5
Page 15
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
12.
Mobile Home Park Annual Qperatinl! Fee
-
The annual safetv and health fee for operation of a mobile home park
shall be as established bv the State.
13. Pawnbroker
a. License Investigation
Business License. $80 nonrefundable investigation fee
mesolution 16579J
b. Work Permit
Employee ill Card - $2() $30 nonrefundable filiBg investil!ation
fee
$10 chanl!e of address/replacement fee
mesolution 16579J
14. Peddler
a. License Investigation
-
$10 filing fee
mesolution 16579J
15. Public Dance
a. License Investigation
$50 investigation fee
mesolution 16579J
16. Second Hand Dealer
a. License Investigation
Business License - $80 nonrefundable investigation fee
mesolution 16579J
b. Work Permit
Employee ill Card - $2() $30 nonrefundable filiBg investil!ation
fee
$10 chanl!e of address/replacement fee
mesolution 16579J
-
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter IV . Business Fees
tr~??
Page 16
(Rev. January 14, 1993)
.
.
.
17. Solicitor
a. License Investigation
$10 nonrefundable filing fee
[Resolution 16579]
b. Identification Card - Work Permit
$ Hi filiRg fee
$15 fer a eRe yeM reRe'l\'al annual fee
[Resolution 16579]
18. Transient Merchant
a. License Investigation
$10 HflBg investieation fee
[Resolution 16579]
C. Business. Other
1.
Curb Loading Zone Permit Fee
Applicants for a curb loading zone permit shall pay a fee of$87 to cover
the cost of investigation plus an initial installation fee of $61.00 for 75
lineal feet plus $1.00 for each additional lineal foot and an equivalent
annual maintenance fee. In addition, if it is necessary to remove an
existing parking meter, the sum of $30 shall be charged to the
applicant.
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter IV. Business Fees
fr- 7 7
Page 17
(Rev. January 13, 1993)
CHAPTER V
Library
-.
A. SERVICE FEES
4.
Q..
B. FINES
2.
1.
Library Cards
a. Resident card - no charge
b. Replacement of Lost Card - $1.00
c. Non-California Resident Cal'd - $HUIQ/Y!'
~20.00/vr
[Resolution 16579]
[Resolution 16579]
2.
Audio Visual
a. Insurance Charge - $10/year
b. Video Cassette Reserve - $.50/item
[Resolution 16579]
[Resolution 16579]
3.
Books
a. Book Reserve - $.50/item
b. Interlibrary Loan - $.50/item
[Resolution 16579]
[Resolution 16579]
Darkroom
a. Use Fee - $4.00/hr
[Resolution 16579]
Lost Items
.!h .$5.00 processinl! fee added on to
the retail price of anv lost book or
audio-visual item
....
1. Overdue Charges
a. Books
Adults ........... $.25 per day per item
Children ......... $.05 per day per item
b.
[Resolution 16579]
[Resolution 16579]
Audio-Visual - $3.00/day
AudioNisual
a. Cassette Rewinding - $1.00/each
[Resolution 16579]
-
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter V - Library
g--7r
Page 18
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
.
.
.
CHAPTER V!
Police
A.
ALARMS
1. Alarm Use Permit
A nonrefundable fee shall accompany each application for an alarm user
permit as follows:
a. A fee of ten dollars ($10.00) for both business and residential
applications.
b. A two dollar ($2.00) renewal fee will be required every
twenty-four (24) months.
[Resolution 165791
2.
False Alarm Assessment
When any emergency alarms, messages, signals, or notices are received
by the Communications Center which results in a police response and
in which the alarm proves to be a false alarm, the owner and/or
occupier of the properly shall pay a false alarm assessment to the City
as follows:
a. The first two (2) false alarms within a :'welve (12) month period
shall be considered accidental and no fee shall be charged. The
alarm permit applicant shall be notified in writing by the Crime
Prevention Unit after the occurrence of the second false alarm,
notifying him/her that any further false alarms will result in
penalty assessments.
b. For false alarms exceeding the initial two (2) false alarms within
a twelve (12) month period:
1) Third (3rd) false alarm Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00).
2) Fourth (4th), Fifth (5th) and Sixth (6th) false alarms -
Fifty Dollars ($50.00).
3) All additional false alarms One Hundred Dollars ($100.00)
each.
[Resolution 165791
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter VI - Polke
g--/?(
Page 19
(Re.. No.ember 16, 1992)
.!h
The fee for delinQuencv in payment of a false alarm charl!e shall
be a basic penaltv in an amount equal to ten (10) percent of the
false alarm charl!e. plus one and one half (1-1/2%) percent per
month for non-payment of the charl!e and basic penaltv. False
alarm fees shall be considered delinquent if not paid within 30
davs of installation of the alarm svstem.
~
B. BICYCLE LICENSE
1. Application
A license fee of one dollar shall be paid in advance to the city before any
such license is granted. Renewals are valid for three years and shall be
indicated by a renewal sticker affixed parallel to and above or below the
license. New registrations require the purchase of a bicycle license (one
dollar) and a renewal sticker valid for three years (three dollars).
[Resolution 165791
C. PROPERTY RECOVERY
1. By Owner
The fee for recovery of property in possession of the police department ~
shall be the City's full cost including overhead and charges for storage.
[Resolution 165791
2. By Finder
The fee for title to property to be vested in the person who found or
saved the property or in the successful bidder at public auction shall be
the City's cost for publication.
[Resolution 165791
-
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter VI . Polke
'i.r~{)
Page 20
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
.
.
.
CHAPTER VI!
Recreation PronamsJFacilities
A.
NON.RESIDENT POLICY
1. Fees for various Parks and Recreation Department programs and
classes shall be composed of fees applying to legal residents of the CIty
of Chula Vista and fees for non-residents. A resident shall be
considered any person residing within the City limits, and who can
show proof of residing, as defined in Chapter VII.A.2; and/or any person
paying property taxes to the City of Chula Vista, and supplying proof
of residency or property ownership, as defined in Chapter VII.C.2. The
resident and non-resident fee schedules will apply to the Master Fee
Schedule Chapter VII, B.l, B.2, C.l, C.2, and C.3.
2. Proof of residency in the City of Chula Vista shall be one of the
following:
a. Valid California Driver's License displaying City of Chula Vista
address on license, or official I.D. card issued by the Department
of Motor Vehicles for non-drivers.
b.
Current year utility bill listing name and address of curr~nt
residence or property in Chula Vista on which property taxes are
being paid.
c. Active duty or retired military identification card.
d. Property tax statement.
B. PROGRAMS
1. Swimming
a. Classes
Fees for various Parks and Recreation Department programs and
classes shall be as follows. Non-Resident surcharge is 50%:
Master Fee Schedule V.....-- ~!
Part 1 . General 0 - D /
Chapter Vll - Recreation Programs/Facilities
Page 21
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
Resident wlNon-Resident
AdulUYouth Adult
1. Beginners swimming ~ lliIparticipant $27.00/participant
2. Advanced swimming $l6,Qll $I8/participant $27.00/participant
3. Tiny Tots swimming ~ $19/participant $28.00/participant
4. Parents and tots ~ $I9/pair $28.00/pair
swimming
-
~ Pool Passes
Annual:
Familv - ~
Adult - ~
Senior - $.QQ
Child - $.!Q
Dailv:
$.75 per person
2. Other
Fees for Parks and Recreation Department activities and classes shall
be set in consideration of the City's full cost including overhead. Non-
Resident surcharge for activities and classes will be 25%. _
[Resolution 167691
B. FACILITY USE
Parks and Recreation facilities are available to groups only when City
programs are not scheduled. Policies and regulations governing facility use
permits are provided in Council Resolution 12343. An employee or
City-appointed representative must be present during use of listed facilities.
1. General Facilities - Use Permit
a. Group Priorities
Facilities are available for recreation activities under the
following order of priority based on group classification. Non-
Resident surcharge is 100%:
Classification 1: City programs. Non-Resident surcharge not
applicable to city-sponsored uses.
-.,
Master Fee Schedule
Part I- General 'if' ----If: ')
ehapler VII - Recreation Programs/Facilities c::r-'
Page 22
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
.
Classification 2: Chula Vista community service organizations
related in purpose to recreation and the
furtherance of community leisure programs.
Classification 3: Chula Vista civic and social organizations
which are democratic in character with
membership open to the general public or
designated elements thereof.
Classification 4: Private resident groups requiring large
facilities for special events not open to the
general public. If applicant is a Chula Vista
resident, the Non-Resident surcharge will not
apply.
Classification 5: Unions, employee associations and special
recreational groups and non-residential
groups requiring public facilities for fund
raising to perpetuate special interest. If
applicant is a Chula Vista resident, the Non-
Resident surcharge will not apply.
.
Classification 6: Private individuals or groups offering
recreational type activities for the purpose of
monetary gain. If applicant is a Chula Vista
resident, the Non-Resident surcharge will not
apply.
b. Basic Fee Schedule
Fees will be charged for any activities requiring leadership or
custodial services. Basic Fee schedule is based on the group's
classification as described in Section A above. There will be an
additional charge if time is required outside of normal employee
working hours or special services are required.
Fee Schedule I: Community organizations in classification 2,
or 3 shall be granted use of facilities without
charge if admission fee/contribution is not
collected.
Fee Schedule II: Community organizations in classification 2
or 3 can use facilities on an actual cost basis
.
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chap~r VII. Recreation ProgramslFacilities
8'>--g-;>
Page 23
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
if a contribution/fee is assessed for charitable
purposes.
-,
Charges are based on actual costs for
personnel and a minimum utility charge as
shown in fee schedule 2.
Fee Schedule III: Resident organizations and individuals not
qualifying for Fee Schedules 1 or 2 will be
assessed the rental rate shown in Fee
Schedule 3.
Fee Schedule IV: Those individuals or groups in Categories 5
and 6 will be assessed rates based on Fee
Schedule 4 or 30 percent of gross receipts,
whichever is larger. A financial report must
be submitted one week after the activity is
held if an admission fee was charged. If
applicant is a Chula Vista resident, the Non-
Resident surcharge will not apply. Non-
Resident surcharge will be applied to fee or
30% of gross receipts, as applicable.
--
--
Master Fee Scheduk
Part 1 . General
Chapter Vll . Recreation Programs/Facilities
'g> ~ 'i
Page 24
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
.
For the Non-Resident surcharge for Facility Rentals, all hourly rates listed below will
be increased by 100%:
.
FEE SCHEDULE
Facility n m IV
1. Parkway Gymnasium
a. Gymnasium $10 $30 $60
2. Parkway Community Center
a. Auditorium $10 $25 $50
b. Clusroom $5 $10 $20
c. Kitchen facilities $3 $3 $3
3. Lauderbach Community Center
a. Auditorium $10 $25 $50
b. Classroom $ 5 $10 $20
c. Kitchen $3 $3 $3
4. Norman Park Center
a. Cornell Hall $5 $20 $40
b. Norman Han $5 $10 $20
c. Kitchen $3 $ 3 $3
6. Lorna Verde Recreation Center
a. Auditorium $10 $25 $50
b. Classroom $ 5 $10 $20
c. Kitchen $3 $3 $3
6. Other Recreation Facilities
a. Rohr Manor $5 $20 $40
b. Memorial Bowl - $20 $40
c. Sunrise Center $5 $20 $40
7. Swimming Pools Rent Staff as Needed
a. Lorna Verde $401hr plu. Current stalT salary
b. Park Way $301hr plus Current .talT .a1ary
.To be determined by Aquatic Coordinator
All hourly rates art. charged on 1M basis of ''per lwur or an,)' portion thereof."
[Resolutien 16769]
.
Master Fee Schedule
Part 1 . General
Chapter Vll - Recreation Programs/Facilities
?' --- 25~
Page 25
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
c.
Cancellation Fee
-
Parks and Recreation office must be notified of cancellation a
minimum of 48 hours prior to scheduled time for activity.
Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of the fee.
[&solutwn 165791
d. Required Deposits (Non-Resident surcharge does not apply to
deposits) .
A cleaning/damage deposit of $200 may be required for certain
activities.
An additional deposit of $100 will be required of groups granted
permission to have alcoholic beverages.
[Resolutwn 165791
e. Variations
Variations of stated fees must have approval of the Parks and
Recreation Director.
[&solutwn 165791
2.
Picnic Shelters
-
For the Non-Resident surcharge for Picnic Shelters, all Reservation Fee
rates listed below will be increased by 100%:
Medium
Small (Cluster) Large
a. Reservation Fee $25 $75 $100
b. Cleaning/Security Deposit $25 $75 $100
c. Maximum Group Size 50 100 200
d. Cancellation Fee
Groups which cancel a reservation will be charged a $5
handling fee.
[&solutwn 167691
-
Master Fee Schedule
Ptu/I . General
Chapter VII - Recreation Programs/Facilities
~-~~
Page 26
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
.
.
.
3.
Ballfields
For the Non-Resident surcharge for ballfields, all reservation fee rates
listed below will be incresed by 100%:
Prepped Unprepped
a. Reservation Fee $20 + $101hr. $101hr.
b. CleaninglSecurity Deposit N/A N/A
c. Maximum Group Size N/A N/A
d. Cancellation Fee
Groups which cancel a reservation will be charged a $5
handling fee.
[Resolution 167691
Master Fee Schedule
Pm1 . General
Chapl$r VII . Recreation ProgramslFacUi&s
?-!5'/
(
Page 27
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
CHAPTER VBI
Greens Fees. Chula Vista MuniciDal Golf Course
-..
A. STANDARD GREENS FEES
Number Standard Resident
..!If Greens Discount
Applicable DavslI'imes/Months Holes Fees Rate
Monday through Friday
(excluding legal holidays) 18 $15.00 $13.00
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays 18 20.00 17.00
Monday through Friday
(excluding legal holidays) 9 10.00 8.00*
Monday through Friday/twilight 9 10.00 9.00
Monday through Friday/super twilight 9 8.00 7.00
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays 9 12.00* 10.00*
Saturdays, Sundays and legal
holidays/twilight 13.00 11.00
Saturdays, Sundays and legal
holidays/super twilight 9.00 8.00
-
* 9-Hole play would continue to be scheduled in the early morning on the back nine only.
Once the front nine golfers are finished, 9-hoJe play will be limited after 12:00 noon.
NOTE: Twilil!ht and super twilil!ht posted seasonally.
B. LADIES DAY GREENS FEES
Tuesday (excluding legal holidays)
Tuesdays only; except when a legal holiday falls on a Tuesday,
18 holes .................... $13.00
C. RESIDENT DISCOUNTS
1. A resident discount card is established at an annual charge of $8.00.
Residency requirements must be met to purchase the discount card.
One of the following forms of identification will be required to show
proof of residency:
-.,
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter VIII. Greens Fees, Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course
g>~g;
Page 28
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
.
.
.
1.
2.
3.
Driver's License
Current Utility Bill
A Parcel Map showing location of Chula Vista property
ownership
2. Resident rates shall also apply for non-residents of the City of Chula
Vista who are members of either the Chula Vista Men's Golf Club or the
Chula Vista Ladies' Golf Association and who have paid a $25.00
one-time only fee to the City of Chula Vista.
D. JUNIOR MONTHLY TICKET
The cost of a junior monthly ticket is hereby established as $25.00. Said
monthly ticket shall entitle a junior (defined as non-college students who have
not reached their eighteenth birthday or completed their senior year of high
school) to play a maximum of 18 holes per day after the hour of 2:00 p.m.,
subject to any rules, regulations or restrictions imposed by the management
of the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course.
E. SENIORS RATES
1. Qualifications
a.
Chula Vista residency. Said residency shall be verified by
driver's license or voter registration card.
b. The individual must be at least 62 years of age.
c. Play is restricted to weekdays only, holidays excluded.
2. Seniors Discount Cards (Yearly, Monthly)
a. Yearly Discount Card, subject to above qualifications - $10.00
b. Monthly Discount Card, subject to above qualifications - $40.00
g>~(
Pag~ 29
(R~v. Nov~mber 16, 1992)
Master F~~ Sch~dule
Part 1 . G~n~rtll
Chapter VIII . Gre~ns F~~s, ChulJl Vista Municipal Golf Cours~
3.
Seniors Greens Fees (Residents only)
~
Number of Greens Fees
Applicable DavslI'imes'Months Holes Charl!es
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays 9 $4.00.
- with yearly discount card 18 6.50
- with monthly discount card 18 1.00
· 9-Hole play would continue to be scheduled in the early morning on the back nine only.
Once the front nine golfers are finished, 9-hole play will be limited after 12:00 noon.
F. RAIN CHECKS
No rain checks will be given for any fee category.
G. LEGAL HOLIDAYS
For the purpose of these golf course fees, legal holidays are defined as follows:
January 1, New Year's Day; February 12, Lincoln's Birthday; third Monday in
February, Washington's Birthday; last Monday in May, Memorial Day; July 4,
Independence Day; first Monday in September, Labor Day; September 9,
Admission Day; second Monday in October, Columbus Day; November 11,
Veterans' Day; fourth Thursday in November, Thanksgiving; fourth Friday in
November; and December 25, Christmlo.3.
-.,
[Resolution 16608]
-,
Master Fee Schedule <3- /q 0
Part I . General {? /
Chapter VIII. Greens Fees, Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course
Page 30
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
.
.
.
CHAPTER IX
Downtown Improvement District
A.
DOWNTOWN
1. Downtown Improvement District Assessment
a. Professionals (as defined in Section 5.06.020 of the Municipal
Code) shall pay $100 per professional, provided that all
professionals working in a partnership or corporation at the same
address shall not pay in excess of $100.
b. All other businesses in the downtown parking and improvement
area shall pay a base fee of $50 plus $6 per employee, excluding
the owner or first employee, provided that no business location
shall pay in excess of $100.
c. The fee for delinauencv in payment of a downtown district
assessment shall be a basic penaltv in an amount eaual to ten
percent ofthe assessment. plus one and one half (1-1/2) percent
per month for non-payment of the assessment and basic penaltv.
[Resolution 165791
2.
Parking
a. Downtown Parking District - In-Lieu Parking Fee
For the purposes of setting the in-lieu parking fee, pursuant to
City Ordinance 19.62.040, the fair market value of land within
the Downtown Parking District will be computed at $20 per
square foot.
The fee shall be based upon an amount equal to twenty-five
percent of the fair market value of that portion of the property
which would have been required to be developed for parking
purposes.
[Resolution 165791
b. Downtown Business Area Parking Permit
$54 Quarterly Permit Fee: Parking permit tags for the
downtown business area parking lots are for use in nine-hour
spaces only. The Director of Finance may, in the exercise of
Master Fee Scheduk
Part I - General
Chapter IX - Downtown Improvement District
(?--7/
Page 31
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
discretion, prorate the quarterly fee if an applicant desires to _
purchase a permit tag for the balance of a calendar quarter.
[Resolution 16579]
-
-.
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter IX . Downtown Improvement District
o~/~
Page 32
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
.
.
.
CHAPTER X
Buildinll and Housinl!
A.
APPEALS
.1. Board of Anneals and Advisors. Hearinlr Annlication
The filinlr fee for a hearinlr before the Board of Anneals and Advisors
shall be a deoosit to cover the city's full cost includinlr overhead.
2. Building Move, Relocation, or Demolition Appeal
The fee for filing an appeal of a finding or recommendation of the
Building and Housing Department on a building move, relocation or
demolition shall be one-half of the original application fee.
[&solution 165791
B. CODE ENFORCEMENT
1.
Nuisance Abatement: Appeal fee
The amount of the appeal fee shall be determined periodically by the
City Council based upon the costs incurred by the City in processing an
appeal pursuant to this chapter. The calculation shall include all costs
of the City Abatement Officer, City Clerk, and the City Council "Uut
shall exclude actual costs for any work of abatement calcul<<ted
pursuant to Section 9.9. [&solution 165791
2.
Nuisance Abatement: Noncompliance with order to abate
The fee authorized in case of noncompliance with an order to abate shall
be the City's full cost including overhead for nuisance abatement.
[Resolution 165791
3. Sign Structures - Charges for moving, removal, correction or other work
performed by the city
The fee for moving, removing, correcting, storing or doing work on a
sign or sign structure shall be the city's full cost including overhead.
[&soluJion 165791
MasU, Fee SclNdule
Part 11 . DevelopIM/It
elulple, X - BuUding tmd Housing
gr~ ~ 3
Page 33
(Rev. Decembe, 10, 1992)
C. BUILDING PERMIT FEES
Fees for processing and inspecting building permits shall be collected in
accordance with the fee schedule below.
TOTAL VALUATION FEE
$1.00 to $500.00 $15.00
$501.00 to $2,000.00 $15.00 for the first $500.00 plus $2.00 for
each additional $100.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $2,000.00
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $45.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $9.00
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $25,000.00
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $252.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $6.50
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $50,000.00
$50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $414.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.50
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $100,000.00
$100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $639.50 for the first $100,000.00 plus
$3.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof to and including
$500,000.00
$500,001.00 to $2,039.50 for the first $500,000.00 plus
$1,000,000.00 $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof, to and including
$1,000,000.00
$100,001.00 and up $3,539.50 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus
$2.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof
Tile fee fOr eeBdaetiftg a eampH8ftee Btil"Vey Bf 8ft eSBtiag BtraettiPe shall he
S.78 per 199 slfY.8Pe feet sf fleeF area SF hetieR tBel'eef, hat B8 les8 than
$78.99.
Master Fee Schedule
PIlI1I/ - De"wptMnt
Clttrtmr X - B8Uding 11114 HOllsing
g>c;1
Page 34
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
-
-
-,
.
Other Inspections and Fees:
.
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours $3(HlP
full cost recovery
2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305 (g) $3(HlP
full cost recovery
3. Inspection for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum $3(HlP
charge -- one-half hour) full cost recovery
4. Compliance Survey Inspections (minimum charl16 . one hour) full cost recovery
5. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or $3(HlP
revisions to approved plans (minimum - one-half hour) full cost recovery
6. Strone: Motion Instrumentation Proe:ram fees per California per State reQuirements
Health and Safety Code
7. Applications requiring additional plan review to confirm
conformance with California Administrative Code Title 24
requirements for Energy .Conservation shall pay an additional
15% for plan check and an additional 15% for inspection.
8. Applications requiring additional plan review and inspection
to confirm conformance with Califoruia Administrative Code
Title 24 requirements for disabled access shall pay an
additional 10% for plan check and an additional 10% for
inspection.
9. Foundation only permits (not credited toward buildine: 25% of buildine: permit
permit) fee or as otherwise
detennined followine:
reQuest for Buildine:
Official review
10. Application for heRrine: before Board of Appeals and full cost recovery
Advisors
11. Application for Administrative Hearine: to evaluate full cost recovery
alternate methods and materials
12. Certificate of Occupancy issuance $100
13. Temoorary Certificate of Occupancy issuance $100
14. Plan maintenance chare:e (retention mandated by 2% of buildine: permit
California Health and Safety Code Sec. 19850) fees
(blde:.. mech. plmb &
elect)
(min. $5)
15. Pennits for mobile home installations and accessorv per State reQuirements
buildine:s and structures
[Resolution 16579]
.
Master Fee SCMdule
Part 11 . Development
Chapter X . Building and Housing
~r7~
Page 35
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
D.
DETERMINATION OF VALUE
,-,
The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this
master fee schedule or of the building code have been made by the building
official. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building
plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the
permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical,
plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire-extinguishing systems and
any other permanent equipment (SEE APPENDIXES).
{Resolution 165791
F. ,ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
Fees for processing and inspecting electrical permits shall be as follows:
A. For issuing each permit
For issuinl! each supplemental
permit
$1Q.QQ
.$15.00
4.50
B. New eeBBWeRBB, feF eaek 8BllleFB
sf maiR seniee, s"."iteR, &se, SF
~peakeF
SiBgle Phaae
TllFee Phase
AG
.eG
c.
N eo:: seMee BB eJEistlBg ll\BIEliBg,
feF sash --pere efiFleFeaee iB main
sanies, 8v~itehJ fuse, SF hFeaker
Single Phase
TllFee Phase
AG
.eG
,-,
D. RemBllel, alteP6tiBB, BB ehaBge iB
sernee, feF saeh --pere sf iReFease
SmgIe PhaBe
ThFee Phase
AG
.eG
&00
Eo TelBllBFBry seMee lill tB anll
iBelliEliag :;jQQ lHBJleFe
F. Temp9F8l"3w B8Fliee e-:eF ~gQ A-pere
lleF lQQ l?~lleFe
C. lB aliElitlBB, in sit_aBBs similaF te
these listell _lieF the sabseeRBB
titlell "OtheF IaslleeRBBS _II Fees"
ef SemBB 11i.Q9.Q7Q, the fee BHall
he the F--e.
~
{Resolution 165791
-.,
MIlS.' Fee Sclteduk
Part II . DevelopllUnt
CIuIp., X . BuNding tutd Housing
y~~
Page 36
(Rev. Decembe, 10, 1992)
.
SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE
(Note: The followirut do .wt illdude "ermit.issui1lJl fee.)
New Residential BuUdinn - The followin~ fees shall include all wirin~ and electrical
eauioment in or on each buildin~. or other electrical eauioment on the same oremises
constructed at the same time.
For new multifamily residential buildi~ (aoartments and .03
condominiums) havin~ three or more livin~ units not includin~ the area of
llarMeS. caroorts and other noncommercial automobile stora~ areas
constructed at the same time. oer SQUare foot.
For new sinllle- and two-family residential buildinll'S not includin~ the .035
area of ll8rMeS. caroorts and other minor acceSSOry buildin~ constructed
at the same time. oer souare foot.
For other tvoes of residential ooouoancies and alterations. additions and
modifications to existin~ residential buildin~. use the UNIT FEE
SCHEDULE.
Private Swimminll Pools
For new oriyate. residential. in-~und. swimmin~ oools for sinlrle.family 30.00
and multifamily ooouoancies includin~ a comolete system of necessary
branch circuit wirin~. bondin~. ~undinll. underwater li~htin~. water
oumoin~ and other similar electrical eauioment directly related to the
ooeration of a swimrnin~ 0001. each
For other tvoes of swimmin~ oools. theraoeutic wbirloools. soas and
alterations to existin~ swimrninll' oools. use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE.
Carnivals and Circuses - Carnivals. circuses. or other traYelin~ shows or exhibitions
utilizin~ transDOrtsble-tvoe rides. booths. disolays and attractions.
For electric ~nerators and electrically driven rides. each 15.00
For mechanically driven rides and walk-throurn attractions or disolays 4.50
havin~ electric lirntinll. each
For a svstem of area and booth Iirntinll'. each 4.50
For oerrnanently instslled. rides. booths. disolays and attractions. use the
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE.
TemDOrary Power Service
For a temDOrarv service DOwer DOle or oedestsl includin~ all DOle or .ill!Q
oedestaI-mounted receotscle outlets and aoourtenances. each
For a temDOrarv distribution SYstem and temDOrarv lilrhtin~ and 7.50
receotacle outlets for construction sites. decorative Iirnt. Christmas tree
sales lots. firework stands. ete.. each
.
.
Muter Fee SCMd~
Ptut II - DeHlllpment
Clulpter X - B"Wing tJNl Housing
:? ----I 7
Page 37
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
(Note: The followins! do rwt indude permit issuins! fee.!
ReceDtacle. Switch and Lilrhtinlf Outlets
For receDtacle. switch. Iil!htinl! or other outlets at which current is used
or controlled. exceDt services. feeders and meters.
First 20. each .75
Additional outlets. each .45
NOTE: For multioutlet assemblies. each 5 feet or fraction thereof may be
considered as one outlet.
Lilfhtinlf Fixtures
For Iil!htinl! fixtures. sockets or other lamD-holdinl! devices
First 20. each .75
Additional fixtures. each .45
For Dole or Dlatform-mounted Iil!htinl! fixtures. each .75
For theatrical-tvoe Iil!htinl! fixtures or assemblies. each .75
Residential ADDliances
For fixed residential aDDliances or receDtacle outlets for same. includinl!
wall-mounted electric ovens: counter-mounted cookinl! toDS: electric
ranl!Cs. self-contained room. console. or throul!h-wall air conditioners:
sDace heaters: food waste I!rinders: dishwashers: washinl! machines: water
heaters: clothes dryers: or other motor-{)Derated aDDliances not exceedinl!
one horseDower (lIP) in ratinl!. each 3.00
NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor.driven
appliances havins! laT'1!er electrical ratins!s. see Power A1Jparatus.
Nonresidential ADDliances
For residential aDDliances and self-contained factory-wired. nonresidential 3.00
aDDliances not exceedinl! one horseDower (lIP). kilowatt (KW). or kilovolt-
amDere (KV A). in ratine: includinl! medical and dental devices: food.
beverSI!C. and ice cream cabinets: illuminated show cases: drinkinl!
fountains: vendinl! machines: laundry machines: or other similar tvoes of
eauiDment. each
Power ADDaratus
For motors. I!Cnerators. transformers. rectifiers. synchronous converters.
caDacitors. industrial heatinl!. air conditioners and heat DumDS. cookinl! or
bakinl! eauiDment and other aDDaratus. as follows.
Ratine: in horseDower (lIP). kilowatts (KW). kilovolt-amDeres
(KVA). or kilovolt-amoeres-reactive (KVAR):
-
-
-
Master Fee ScheduM
Part II . Development
Chapter X - Building and Housing
<;[--9 ~
Page 38
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
.
UNIT1i'1i'1i' .~
TTn tn ann' -1 oa~h ~ 00
Ovor 1 ann nnt nvor 1 0 oa~h 71';0
Ovor 10 ann nnt nuor ~o o.~h 1~ 00
Ovor ~o ann nnt nvor 1 00 oa~h ~o 00
Ovor 1 00 oa~h ..~ 00
NOTE:b. For eQuiDment or aDDliances haviTli! more than one motor.
transfonner. heater. etc.. the sum of the combined ratiTli!s
may be used.
2. These fees include all switches. circuit breakers.
contactors. thermostats. relays and other directly related
control eQUiDment.
Busways
For trollev and plwr-in type buswavs. each 100 feet or fraction thereof. 4.50
NOTE: An additional fee will be reQuired for liRhtinR (lXtures. motors and
other aDDliances that are connected to trollev and DluR.in tVDe
buswavs. No fee is reQuired for Dortable tools.
Sill11s. Outline Lillhtinl[ and Marquees
For sil!lls. outline Ii!!htin!! systems or marquees supplied from one branch 15.00
circuit. each
For additional branch circuits within the same sil!ll. outline li!!htin!! 2.,QQ
system or marouee. each
Services
For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in ratin!!. each 18.50
For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes in 37.50
ratin!!. each
For services over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in ratin!!. each 75.00
Miscellaneous Apparatus. Conduits and Conductors
For electrical apparatus. conduits and conductors for which a permit is llQQ.
required but for which no fee is herein set forth
NOTE: This fee is not aDDlicable when a fee is Daid for one or more
services. outlets. fixtures. aDDliances. Dower aVDaratus. buswavs.
siRns or other eauivment.
.
G. HOUSING PERMIT FEES
The fee for a housing permit as authorized by Section 15.20.040 of the
Municipal Code shall be as follows:
.
Master Fee Schedule
Part II . Development
Chapter X . BuUding and Housing
Y;,?1
Page 39
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
For each apartment house, lodging house, boarding house, group
residence, hotel and motel containing -
not more than six (6) units
not less than seven (7) units but not more than ten (10) units
not less than eleven (11) units but no more than fifteen (15) units
~
$8&3G
$78.00
$106.00
$127.00
For failure to pay a housing permit fee on or before the delinquency date, the
penalty shall be computed on the same basis as the penalty to be paid for
failure to pay a business license fee tax on or before the delinquency date as
outlined in Section 5.04.080 of the Municipal Code.
[Resolution 16579]
H. MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
Fees for processing and inspecting mechanical permits shall be as follows:
A. For the issuance of this permit 15.00
B. For issuinl!" each supplemental permit 4.50
C. For the installation or relocation of each forced air or 9.00
gravity type furnace/burner, including ducts and
vents attached to such appliance, up to and
including 100,000 Btu's
D. For the installation or relocation of each forced air or 11.00
gravity type furnace/burner, including ducts and
vents
E. For the installation or relocation of each floor 9.00
furnace, including vent
F. For the installation or relocation of each suspended 9.00
heater, recessed wall heater or floor mounted unit
heater
G. For the installation, relocation or replacement of 4.50
each appliance vent installed and not included in an
application
Master Fee Schedule
Part II - Development
Chapter X - Building and Housing
8>/1/0
Page 40
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
-
~
-..
.
H. For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each 9.00
heating appliance, refrigeration unit, comfort cooling
unit, absorption unit, or evaporative cooling system,
including installation of controls regulated by this
Code
I. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or 9.00
compressor up to and including three horsepower, or
each absorption system up to and including 100,000
Btu's
J. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or 16.50
compressor over three horsepower to and including
15 horsepower, or each absorption system over
100,000 Btu's to and including 500,000 Btu's
K. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or 22.50
compressor over 15 horsepower, or each absorption
system over 500,000 Btu's to and including 1,000,000
Btu's
L. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or 33.50
compressor over 30 horsepower to and including 50
horsepower, or for each absorption system over
1,000,000 Btu's and including 1,750,000 Btu's
M. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or 56.00
refrigeration compressor over 50 horsepower, or each
absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu's
N. For each air handling unit to and including 10,000 6.50
cubic fee per minute, including ducts attached
thereto
o. For each air handling unit over 10,000 cubic feet per 11.00
minute
P. For each evaporative cooler other than portable type 6.50
Q. For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct 4.50
R. For each ventilation system which is not a portion of 6.50
any heating or air conditioning system authorized by
a permit
.
.
Master Fee SCMdu~
Part II . Development
Chapter X . Building and Housing
f5 --)ZJ 1
Page 41
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
S. For the installation of each hood which is served by 6.50
mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for each
hood
T. For the installation or relocation of each domestic 11.00
type incinerator
U. For the installation or relocation of each commercial 45.00
or industrial type incinerator
V. For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated 6.50
by this Code but not classed in other appliance
categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this
Code
W. In addition, in situations similar to those listed
under the subsection titled "Other Inspection and
Fees" of Section X.C. (Building Permits), the fee
shall be the same.
X. For the plan review of mechanical work 25% of total
mechanical
permit fee
[Resolution 165791
I. PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
Fees for processing and inspecting plumbing permits shall be as follows:
A. For issuing each permit $19.99 ,$20.00
B. For issuinl! each supplemental permit 10.00
C. For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of 3,W 7.00
fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage
piping and backflow protection therefore)
D. For each building sewer and each trailer park 8,00 15.00
sewer
E. Rainwater system - per drain (inside building) 3,W 7.00
F. For each cesspool 8,00 25.00
G. For each private sewage disposal system -lG,OO 40.00
Masur Fee Scheduk
Part II - Development
Chopur X . BuUding and Housing
~ ---/tJ;l.
Page 42
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
--
--
--
.
H. For each water heater and/or vent 3,W 7.00
I. For each gas piping system of one (1) to fallF (4) 3,W 5.00
five (5) outlets
J. For each additional gas piping system ef five (Ii) 1.00
er mere outlet. per outlet
K. For each industrial waste pretreatment 3,W 7.00
interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting
kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as .
fixture traps
L. For installation, alteration or repair of water 3,W 7.00
piping and/or water treating equipment
M. For each repair or alteration of drainage or vent 3.50 7.00
piping, each fixture
N. For each lawn sprinkler system on anyone 3,W 7.00
meter, including backflow protection devices
therefor
O. For atmospheric-tvoe vacuum breakers ef 3,W 5.00
Baekflo9.\Y }3Fawetive deviees aD walts, ..~at8, ete. 9F
far iRstallatieR eR lHIflreteeted phmilHRg Hxtares
iBehu:liFlg neeessary v.~ateF pipiBg eRe (1) te fellF
W not included in N. above - (1) to (5)
P. liWe Over (5) er mare, each 1.00
O. For each backflow protective device other than
atmospheric tvoe vacuum breakers:
2-inch diameter and smaller 7.00
over 2-inch diameter 15.00
.
P. In addition, in situations similar to those listed
under the subsection titled "Other Inspection and
Fees" of Section X.C. (Building Permits), the fee
shall be the same.
.
[Resolution 16579]
.
Master Fee Scheduk
Part II . Development
Chap~r X - Building and Housing
g----jtJ.J
Page 43
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
CHAPTER X!
Enlrlneerinst
~
A. DEFERRALSlWAlVERS
1. DefurrwofPublicbnprovemen~
$2:H filiag fee
1!:. $250 filin!! fees for sm!!le familv residentiw
b. $335 filin!! fees for multi-family residential. commercial. and
industrial
~ $ 30 filin!! fee for extension of a deferral
d. $200 appew fee
[Resolutwn 165791
2. Deferral of Undergrounding Utilities
$886 filiag fee
The fee shall be a deposit to cover the city's full cost includin!! overhead
in review and processin!! of the deferral reauest.
[Resolutwn 165791 --
3. Waiver of Public Improvemen~
$281. filiag fee
1!:. The film!! fee shall be a deposit to cover the City's full cost
includin!! overhead incurred in coniunction with review and
processin!! of the waiver.
b.
,$200 appeal fee.
lResolutwn 165791
B. PLAN REVIEW
1. Adjustment Plat Examination Fee
a. ~ ~ per plat resulting in adjustment of property lines
b. $MS ~ per plat resulting in consolidation of two or more
parcels.
~
Master Fee SCMdll~
PII11I1 - lHHW/HMtlt
Cltapter XI . E"gilleerillg
;>J-/tJr
Page 44
(Re.. lHcember 10, 1992)
.
.
.
c.
The adiustment Dlat fee and consolidation fee shall include a
certificate of comDliance. if needed. at no additional cost.
/Resolution 16579]
2. Certificate of Compliance
$2e $200 filing fee
/Resolution 16579]
3. Final Map and Improvement Plan Fee
Prior to the submission of a final map and improvement plans or any
portion thereof to the Planning Department and/or the City Engineer for
processing, the property owner or subdivider shall submit a
deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead incurred in
conjunction with review and processing of said map and plans. Any
required adjustment shall be made prior to City Council consideration
of the Final Map. /Resolution 16579]
4.
Final Map Recordation Fee
Upon the filing of the final map with the City Council, the property
owner or subdivider shall deposit with the City Clerk a sum sufficient
to cover the cost of recording the map.
[Resolution 16579]
MlISllr F" Scludw
Part 11 . DeHwpwunt
Cllllpllr Xl . EngilNering
Ptlfe 45
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
y--j cJ5
5. Plan Review and Inspection, Encroachment and Construction Permi~
(All figures shown sre in dollars unless otherwise noted.)
PIeR
Pfe'.....SR Special
Estimated Private It Investigation
Construction Plan Pl'e1i1RiR8l'Y CeBstFuetiisR Ena'OllChment
Cost Review Sur.~ 8ur.:e~'B Inspections Only
0-104 36 36 36 18 30
105-144 36 43 43 22 36
145-194 36 54 54 29 45
195-254 36 88 88 40 57
255-329 36 88 88 50 69
330-419 36 9ll 9ll 68 81
420-529 36 Ha Ha 86 93
530-659 54 139 139 108 108
660-809 54 ~ ~ 133 123
810-989 54 ~ ~ 162 135
990-1209 54 139 139 180 150
1210-1479 54 1&8 1&8 198 165
1480-1819 72 aoo aoo 220 183
1820-2259 72 a+l a+l 241 201
2260-2699 72 ll68 ll68 263 219
2700-3139 72 ll8l ll8l 281 234
3140-3579 72 a99 a99 299 249
3580-4059 72 31'1 31'1 317 264
4060-4579 90 3M 3M 331 276
4580-5139 90 353 353 353 294
5140-5739 90 au au 374 312
5740-6339 90 396 396 396 330
6340-6979 108 G8 G8 418 348
6980-7659 108 439 439 439 366
7660-8379 108 461 461 461 384
8380-9119 126 ~ ~ 482 402
9120-10,000 126 6Q4 894 504 420
8':er 19,999 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For estimated construction costs over $10,000 the fee shall be a denosit
to cover the City's full cost includinl! overhead incurred in nlan review
and insnection for encroachment nermits and construction nermits.
Special investigation application fees are not refundable.
[Resolution 16579]
Master Fee SCMduk
Part 11 . lHvewJHMIII
elulpter Xl . E",illeering
~/()~
Page 46
(Re.. December 10, 1992)
-.,
-.,
-,
.
6.
Preliminary Parcel Map Fee
Prior to the submission of a preliminary parcel map to the city Engineer
for processing, the property owner shall submit a deposit to cover the
City's full cost including overhead. Should the map be withdrawn at
any time the deposit shall be adjusted to cover the City's actual costs
including overhead up to that time. Said deposit shall not include
checking of any required improvement plans or inspection of
improvements. Fees for encroachment permit, plan review and
inspection shall be computed pursuant to Section XI.B.5 (Open Space
District Enroachment) contained in the master fee schedule.
[Resolution 16579]
7. Public Works Inspection
a. Following Council approval of the final map but prior to the
recordation of said map, the property owner or subdivider shall
submit a deposit to cover the City's full cost of inspection, and
administration during the construction phase of the project,
including plan revisions and any special investigations including
soils and geology reviews and City consultants. The deposit shall
be adjusted to cover the City's full cost, including overhead prior
to acceptance of improvements and/or release of bonds.
.
b.
In addition to other fees contained in the Master Fee Schedule
relative to Public Works inspections, subdivider or contractor
shall pay to the City, prior to the acceptance of public
improvements in any subdivision or street right-of-way or
easement for public purposes, the sum ~ 1.5 times the
inspectors hourly rate of pay (not including fringe benefits) per
hour for those Public Works inspections undertaken outside of
regular working hours on Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays
during the course of construction of any public improvements.
[Resolution 16579]
c. PERMITS
1. Construction Permits
An $69 $82 administrative fee shall be collected with each application
for a permit to construct public improvements, provided however, that
no such fee is required for the application for a utility construction
permit. Plan Review and Inspection fees shall be collected liS
appropriate. [Resolution 16579]
.
Masu, Fee SCMdllk
PIII111 . De"lDpmellt
Chapte, Xl . E",inurillg
:? --I c:J ?
Page 47
(Rev. Decembe, 10, 1992)
~ Construction Permits - Utilities
-"
A. The fee for a utility construction nermit for a lob for which the
cost of renlacement of the surface imnrovements (includinl! the
ton three (3) feet of anv trench or other excavation) within the
Citv ril!ht-of-way. is estimated to be less than ten thousand
dollars ($10.000) shall be $llQ.
B. The fee for a utility construction nermit for a lob for which the
cost of renlacement of the surface imnrovements (includinl! the
ton three (3) feet of anv trench or other excavation) within the
City ril!ht-of-wav. is estimated to be ten thousand dollars
1$10.000) or more. shall be a cash deoosit in an amount sufficient
to cover the City's full cost of administerinl! the nermit and
insnection of the work. includinl! overhead. [Ordinance 2521]
3. Construction Security Deposit Bookkeeping Fee
A fee of one percent (1%) of the total amount deposited with the city for
each construction security deposit shall be submitted with each such
bond. fResohJtion 16579]
4. Driveways; Excessive Width
-"
a. $4G ~ filing fee
b.
~ .$250 appeal fee
fResohJtion 16579]
5. Encroachment Permit, Application
The application fee referred to in Section 12.28.050 of the Municipal
Code shall be:
a. $Sl,$105 for those permits reviewed by the City Engineer; and
b. ~ .$250 for those reviewed by the City Council.
fResohJtion 16579]
6. Temporary Encroachment for storal!e ofbuildinl! materials in City ril!ht-
of-wav Permit Application
~ ,$30 nonrefundable application fee
--
Master Fee SCMdu1e
Part 11 - Developnullt
Chllpter Xl . Eltfineering
J5~/o~
Page 48
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
;
.
.
.
If materials are placed in the street by the applicant prior to issuance
of a temporary encroachment permit, the application fee shall be
doubled.
[Resolution 16579]
7. Watercourse and Grading Permit Fees
Watercourse and grading permit fees shall be deposits to cover the
City's full cost including overhead. Prior to release of bonds the
deposits shall be adjusted to cover the full cost to the City including
overhead for processing, plan check, inspection and any soils or geologic
reports by City consultants.
[Resolution 16579]
D. STREETS
1. Street Marking Fees
The fellswiBg fees &Fe hereby estahlished feF stFeet Bl9FkiBgs ts he
plased SR Rew City streets iR slihEibisisRs &Bd eel'taiB street speBiRgB.
a.
The fee feF eaaft Rew stFeet legeRd paiRted (e.g., step, limit liae)
will he $22.
h. The fee feF eaeh liRe mile sf Rew street IltAped '"ill he $li8a.
e. The fee fSF eash Re'N li9 fest IlFsss'i\,alk paiBted -Nill he $89.
d. The fee fel' eaaft liRe (stApe) mile sf pailled pfWeBleRt Bl&Fkets
iRstalled ,'.ill he $281.
l!:. Stripinl!'
11
~
al
Per mile of double yellow centerline
.$1.024.95
,$857.37
,$773.58
Per mile of sinl!'le solid line striPinl!'
Per mile of skip line striPinl!'
b. Lel!'ends <Painted Lel!'ends)
11
Per each word: stoP. Yield. ril!'ht
turn onlv. etc.
,$ 41.50
Mute' Fee SCMtI/lk
PlI11l1 . lHvelofllMnt
CII4pU, XI . Engineering
Pagc 49
(Rcv. lHccmbc, 10, 1m)
9'~/07
~
ID
Per each: crosswalk per lane
~ 14.17
~ 28.34
"""
Per each: limit line per lane
~ Reflective Pavement Markers:
All types installed (each)
~ 3.42
d. Non-reflective Pavement Markers:
Bott's dot 4" round ceramic installed (each}
.$ 2.40
!!.:. Painted Curb
11 Curb Loadin!!" Zone
See Section N.C.1 - Curb Loadin!!" Zone Permit Fee.
~ Painted Curb - Other than vellow
New
Repaintin!!"
:oJ1.30llineal foot
:oJ .66/lineal foot
f.
Parkin!!"
-..
11 Parkin!!" stalls: $5.03 per line. $10.06 complete
~ Parkin!!" T's: $4.70 each
ID Parkin!!" meter poles installed: $61.38 each
2. Street Name and Regulatory Signs
The fellewiBg fees lII'e hel'ehy est&hlisBea for skeet signs te he ereetea
is Bl:l1:lr:lV.isieBS &BQ eenaiB stFeet epemBgs.
8. Street Bama male. with 'Bele. fee 'OSF 8ien...................~
l!:. Sweet B....-8 siBie 'WitJt91:lt 'Bele. fee BeF sim................~
e. ReNate",- aims. witH B91e. fee BeF si~...................~
a. Re~8tery slI!RB. witfteat sele. fee sel' sll!R................~
[Resolutwn 16579]
-..
MIISter Fee SCMdull
Part II - DerelopllUftt
Clulpter XI . EftginHring
~~I /0
Page 50
(Rev. December 10, 199Z)
.
.
.
!h
Relrolation. Warnine: and Guide Sims:
(Does not include DOle or DOle installation)
Size Sim Only Sim Only Installed
12" $4.00 ~ 35.00
18" 7.00 38.00
24" 19.00 50.00
30" 30.00 61.00
36" 42.00 73.00
48" 75.00 106.00
b. Street Name:
$ 50.00 ner blade
~ 40.00 simes) only installed
~ Pole Pricine::
11
2" ID round steele:alvanized metal
-OR-
U-channel nerforated metal posts
.$1.40 per foot
.$2.30 per foot
~
ID
Tel-Spar Perforated Sauare Tubine:
Pole installation
.$47.00
~ $10 additional for Tel-Spar Break-Awav Post installation
ID ~50 additional for installations reauirine: core drilline:
3. Street Vacation Fees
The fee shall be a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead
for street closings or vacations or easements for public purposes,
including investigation, costs of services provided by the City in
processing the application, and the preparation of maps, plats or legal
MIISUr Fee Scltedllle
Part 11 - DevewplMnt
C/tQpter Xl - Engineering
Page 51
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
;r ---J ( I
descriptions, shall be paid to the Engineering Department at the time
of filing of the application for said closing or vacation. --
[Resolution 165791
E. TRAFFIC
1. Street Overload/l'ransportation Permit
a. Single-move ~ $ 8.00
transportation permit
(non-house)
b. House move $55.00
c. Multiple load $28.99 $40.00
transportation permit
for a period up to six
months
d. DaJllie&te sepies sf $ l.Q9 eaeh
seMi&UiBg
tF8IIBpSFtatiSR peFHlit
d. Emergency move permit fees shall be double the
single-move fee
--
[Resolution 165791
2. Traffic Signal Participation Fee
$W $13 for each trip generated by intended land use description
according to SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) trip
generation rates. [Resolution 165791
-."
Masur Fee Selwdule
Part 11 - Dnelopmen'
Clulpur XI - EnglMering
fr ---- / I J-
Page 52
(Re.. IHeember 10, 1992)
.
.
.
F.
TREES
Street Tree Deposits
a. For all interior lots having $110 per lot
less than 75 feet of street
frontage
b. For all other interior lots $216 per lot
c. For all corner lots whose $216 per lot
street frontage is less than
175 feet
d. For all corner lots whose $430 per lot
street frontage is 175 feet or
more
[Resolution 16579J
G. REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICTS
1.
Reimbursement District Formation
a. The costs of the formation of the reimbursement district shall
include as I"stimated by the director of public works:
1) The costs of all notices published or mailed pursuant to
Chapter 15.50 of the Municipal Code.
2) The cost to the city of associated staff time, preparation of
the estimated costs of the facilities, determination of the
benefited area and estimate of the proper assessment.
b. The fee for formation of a reimbursement district shall be a
deposit to .:over the City's full cost including overhead. In the
event a reimbursement district is not formed, the actual costs
shall be nonrefundable, but should they be less than the deposit,
the balance shall be refunded. In the event a district is formed,
the costs shall be considered an incidental cost of the
improvements to be recouped by the terms of the reimbursement
agreement.
[Resolution 16579J
MlISter Fee SclNdw
Partll - Development
Cttspter XI . E,.,iMerillg
Page 53
(R". December 10, 1992)
?~/13
CHAPTER XI!
Enlrineerinll . Sewer
-
A. CONSTRUCTIONIDEVELOPMENT
1. Minimum Front Footage Charge
The payment of $16.00 per front foot of the lot or parcel sought to be
connected shall be required, but such front foot charge shall not be
imposed upon a person who constructed or paid for the construction of
the sewer line into which he seeks to connect.
[Resolution 165791
2. Sewer Construction and Connection Fees
a. An Administrative fee of $17.99 $30.00:
b.
For construction of a four-inch diameter lateral in a street or
alley containing a single sewer main intended to serve abutting
properties on both sides, $881..99 $3.015 plus $21..99 $86.00 per
foot of chargeable length in excess of 35 feet. Chargeable length
in this case shall be one-half of the ultimate dedicated street or
alley width in feet except as noted in subsection d;
-
c. For construction of a four-inch diameter lateral in the street or
alley containing two sewer mains, each intended to serve
abutting properties on only one side, $881..99 $3.015 plus $21..99
$86.00 per foot of chargeable length in excess of 35 feet.
Chargeable length in this case shall be the recorded distance
from the serving sewer to the ultimate street or alley
right-of-way line except as noted in subsection d;
d. In those cases where the sewer lateral is to be installed at an
angle of more than fifteen degrees from perpendicular to the
roadway centerline, the chargeable length determined per
subsections b and c shall be increased by the actual extra length
required because of such skew;
e. For six-inch diameter laterals, $3,00 $3.80 per foot of chargeable
lateral length as determined per subsections b, c and d shall be
charged in addition to the fee for installation of a four-inch
diameter lateral;
--
Master Fee Schedule
Part 11 . Development
ehllpter Xli. Engineering. Sewer
~-//(
Page 54
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
.
f.
For the connection of laterals of any size to a trunk sewer ten
inches or more in diameter an additional amount of $36.00 for
extra work required to make such a connection shall be added to
the charges listed in subsections b, c and e.
g. For the placement of a tap in a sewer located in an easement, the
fee shall be ~ $317 for 4" diameter tap-ins;
$339 for 6" diameter tap-ins.
lRe$olution 16579]
h. For connections made at a depth in excess of nine feet. $1.251
plus $36 per foot of chare-eable leue-th in excess of 35 feet.
3. Sewerage Capacity Charge
a. The owner or person making application for a permit to develop
or modify use of any residential, commercial, industrial or other
property which is projected by the City Engineer to increase the
volume of flow in the City sewer system by at least one-half of
one equivalent dwelling unit of flow shall pay a sewerage facility
participation fee. The base charge is hereby established as
$2,220 per equivalent dwelling unit of flow.
.
b.
One equivalent dwelling unit of flow is defined to be 265 gallons
per day of sewage generation. Th" fee for property involving a
modification in use shall reflect only the increase in sewage
generation projected from that property.
The following rates of flow for various land uses shall be utilized
in determining the total fee due for any given property:
SHigle fft-'ly resideaee -I-:Q
.".p8l't...eBt CeR6e-'",;n- w."'.ng Q,.1&
elM
Hespital Bed -I-:Q
Mebile Home -I-:Q
Metel, Retelli",>4Rg lHlit 0,g3
.
MIIS"r Fee SclNdllle
Part II . J)e.elopmenl
Clt4pter XII . EIIgUteering . Sewer
ff--/I~
Page SS
(Re.. December 10, 1992)
Chtil'eR, 1iheatel', audite":..- *'0
Per elleR lIBi.t ef ee&tiBg e&Illlei~
(eBe unit heiBg 119 peF6eBS ef
~ heSeR tBereef)
Rest&tiPIHtt 2.67 I ':ariahle
2.67 plti8 se&tiBg allee&tieB sf 1.9
fer efteR 19 seats er fl'aetieB
taereef
SeMee StatleB 3:eQ
Self SeMee 1.IltiBliry pel" wasser Orl.e
-
-
--
Masur Fie SCMdu"
Part II . DevewfJlMlIt
eltapur XII - E",iMering . Sewer
o///?
Page 56
(Rev. DecemJur 10, 1992)
.
.
.
Land Use uivalent Dwellinu Units of Flow
.L. Silll!'le Familv Dwellinl!8 1.00
2. Mobile Homes. trailer 0.50
3. Multi-Familv Units. inc1udinl! aDartments 0.75 ver unit
4. RoV. Parks 0.5 ver RV hookuD Dlus E.F.U. on facilities not
servilll!' RV svaces
5. Commercial. Industrial. Manufacturilll!' (E.F.U. Dlus Process Water)
Tenant ImDrovements. and all other non-
residential facilities (See notes 1 and 2)
6. Restaurants:
Small (seatilll!' caDacitv < 100) E.F.U.
Larlre (seatilll!' caDacitv > = 100) 25 GPD ver seat
:L. Carwash
Self.serve 2 EDU's ver stall
Automatic wlwater recvclinl! 6.5 EDU's
Automatic w/o water recvclinl! E.F.U. case by case
(See note 1)
8. Hotels. Motels. Inns. Boardinl! Houses. E.F.U.
Dormitories. Convalescent HosvitaIs.
HosDitaIs. and any facility desil!ned for a
temvorary overnil!ht stay
~ Self Service Laundries 0.5 ver washer. Dlus E.F.U. for fixtures not
(coin overate d) attached to the washers
(See note 2)
10. Governmental. Institutional. or any other E.F.U.
user not described above
E.F.U. = Eauivalent Fixture Units:
NOTES
.L. Facilities usinl! water for Drocessilll!' DurDOSeS shall be assessed individually by the Director.
~ Facilities with water recyclilll!' Systems shall be assessed individually. Information reauired
for the assessment shall be Drovided by tbe aDDlicant.
3. In the case of se--ePllial, iRdtisMial and other developments not included above, the number
of equivalent dwelling units of flow shaD be determined in each case by the City Engineer
and shall be based upon the estimated volume of sewage to be discharged into the City sewer
system. The flow rate for property involvine a modification in land use shall reflect only the
increase in sewage llIlneration project from that property which ezceeds .50 equivalent
dwelling units of flow.
MasUr Fee Scludule
PlJI'IlI . Dev,lopment
Clulpter XII . Engine,ring . S,w,r
2'-/17
Pag, 57
(R,v. D,c,mber 10, 1992)
B.
SERVICE CHARGES
-.,
1. Sewer Service Charges
In addition to other fees, assessments or charges provided by the City
code or otherwise, the owner or occupant of any parcel of real property
which said parcel is connected to the sewer system of the City and to a
water system maintained by the Sweetwater Authority or the Otay
Municipal Water District shall pay a sewer service charge as follows,
applicable to the first whole billing period subsequent to July I, 1992:
a. Domestic: The domestic sewer service charge for each single
family dwelling unit serviced by a separate water meter shall be
$16.00 per month;
b. Domestic: A monthly sewer service charge for other parcels of
real property used for domestic purposes as herein defined, and
serviced by a water meter shall be at the rate of $1.61 per each
one hundred cubic feet of water usage by such parcel, but in no
case less than $16.00 per month, nor more than $16.00 per
dwelling unit per month;
c.
Commercial and industrial: A monthly sewer service charge for
premises used for other than domestic purposes shall be at the
following rates per each one hundred cubic feet (HCF) of water
usage:
-.,
Low Strength: $1.47 per HCF water usage
Medium Strength: $1.81 per HCF water usage
High Strength: $2.44 per HCF water usage
Low strength is defined as wastewater with suspended solids
content under 200 parts per million (ppm). Medium strength is
defined as wastewater with at least 200 ppm but less than 600
ppm suspended solids. High strength is defined as wastewater
with suspended solids content of 600 ppm or more.
Unless otherwise established bv an approved variance.
wastewater disch8rl!:e shall be assumed to be 90 oercent of water
consumed. Therefore. where commercial or industrial facilities
~
Masu, Fee SCMduk
PIII111 - DevelopllUlIt
CluJpte, XII . Ellgilleeri1tg - Sewe,
2)/') !<7
Page 58
(Rev. Decembe, 10, 1992)
.
are billed on the basis of wastewater dischare:e. the rel!:Ular sewer
service rate shall be divided bv .90.
Wastewater strength categories will be determined using either
the attaeaed table, "Proposed User Classifications and Assumed
Pollutant Concentrations" (SEE APPENDIXES) or actual
sampling results, as determined by the Director of Public Works.
Dischargers who believe that their total suspended solids
concentration is sufficiently low to qualify for a different category
of sewer service charge billing may apply to the City Manager in
writing for a variance in accordance with Municipal Code Section
3.2Q.Q3Q 13.14.130. When there is a change in the rate payer,
the category will be re-evaluated.
d. Tax Bill: MSRtgemery &-ea: .^.B allffiial seweF sef"lqee eftaFge fSF
premises iB the fermer MeBtb'ameFY Mea shall he at the rates
gi-:eR aBs-:e llRdeF Parts a tBFsllgh e.
These Fates -:Jill be esHemed SR the a_al tal[ bill by the SaR
Diegs CSllBty TaK ElelleetsF. Charges for multiple family and
commercial industrial discharges collected on the Tax Bill shall
be based on a recent 12 month billiRg water usae:e period.
.
e.
High Volume Dischargers: Premises which discharge over 25,000
gallons per day (gpd) are classified as high volume dischargers.
These dischargers shall be billed bi-monthly by the City of Chula
Vista. Wastewater discharge shall be assumed to be 90 percent
of water consumed, unless established otherwise by an approved
variance. A separate suspended solids concentration shall be
determined for each discharger based on either the table,
"Proposed User Classifications and Assumed Pollutant
Concentrations" or on actual sampling results, determined by the
Director of Public Works. The bi-monthly rates shall be as
follows:
A "CFllge masten'ate. " . 983997 . !le'"
A&' .... . ...
in gpd pe. 199 Number of cubic feet
(ill HCF) of water usal!e - ~ 1$1.2179
+ (suspended solids concentration in
p.p.m. x $0.0019568)1
.:'.':ePage ";:aete X .'\':erage ,pm B\iSpeRaeEl BaUds x B.at
water lleYl $1,9\)9,999" $16.18 in gpd
(Sewer service rates are as listed above unless suoerseded bv ordinance)
[Resolution 16705]
Bimenthly billiag eHlH'gB
.
Master Fee Schedule
Part II . Development
Chapter XII . Engineering. Sewer
?//I;
Page 59
(Rev. March 4, 1993)
2.
Penalty for Delinquent Payment of Sewer Service Charges
-.,
The fee for delinquency in payment of the sewer service charge shall be
a basic penalty in an amount equal to twe~' ten (10) percent of the
service charge. plus one and one half(1-l/2) percent per month for non-
payment of the charl!"e and basic oenaltv.
(Designated herein for administrative convenience only)
[Resolution 165791
3. Sewer Service Charges for Low Income Households
Low Income Households (as defined in Chapter I) including renters of
property who are eligible to receive a reduced rate for monthly sewer
service charges, shall be billed at the rate of$11.20 per month per EDU.
Eligible resilieats sf the inesFJlsmteli MsatgsmeFY Dismat shall he
hilleli at the rate sf $1:H. f9 lIer year lIer EDU.
The Finance Department of the City shall make available the required
application form and process all applications. Application will require
the submittal of information on total household income, the number of
persons in the household and the type of dwelling unit. Proof of total
annual income shall be furnished.
Siagie family FesieleBts, if eligiBle far the Fea\ieea e€l\".'€!r eenie€! ehapge, ~
shall haye the slltisa sf Feeeiviag the Fea.\ieeli eftapge sf $11.29 a msRth
9B their BieBthly 91' hi BleBthly 'water hills fFem S".':eev"vater ..AAltherity
aREI Otay "tater Distriet 91' 6S 8B QIlllH.al reftma. MeR\gelBeFY 8F€!a
resilieats will snl)' reeeYle the relMieea. eharge sf $1a f. 49 lIer year as aa
lHlIHial rer-a..
ResiEleats ee BfJaFtmeats, eeRQemini1:HBB 81' FB90Hehemes Bhall ale9 Be
eBtitlea. ts the relMieea. sewer seniee eaapge. .\11 eligible sel!aJlaBts may
Feeevle the reElueed S8........8F marge 9S an anfNial refuB8 enly. E'\'iEleBoo
that tkey ha"",,'€! paid a S€!".";'€!F senies ehBPge sf gFeater tBaa a miBiRNim
Elf $11.29 a maath E1r $1af.49 lIer yeaF ia the MsRtgsmeFY aFea sRaIl he
mrnisRea.. P1:'ssf sf tstal annaal iaesBle shall he BlHlmlttea. ',nth the
applieatisB faFm.
Requests for annual refunds shall be made by eligible households
between August 1 and September 30 of each year for the past fiscal year
beginning in July and ending in June. The applicant will be notified of
eligibility status within thirty (30) days of application and if eligible, the
refund forwarded within ninety (90) days of application.
(Designated herein for administrative convenience only)
[Resolution 165791
"'"\
Master Fee Schedule
Part II - Developmellt
eluJpter XII . Engineering. Sewer
~- !;lO
Page 60
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
4.
Sewer Service Variance Fees
.
The owner or occupant of any premises requesting a variance from the
sewer service charges pursuant to the provisions of this section and the
rules and regulations approved by resolution of the City Council shall
pay a fee in the sum of $80.09.$150.00 to cover the cost of investigation
of said request; provided, however, that no fee shall be charged for a
request for total exemption from the sewer service charge. In addition,
a special handling charge to cover the cost of billing and inspections to
be paid per building may be established in the resolution granting the
variance, provided that the minimum such charge shall be in the sum
of ~ .$3.75.
[Resolution 16579]
C. STORM DRAINS
1.
Storm Drain Fees
.
In addition to other fees, assessments or charges provided by the city
code or otherwise, the owner or occupant of any parcels of real property
which parcel is connected to the wastewater system of the city and to
a water system maintained by the Sweetwater Authority, the Otay
Municipal Water District or the California-American Water Company
shall pay a storm drain fee as follows:
a. Domestic, Single Family: Each single family dwelling unit
serviced by a separate water meter - $.70 per month.
b. Domestic, Multi-family, and Commercial and Industrial: Parcels
of real property used for domestic purposes as herein defined
other than single family dwellings, and commercial and
industrial establishments, and serviced by a water meter - $0.06
per each one hundred cubic feet of water usage by such parcel,
but in no case more than $500.00 per month.
c. Montgomery Area: Notwithstanding the above provisions, an
annual Storm Drain Fee for parcels in the former Montgomery
area shall be at the following rates:
1) Domestic Single Family (including mobilehomes): $8.40
per year.
.
MIIS"r Fee Scludllle
Part II . IN.,IiI,,,,,,,,
Clwlpter XII - E"Iillurillg - Sewer
.g---- /~ /
Pag' 61
(Rev. Decelllber 10, 1992)
2)
Demesne MliIti Family aali CemmeFeial and lHdliBtrial:
$9.98 peF handFed e\Hlie feet efwateF IiBage, hased en the
prieF yeaF's aetHel eSBSlilBj)ti9R, e1i-8jeet te 8Iml:1al
acljlistmeRt feF esvcmge SF 1:1BdCFage Based aD. euneFlt
yeMs meFe thaR $8,999 peF yeBF. These Fates ',Jill he
ealleeted an the annaal taK hill hy the SaR Diega Celmty
Tax CalleetaF.
-,
[Resolution 165791
2. Penalty for DelinQuent Payment of Stonn Drain Fees
The fee for delinQuency in payment of the stonn drain chare-e shall be
a basic penalty in an amount eQual to ten (10) percent of the stonn
drain chare-e. plus one and one half (1-1/2) percent per month for non-
payment of the chare:e and basic penalty.
D. PUMP STATIONS
1. Sewae-e Pump Station Chare-e
The followine: are the annual sewae-e pump station chare-es relatine: to
special sewer service rate areas or zones. which haye been imposed by
the City Council pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section
13.14.100. -,
Special Sewer Service Annual
Rate Area Charl!e
Candlewood . $37.20
Rancho Robinhood Unit 1#2 $228.00
Foxhill (CV Woods) $36.00
Mission Verde $72.00
EastlakelOTC
Subarea A $12.00
Subarea B
Sinl!"le Familv $12.00
Multi-Familv $9.00
Subarea C $24.00
W oodcrest Terra Nova $90.00
(Designated herein for administrative convenience only)
-,
Master Fee Schedule
Part 11 - Development
Chopkr XlI. Engineering. Sewer
fJ -' /;LcJ-
Page 62
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
.
2.
Penalty for Delinquent Payment of Pump Station Charges
The fee for delinquency in payment of the pump station charge shall be
a basic penalty in an amount equal to tweaty ten percent of the service
charge, plus one and one half(1-1/2) percent per month for non-payment
of the charlte and basic penalty.
(Designated herein for administrative convenience only)
[Resolution 16579]
E. INDUSTRIAL
1. Wastewater Discharge Permit Fees (Industrial)
The fee for an initial, annual renewal, or amended industrial
wastewater discharge permit shall be based upon the permit category
(Table "A") to which the permitted industry is assigned, and the average
daily volume of industrial wastewater discharged to the public sewer
system in the amount set forth in Table "B".
.
TABLE A
.
Pennit Category Description
1 Industries which discharge wastewater from a process
subject to EP A categorical standards set forth in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations, Section 403, Appendix C, as
amended from time to time. The industries currently
subject to EPA categorical standards are included herein
by reference, but are subject to change. (SEE
APPENDIXES)
2 Industries that are not subject to EP A categorical
standards but which discharge wastewater containing
toxic pollutants identified by EPA in 40 CFR, Section
403, Appendix B. The current list of toxic pollutants
identified by EPA is included herein by reference, but is
subject to change. (SEE APPENDIXES)
3 Industries not subject to EPA categorical standards and
which do not discharge wastewater containing EPA
identified toxic pollutants.
.
Masur Fee Schedule
Part II - Devewpment
Chapur XII. Engineering. Sewer
, ?'-:/;23
Page 63
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
TABLE B
Flow (Average Daily) Pennit Fee (Annual)
Industrial Wastewater Pennit Category
Flow in Gallons Per Day 1 2 3
More than 100,000 $2,000 $1,200 $1,000
50,001 to 100,000 1,500 1,000 600
25,001 to 50,000 1,250 600 500
10,001 to 25,000 650 500 300
100 to 10,000 500 275 200
Less than 100 25 25 25
-
[Resolution 16579]
,g.. Compliance Charl!es
Industries not in compliance with industrial wastewater discharl!e
permit reQuirements shall pay a fee to recover the full cost includinl!
overhead of enforcinl! compliance.
Q..
Penalty for Late Payment
.~
The fee for delinQuency of payment of industrial wastewater discharl!e
permit fees or compliance charl!es shall be a basic penalty in an amount
eQual to ten (10) percent of the initial charl!e. plus one and one half (1-
1/2) percent per month for non-payment of the charl!e and basic penalty.
-
Master Fee Schedule
Part II - Deveropment
Chapter XII - Engineering - Sewer
~~/;2r
Page 64
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
CHAPTER XlII
.
Parks
A.
PARKLAND ACQUISITION IN.LmU FEES
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
Single Family $2,l151du
Attached l,830/du
Duplex l,625/du
Multi-family l,440/du
Mobilehome l,070/du
Residential Motels and Hotels and 980/du
Transient Motels and Hotels
[Resolution 16579]
B. PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT IN.LmU FEES
.
Dwellimr Unit Neie:hborhood Community
DU TvDe Park f!!:k Totsl
Single Family $l,510/du $750/du $2,260/du
Residential Hotel 1,SlO/du 6701du 1,980/du
Duplex 1,160/du 580/du l,740/du
Multi-Family 1,030/du 520/du l,550/du
Mobilehome 770/du S90/du l,l60/du
Residential Motels and 700/du 350/du l,050/du
Hotels and Transient Motels
and Hotels
[Resolution 16579]
C. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ENCROACHMENT FEES
The property owner/applicant desiring to encroach into the open space
maintenance district shall pay a $100 fee to cover the cost of
investigation and processing of such request; provided, however, if a
request is considered by the City Council, the fee shall be $200. Such
fee is not refundable. [Resolution 16579]
.
Muter Fee SCMd/l1e
PlITt II . lHvewpnuftt
Clulpter Xl1l . Parks
I)//:J-S-
Page 65
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
CHAPTER XIV
plAnninlt
-,
A. ANNEXATION
1. Annexation Deposit
The fee for petitioning the annexation of territory to the City shall be
a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
B. APPEALS AND BEARINGS
1. Appeals and Requested Actions before the Planning Commission and
Zoning Administrator
a. For all appeals from actions of the Planning Commission, City
Council or any appeal filed pursuant to Chapter 19.12 or 19.14
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the fee shall be eRe half ef
the eFigiRal &pplielKieB fee, with a -:"li-"- ef $ 12U)Q, aRless
the eFigiBal fee wes a depeeit to eever the City'-s full eest
iBehuBBg 9\.ePhead, iR '::hieh ease the fee fer 8ft appeal shall alee
Be a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
b.
Miscellaneous request for action by the Planning Commission
~
1) If a public htlaring is not required: $350
2) If a public hearing is required: a deposit to cover the
City's full cost including overhead
c. Recreational Vehicle Regulations Appeal of Zoning
Administrator's decision on front yard parking
$25 appeal fee
!Resolution 16579]
C. CONDmONAL USE VARIANCES
1. Conditional Use Permits and Variances
a. Variance or Conditional Use Permit - Zoning Adm;n;strator
......
MtlSur Fee SclNdllk
Ptut 11 . Development
Cllapter XIV . PIiuuting
g>/~~
Page 66
(Rev, December 10, 19nJ
.
.
.
b.
c.
For conditional use permits and variances which do not require
a public hearing, the fees shall be:
1) $350 filing fee for a conrotional use permit
2) $ 25 filing fee for a satellite dish antenna variance
3) ~ .l350 filing fee for any other variance
Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing
Applications for conditional uoe permits shall be made to the
Planning Commission in writing on a form prescribed by the
Planning Commission and shall be accompanied by plans and
data sufficient to show the detail of the proposed use or building.
The application shall be accompanied by a deposit to cover the
City's full cost including overhead. The Director of Planning
shall cause the matter to be set for hearing in the same manner
as required for setting zoning matters for hearing. The Director
of Planning or the Planning Commission shall have the discretion
to include in the notice of the hearing on such application notice
that the Planning Commission will consider classification of other
than that for which application is made and/or additional
properties and/or uses. In those cases where the application
conforms to the requirement!. of Section 19.14.030A of the
Municipal Code, the applicatirll shall be directed to the zoning
atlm;n;strator.
Variance - Public Hearing
1) $50 nonrefundable filing fee for a satellite dish antenna
variance
2) $1.4.9 B9ll1'efundahle The filing fee for any other variance
reauirimr a Dublic hearinlr shall be a deDosit to cover the
City's full cost includinl! overhead.
d. Conditional Use Permit ModiticationlExtension
The fee for modification/extension of a conditional use permit
shall be as follows:
1) If a public hearing is not required, $11.9.99,$185.00
MasUr Pee SCMdule
PIU1II - o,velopllNtIt
Cltili*r XIV . PloIuriIIg
~-/d- ?
Page 67
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
2)
If a public hearing is required, $289.99.$380.00
-,
e. Variance Modification/Extension
The fee for modification/extension of a variance shall be as
follows:
1) If a public hearing is not required; $149.99.$185.00
2) If a public hearing is required; $289.90 .$380.00.
[Resolution 16579]
D. PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION
1. Design review
a. Projects subject to public hearing by the Design Review
Committee shall be subiect to processine: fees as follows;
1) $1i99 Ill'eeessiBg fee
.$390 for 1 to 4 units
$590 for 5 to 15 units
$790 for 16 to 25 units
.$1.000 for 26 to 100 units
-
For over 100 units or for commercial or industrial proiects.
the fee shall be a deposit to cover the City's full cost
includine: overhead.
2) $280 processing fee for a request for extension or
modifications to the plan
b. Minor projects subject to review by the Zoning Administrator
1) $200 processing fee for sine:le family residential
.$300 for 2 to 4 units
For over 4 units the fee shall be a depOsit to cover the
City's full cost includine: overhead
2) $100 processing fee for a request for extension or
modifications to the plan
-.
Master Fee Schedule
Partl1 . Development
Chapl8r XlV . Planning
8"-/;2~
Page 68
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
.
2.
Environmental Review Processes
.
a. A request to initiate the preparation of an Em and candidate CEQA
findingB shall be acoompanied by a deposit to cover the City's full cost
including overhead.
b. Prior to the signinr of an agreement for the preparation of an Em and
CEQA finding, the project proponent shall deposit with the Department of
Finance the amount necessary to reimburse the City hired consultant.
Fee Schedule
c. Selection of consultant and processing of A deposit to cover thP City's
an Em and candidate CEQA findingB full cost including ovorhead
d. Consultant preparation of an Em and A deposit to cover the City's
candidate CEQA findingB full cost including overhead
e. City staff preparation and processing of A deposit to cover the City's
an Em and candidate CEQA findingB full cost including overhead
f. Processing application for an Initial Study A deposit to cover the City's
and preparation of Negative Declaration full cost including overhead
g. Review and use of previously prepared A deposit to cover the City's
Em and the preparation of candidate full cost including overhead
CEQA findingB
h. Review of previous Initial Study and the $MQ $600
use of previous Negative Declaration
i. Appeal of Planning Commission request $145
for more information
j. Review of consultants qualifications for $35
placement on the list of environmental
consultants
k. Placement on list to receive all $50
environmentsI review notices
1. Copy of the EnvironmentsI Review $5
Procedures and aU ERe guideline
requirements, etc.
[Resolution 16579]
3. General Plan Amendment
The fee for processing General Plan amendment applications shall be
a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
[Resolution 16579]
.
MIISU, Fit SelNd,,1e
Part 11 . /HP'WpllUllt
CIulpU, XIV . Pw""ing
~//;21
Pag, 69
(R,p. Dee,mbe,10, 1992)
4.
Landscape Plan ReviewlLandscape Inspection
a. The fee for review of a landscape plan shall be $150.00 plus $35
per sheet in excess of 4 sheets.
"'"'
b.The fee for inspection oflandscaping installation shall be $100
per inspection visit.
[Resolution 16579]
5. PC Zone - General Development Plan and Modifications
The fees shall be deposits to cover the City's full cost including
overhead. [Resolution 16579]
6. Planned Unit Developments and Modifications
The fee for planned unit developments or modification thereof shall be
the City's full cost including overhead.
[Resolution 16579]
L Plan Review - Construction Chan~es
it:.
,$45 - No site visit reauired
,$90 - Site visit reauired
"'"'
8. Precise Plan Approval and Modifications
a. The application shall include:
The name and address of the applicant and of all persons owning
any or all of the property proposed to be used. The application
must be signed by the owner/option holder, or written permission
must be given authorizing an agent to sign the application.
b. All data and maps as specified in the Municipal Code.
c. The fee for processing a precise plan or a modification thereof
shall be a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
[Resolution 16579]
-.
MIISU, Fit SCMduk
PIII111 - De,dllpnl,nt
CIt4pU, XW - Pltuuting
g--/3tJ
Pag, 70
(RIP. Dec,mbe, 10, 1992)
.
9.
Sectional Planning Area Plan and Modifications
The fees shall be deposits to cover the City's full cost including
overhead.
lRaolution 16579]
10. Site Plan and Architectural Approval (Zoning Administrator)
The fees for site plan and architectural approval, no part of which are
refundable, are:
a. $199, l11iil':l:-g ....N1i6tiBB $29,999 $199,99g
h. $199, lniildiBg Val1i6tiBB $199,991 $299,gOO
B. $299, h1:BldiBg VN1i6tiBB $29g,9911
1L.
b.
. !h
d.
.!h
f.
K:.
h.
i.
1.
[Resolution 16579]
~ O. buildinl!' valuation of ~
! 45. buildinl!' valuation of ~$1,000
.$ 90. buildinl!' valuation of $1,001-U-0,000
1135, buildinl!' valuation of $10.001-$20.000
.$180. buildinl!' valuation of $20,001-$100,000
~225, buildinl!' valuation of $100.001-$200,000
.$360. buildinl!' valuation of $200,001-$1,000,000
~50. buildinl!' valuation of $1,000.001-$5.000.000
~530. buildinl!' valuation of $5.000.001-$10.000,000
~720. buildinl!' valuation of Over $10.000.000
11. Specific Plan Development Proposal and Modifications
.
a. The fee for a specific plan proposal or modification shall be a
deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
MlISler Fee SCMd",.
Ptvtll - IH,.lDptlUnl
Clult*r XlV - PItuIninr
~~J ;>/
P.,. 71
(Re,. IHcellllHr 10, 1992)
b.
At the discretion of the Zoning Administrator, this deposit may
be waived for small projects in favor of a $130 flat fee.
[Resolution 165791
-
12. Tentative and Vesting Tentative Map Fees
Prior to the submission of a tentative map. an extension request. or a
vesting tentative map to the Planning Department for processing, the
property owner or subdivider shall deposit with the City the amount to
cover the City's full cost including overhead, incurred in conjunction
with review and processing of said map.
E. SIGNS
1. Sign Permits
.!h
b.
c.
d.
e.
a.
SigHS lip ts 20 BEl.. ft.
21 SEl.. ft. 59 Bq. ft.
In eJleeSS sf 59 sq. ft.
All sirns except In'ound or pole
Ground or pole sirn
Special or temporary permit, banners, etc.
Temporary real estate
Community identification signs
-
b.
$ 20.00
d9.00
59.90
.$ 45.00
105.00
WoW 45.00
100.00
100.00
[Resolution 165791
e.
2. Signing Program Application and Modifications
F. ZONING
a. The Planned Signing Program application fee shall be a deposit
to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
b. The fee for a modification to an approved sign program shall be
$150.
[Resolution 165791
1. Rezoning
Applications for any change in zone boundaries, classification or
reclassification of zones made by one or more owners or parties of
interest in the property within the area to be affected by the proposed
action shall be filed with the Director of Planning, accompanied by
-
Master Fee Schedule
Part II . Development
Chapter XlV . Planning
l5~/;2
Page 72
(Rev. February 18,1993)
.
.
.
such data and infonnation which would insure a full presentation of
the facts and circumstances to justify the reasonableness of the
proposed action. Said application shall be in a form as approved by the
Planning Commission and shall be affirmed by the applicant. Each
application shall be accompanied by a deposit to cover the City's full
cost including overhead.
[Resokaion 16579]
2. Zoning Code Applications subsequent to a violation
The fee required for applications subsequent to a violation of Title 19
of the Municipal Code shall be double the amount that would normally
be required. Such double fee shall not be construed as a penalty, but
shall be construed as an added fee required to defray the additional
expense of investigation and enforcement by the City as a result of
failure to comply with the provisions of the title.
[Resokaion 16579]
3. Zoning Permit
$Ill filing fee
Permits for which applications are submitted prior to
establishment of a new or chanl!ed use of any land or buildinl! lli
Permits for which applications are not submitted prior to
establishment of a new or chanl!ed use of any land or buildinl! $45
[Resolution 16579]
Master Fee SCMdll1e
Part 11 . IHvewpmenl
Cltapter XlV . P/i)nning
Page 73
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
g-/'/) 3
CHAPTER XV
Fire Deoartment Fees
-."
A. PERMITS
.L Flammable and/or Combustible Liquid Storae:e Tanks
a. Installation (per tank) .$50
b. Removal (per tank) .$50
""'"
""'"
Master Fee Schedule
Part /l - Development
Chapter XV - Fire Department Fees
'if --j 3 f
Page 74
(Rev. January 22, 1993)
.
.
.
CHAPTER XV!
Other Fees
A.
DEVELOPMENT UMPACT FEES
Development impact fees shall be assessed as authorized through Ordinances
2251 and 2320 and in accordance with the City's transportation and public
facilities development impact fee programs as presently established or as they
may be updated from time to time by city council ordinance amending the
development impact fee programs. The applicable fee amounts appear in the
development impact fee documents themselves. Copies of these documents
are available for review in the Engineering Department and Administration
offices.
[Resolution 16579j
Master Fee Scheduk
Part Il . Development
Chapter XVI. Other Fees
'15--/ )~
Page 75
(Rev. January 22, 1993)
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
CITY OP CHUU\. 'lIST.A.
PU'_L COST RECOVBRY MUt_ TIPLlBRS BY DEPARTMBNT I.NO DIVISION
The ffieltipliem ar-e as rellews: BRgiReeriRg 2.558; Plan:liRg 2.l!l{i; BeilEliAg aHa HeeslRg 2.H19
fer f-ees set at 75% PCR aRa 2,812 fer fees set at 100% PeR.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FULL COST RECOVERY MULTIPLIERS BY DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION
FCR MULTIPLIERS
DEPARTMENT DIVISION PERMANENT HOURLY
Building & Housing Pennits 3.00868 N/A
Engineering Design 2.75479 N/A
Engineering Advance Planning!
SewerlDrainage 2.78587 1.918.04
Engineering Land Development 2.51102 N/A
Engineering Construction 2.70906 N/A
Inspection
Engineering Traffic 2.88216 N/A
Engineering Traffic Signal/Lights 2.75639 N/A
Planning 2.94308 2.04766
Public Works Traffic Maintenance 2.69816 N/A
g>)3b
:\PPENDIX B
HUD LO'.'.' MODERt.TE INCOME STANDARDS
.-,
lB deteFmilling eligibility, the feUew.Rg table based eR RUD BgaFes (89% efmediaR
Hieeme) shall be aBed:
I )J8. is HeuseheId I Tetiel .'\rmti.&I meeme (eP8es) I
~ *11,099
:a 12,869
3 1',169
4 1&,799
e 1&,799
6 17,869
'l- 18,8&9
8 19,8&9
{I g9,7QQ
$1,999 lHlB\ial iaeeme aUe,.,ed feF eash additienal JleFlleR Hi the hel:lseaeld afteF Q
JleeJlle. .-,
APPENDIX B
HUD LOW MODERATE INCOME STANDARDS
No. in Household Maximum Annual Family Income (Gross
for Eligibility
1 $14,500
2 16,550
3 18,650
4 20,700
5 22,350
6 23,000
7 25,650
8 27,300
$1,000 annual income allowed for each additional person in the household after 8
people. "'""
WPC:F:\HOME\GERALDY\ 185.92
g>/;> 7
APPENDIX C
.
CONSTRUCTION V ALUA TION
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
VALUE/SO Fr.
A..fiA...fi-,",,,"""U. O...~.,.,'
::.::,.;:~D::;::::,.-p.:::~::~r+R~:l!tt::~::,::};-J4:.9R9:;
*TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE V OR III (MASONRY)
TYPE V WOOD FRAME
TYPE I BASEMENT GARAGE
86.00
70.00
63.00
30.00
~~$;
*TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
118.00
85.00
81.00
96.00
92.00
85.00
81.00
.
~~QHJ.1;$;
TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
78.00
58.00
55.00
63.00
60.00
57.00
54.00
~Q~~l$~~m.~~$):l:ti~$j
*TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE V I-HOUR
111.00
79.00
71.00
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
VALUE/SO Fr.
"'\VB.. .lllt..lN",.". G..' .5 ***
U;".-':::'--:""'''''-. .:,.,.:~
..;.;.:.:.;.;.:::.:.;.....;-;.,...;.;-;.;.;.;...:.,.,:;-;';.;...:.;-:.;.l:
TYPE V ADOBE
TYPE V MASONRY
TYPE V WOOD FRAME
BASEMENTS (SEMI-FINISHED)
ADDmONS - WOOD FRAME
SOLARIUMS
E(U~mM:ENlt!
.;<.:.:~~.:.:':.,.>:.,':'..;.:...>:.:.:.:.:':.:.:':.:.:':
AIR CONDITIONING (COMMERCIAL)
AIR CONDmONING (RESIDENTIAL)
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
fj'mI.$'l'~;n~~$j
TYPE I OR III-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
Ji~$g:ti~$l
*TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE V I-HOUR
....-..... .&..M... .0""'[;.5.
ey:~:E49::::::,'-::.::::L.::::;.:,:;:2.j~Mii.::::::::_j
*TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
92.00
77.00
73.00
18.00
73.00
73.00
3.40
2.80
1.60
90.00
59.00
56.00
65.00
62.00
58.00
55.00
130.00
108.00
100.00
81.00
70.00
67.00
61.00
58.00
"ADD 0.5 PERCENT TO THE TOTAL COST FOR EACH STORY OVER THREE.
. ""DEDUCT 11 PERCENT FOR MINI-WAREHOUSES.
"""FOR SUBDIVISIONS WITH 10 OR MORE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH HAVE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCES IN GROUPS OF 10 OR MORE, THE VALUATION OR,THE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES MAYBE DECREASED BY 10 PERCENT. ? -/ J ~
APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION V ALUA TION
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
V ALUE/SO Fr.
"'-~'t''''''''~''''t'''..fi~'''''''''-S.''
Mlg*9::~::~bn*d~Tt:K:,J
TYPE I OR II-P.R. .
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II (STOCK)
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE I1I-N
TILT UP
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
45.00
31.00
29.00
34.00
32.00
23.00
31.00
29.00
1:t\1~~.~tllil_;
*TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE Ill-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE I1I-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
95.00
71.00
67.00
77.00
74.00
72.00
68.00
hmrnC..c;;..
*t:g~.:::::::~}
TYPE I OR III-P.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE I1I-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
85.00
55.00
52.00
61.00
58.00
56.00
53.00
~.}~.>I. i$,m(3;i$,."'W\!. P..,....lE......Sj
..............--,_...............................,
WOOD FRAME
MASONRY
OPEN CARPORTS
18.00
22.00
13.00
~
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
V ALUE/SO Fr.
.RUB..EIC...B.Uu;;o.. .IN...a. .s...
. .. - . .
:,..::~::..:::/..::::.:,:::::,;.::,.?tL:::,:::._:::}.:.}::;..::\:..L::;:;.:<:::.:<:J
TYPE I OR I1-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE I1I-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
99.00
74.00
71.00
83.00
79.00
73.00
70.00
P~CWJP.'.q5f{"5yg~j
*TYPE I OR II-P.R.
TYPE I OR II OPEN PARKING
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE I1I-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
39.00
31.00
23.00
28.00
26.00
23.00
Rli$x5'Q~;
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE I1I-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
-.,
74.00
70.00
65.00
62.00
smiQQ!l@;
TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE I1I-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
89.00
63.00
64.00
60.00
58.00
55.00
**DEDUcr 11 PERCENT FOR MINI-WAREHOUSES.
*ADD 0.5 PERCENT TO mE TOTAL COST FOR EACH STORY OVER lliREE.
-..
***FOR SUBDIVISIONS WIlli 10 OR MORE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH HAVE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCES IN GROUPS OF 10 OR MORE. mE VALUATION OR mE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES MAYBE DECREASED BY 10 PERCENT.
25--/37
APPENDIX C
.
CONSTRUCTION V ALUA TION
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
VALUE/SO Fr.
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
VALUE/SO Fr.
$~:MU\1!!!~m;~lm:Q~;
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE V I-HOUR
CANOPIES
53.00
53.00
46.00
20.00
$llQRiP$;
*TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
66.00
40.00
39.00
49.00
46.00
39.00
37.00
.
."...............5....
mq~1Ili!R;
TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
87.00
63.00
60.00
57.00
54.00
W;.......A....RE..B. .0... .U.S.g. S..
".:. ':"-' '"".':'.."".' .:','.."
. ... .. ..
\,<,,:\,::,.\.:_,::.,.:..._.\.,::.,:.::,_,::.:.:,.,:.:::.,-,:..,...A
TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
39.00
23.00
22.00
27.00
26.00
23.00
22.00
"ADD 0.5 PERCENT TO THE TOTAL COST FOR EACH STORY OVER THREE.
. ""DEDUCT 11 PERCENT FOR MINI-WAREHOUSES.
"""FOR SUBDIVISIONS WITH 10 OR MORE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH HAVE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCES IN GROUPS OF 10 OR MORE, THE VALUATION OR THE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES MAY BE DECREASED BY 10 PERCENT.
~7 L/o
APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION VALUATION
AGRICULTURAL BUILDING $14.25 SQ. Fr.
ALUMINUM SIDING $4.25 SQ. Fr.
ANTENNAS
RADIO, OVER 30 Fr. IN HEIGHT $2,600.00 EACH
DISH, 10 Fr. DIA. W/DECODER $3,150.00 EACH
AWNING OR CANOPY (SUPPORTED BY BUILDING)
ALUMINUM $15.50 SQ. Fr.
CANVAS $6.50 SQ. Fr.
BALCONY $10.75 SQ. Fr.
CLOSE EXTERIOR WALL OPENING $10.75 SQ. Fr.
DECKS (WOOD) $10.75 SQ. Fr.
DEMOLmON OF BUILDING $23.75 SQ. Fr.
FENCE OR FREESTANDING WALL
WOOD OR CHAIN LINK $1.50 SQ. Fr.
WIRE $1.50 SQ. Fr.
MASONRY $6.50 SQ. Fr.
WROUGHT IRON $4.25 SQ. Fr.
FIREPLACES
CONCRETE OR MASONRY $2,600.00 EACH
PREFABRICATED METAL $1,775.00 EACH
GREENHOUSE $4.25 SQ. Fr.
INTERIOR PARTmON $36.25 LIN. Fr.
INSTALL WINDOW OR SLIDING GLASS DOOR $11.25 SQ. Fr.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING (25% OF VALUE OF $18.25 EACH
"SITE-BUILT" HOUSE)
PATIO
WOOD FRAME WITH COVER $6.50 SQ. Fr.
METAL FRAME WITH COVER $8.25 SQ. Fr.
WOOD FRAME - COVER AND WALLS $9.50 SQ. Fr.
METAL FRAME - COVER AND WALLS $10.75 SQ. Fr.
SCREEN OR PLASTIC WALLS $2.25 SQ. Fr.
PILE FOUNDATIONS
CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE $16.00 LIN. Fr.
STEEL $38.50 UN. Fr.
15--/Y/
-
"""
"""
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION V ALUA TION
PLASTERING
INSIDE $2.00 SQ. Fr.
OUTSIDE $2.00 SQ. Fr.
,
RELOCATED BUILDINGS (FEE SAME AS FOR NEW
BUILDINGS)
RETAINING WALL
CONCRETE OR MASONRY $13.00 SQ. Fr.
RE-ROOFING (1 SQUARE = 100 SQUARE FEET)
BUILT-UP $100.00 SQ.
COMPOSmON SHINGLES $92.00 SQ.
FIBERGLASS SHINGLES $92.00 SQ.
ASBESTOS-CEMENT SHINGLES $219.00 SQ.
WOOD SHINGLES $219.00 SQ.
WOOD SHAKES $219.00 SQ.
ALUMINUM SHINGLES $330.00 SQ.
CLAY TILE $277.00 SQ.
CONCRETE TILE $234.00 SQ.
ROOF STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT $10.75 SQ. Fr.
SAUNAS (STEAM) $6,500.00 EACH
SHELL BUILDINGS
A SHELL BUILDING IS DEFINED AS A BUILDING FOR WHICH HV AC, LIGHTING,
SUSPENDED CEILINGS, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, PARTITION
LAYOUTS AND INTERIOR FINISH ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND FOR
WHICH SEPARATE TENANT IMPROVEMENT PLANS WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR
PLAN CHECK AT A LATER DATE SHOWING THESE ITEMS. WAREHOUSES AND
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED SHELL BUILDINGS.
THE VALUATION FOR SHELL BUILDINGS SHALL BE TAKEN AS 80 PERCENT OF
THE VALUATION FOR THE COMPLETED BUILDING. .
SOLAR
VALUE PLUS PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, WATER
AND HEATING $1,175.00 EACH
--OR--
PLAN CHECK FEE
ONE BUILDING $29.50 EACH
ADDITIONAL BUILDING AT SAME LOCATION $11.75 EACH
If--- /1)-
APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION V ALUA TION
""'"
BUILDING PERMIT FEE (PER GROSS FLOOR AREA OF
COLLECTOR)
FIRST 100 SQUARE FEET .47 SQ. FT.
. COLLECTOR AREA OVER 100 SQ. FT. .06 SQ. FT.
REINSPECTION FEE $17.75 EACH
SPA OR JACUZZI $5,325.00 EACH
STAIRS $10.75 SQ. FT.
STONE AND BRICK VENEER $6.50 SQ. FT.
SWIMMING POOL (pER SQ. FT. OF SURFACE AREA)
VINYL LINED $25.00 SQ. FT.
GUNITE $27.25 SQ. FT.
FIBERGLASS $29.50 SQ. FT.
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
THE VALUATION OF TENANT IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE $21.00 PER SQ. FT.
OR THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS
NON-ILLUMINATED ILLUMINATED
ROOF
1 FACE $19.25 SQ. FT $31.50 SQ. FT.
2 FACE $27.25 SQ. FT. $44.50 SQ. FT.
WALL
1 FACE $13.00 SQ. FT. $27.25 SQ. FT.
PROJECTING
1 FACE $18.50 SQ. FT. $38.25 SQ. FT.
2 FACE $27.25 SQ. FT. $44.50 SQ. FT.
POLE (VALUE PLUS
SUPPORTING STRUCTURE
1 FACE $19.25 SQ. FT. $31.50 SQ. FT.
2 FACE $27.25 SQ. FT. $44.50 SQ. FT.
BILLBOARDS (VALUE
PLUS SUPPORTING
STRUCTURE)
1 FACE $19.25 SQ. FT. $31.50 SQ. FT.
2 FACE $27.25 SQ. FT. $45.50 SQ. FT.
SUPPORTING STRUCTURE $44.50 LIN. FT.
-,
-
C;S./ /t/3
.
.
.
APPENDIX D
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
TABLE I
Industries within these categories have been identified as potential dischargers of either prohibited wastes
or toxic pollutants. Table 2 lists the toxic pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
Adhesives and Sealants Mfg.
Aluminum Forming
Asbestos Mfg.
Auto Repair
Battery Mfg.
Bottling Plants
Canneries
Carffruck Washes
Cement Mfg.
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electrical and Electronic
Products Mfg.
Electroplating
Explosives Mfg.
Feed Lots
Fertilizer Mfg.
Food Processing Plants
Glass Mfg.
Gum and Wood Chemicals
Mfg.
Hospitals
Ink Formulation
Inorganic Chemicals Mfg.
Iron and Steel Mfg.
Laboratories
Laundries
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding and Casting
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Ore Mining and Dressing
Organic Chemicals Mfg.
Packing Houses
Paint Formulation
Petroleum Refining
Pesticides Mfg.
Pharmaceuticals Mfg.
Photoprocessing
Plastics Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Printing and Publishing
Rendering
Rubber Processing
Soaps and Detergents Mfg.
Steam Electric Power Generation
Tars and Asphalt Mfg.
Textile Mills
Timer Products Processing
<;(~/t/(
APPENDIX D
TABLE 2
-.
LIST OF 65 TOXIC POLLUTANTS IDENTIFIED BY EPA
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Antimony and compounds
Arsenic and compounds
Asbestos
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium and compounds
Cadmium and compounds
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloralkyl ethers '
Chlordane
Chlorinated benzenes
Chlorinated ethanes
Chlorinated naphthalene
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
Chromium and compounds
Copper and compounds
Cyanides
DDT and metabolites
Dichlorobenzenes
Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylenes
2,4-dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane &
Dichloropropene
2,4-dimethylphenol
Dinitrololuene
Diphenylhydrazine
Endosulfan and metabolites
Endrin and metabolites
Ethybenzene
Fluoranthene
Haloethers
Halomethane
Heptachor and metabolites
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds
Napththalene
Nickel and compounds
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols
Nitrosamines
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phthalate esters
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons
Selenium and compounds
Silver and compounds
2,3,7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD)
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium and compounds
Toluene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Zinc and compounds
-.
[Resolution 16225]
--.
~r/~?
.
.
PROPOSED USER CLASSIFICATIONS AND
ASSUMED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
BOD $$
USER CLASSIFICATION (ppm) (ppm)
Residential 200 200
Low-Strength Commercial
Basic Commercial 150 150
Car Wash 20 150
Department & Retail Stores 150 150
Hotels w/o Dining Facilities 310 120
Hospital & Convalescent 250 100
Laundromat 150 110
Professional Office 130 80
School & College 130 100
Soft Water Service 3 55
Medium-Strength Commercial
Bars w/o Dining Facilities 200 200
Commercial Laundry 450 240
Repair Shop & Service Station 180 280
Shopping Center 400 432
High-Strength Commercial
Auto Steam Cleaning 1,150 1,250
Bakery, Wholesale 1,000 600
Hotel with Dining Facilities 500 600
Industrial Laundry 670 680
Mortuaries 800 800
Restaurant 1,000 600
Supermarkets 800 800
Other
Septage 5,400 12,000
.
. g~J1b
APPENDIX E
..
.
tl_~L--LC/
.
.
y//'il
ORDINANCE NO.
.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITI OF CHUlA VISTA AMENDING
SECTIONS 3.44.021, 9.12.160, 9.12.280, 9.13.050,
13.14.090, 13.14.100,13.14.110, 13.14.120,AND 13.14.150
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS
5.36.035 AND 15.36.015 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RElATING TO FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 3.44.021 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 3.44.021 Exemptions-Senior citizens.
A
The tax imposed by this chapter shall not apply to any individual sixty-two years
of age or older who uses telephone, electric and gas in or upon any premises
occupied by such individual; provided the combined gross income of all members
of the household in which such individual resided wa!! less than seven thStl.SIiRB
ihe ffi:tHBreBdsHaro ~fl:Y~~tl~)pf~mlMl!~jjfgY!P!!gnwfgJ~~~
m~~!iieJq~~ for the calendar year pIior to the fiscal year (July 1 through June
30) . for which the exemption provided in this chapter is applied. ~!g4~im:\.~
imf4~m~l'lrnql.p~~q~!#~!~}~~~lYfQt~gnR~~9i~YtQP9IU~p,$~~f~m
~~.'.px!.m~f~~~,g.iipiP.!;9~~t.p~~9Hl'lmg~q'.'Q~~.~~gPm~t~).
.
The exemption granted by this section shall not eliminate the duty of the service
suppliers from collecting taxes from such exempt individuals or the duty of such
exempt individuals from paying such taxes to the service suppliers unless an
exemption is applied for by the service user and granted in accordance with the
provisions of subsection B of this section.
.
B. Any service user exempt from the taxes imposed by this chapter because of the
provisions of subsection A may file an application with the director of finance for
an exemption. Such an application shall be made upon forms supplied by the
director of finance and shall recite facts verified by declaration under penalty of
perjury which qualify the applicant for an exemption. The director of finance shall
review all such applications and certify as exempt those applicants determined to
quallfy therefor and shall notify all service suppliers affected that such exemption
has been approved, stating the name of the applicant, the address to which such
exempt service is being supplied. the account number, if any, and such other
Information as may be necessary for the service supplier to remove the exempt
service user from its tax billing procedure. The certification of such application
for exemption shall be granted if the eligibility requirements of subsection A are
met. except that no exemption shall be granted to an applicant who is receiving
service from a service supplier through a master meter, or who is shaIing or
prorating service with other service users even though such service users qualify
under the provisions of subsection A; provided, however, that the person receiving
service through a master meter or sharing or prorating service with other service
users shall be eligible for a rebate of the utility users' tax in the amount of twelve
dollars per year, or any larger amount upon a showing of actual billing from the
person having control of said master meter, to be paid at the beginning of each
WPC F,\home\wpc\geraJdy\ 10651.WPF g- .....-J t/ r Attachment #4-1
fiscal year for the preceding fiscal year, commencing on July I, 1977. Such
person seeking said rebate must file the application therefor on or before
September 1st of each year to receive said rebate for the preceding fiscal year. It -.
is further provided that said rebate may be prorated if the applicant has not
resided in the same location for the full preceding fiscal year. No exemption shall
be granted with respect to any tax imposed by this chapter which is or has been
paid by a public agency or where the applicant receives funds from a public
agency specifically for the payment of such tax.
Upon receipt of such notice, the service supplier shall not be required to continue
to bill any further tax imposed by this chapter from such exempt service user until
further notice by the director of finance is given. The service supplier shall
eliminate such exempt service user from its tax billing procedure for bills dated on
or after July I, 1976, upon receipt of such notice from the director of finance prior
to July I, 1976, and thereafter from bills dated no later than sixty days after
receipt of such notice from the director of finance.
All exemptions shall continue and be renewed automatically by the director of
finance so long as the prerequisite facts supporting the initial qualification for
exemption continue; provided, however, that the exemption shall automatically
terminate with any change in the service address or residence of the exempt
individual; and further provided, that such individual may nevertheless apply for
a new exemption with each change of address or residence. Any individual exempt
from the tax shall notify the director of finance within ten days of any change in
fact or circumstance which might disqualify said individual from receiving such
exemption. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly receive the
benefits of the exemptions provided by this section when the basis for such
exemption either does not exist or ceases to exist.
-.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this subsection, however, any service
supplier who determines by any means that a new or nonexempt service user is
receiving service through a meter or connection exempt by virtue of any exemption
issued to a previous user or exempt user of the same meter or connection, such
service supplier shall immediately notify the director of finance of such fact, and
the director of finance shall conduct an investigation to ascertain whether or not
the provisions of this section have been complied with and, where appropriate,
order the service supplier to commence collecting the tax from the nonexempt
service user.
as follows:
SECTION D: That Section 5.36.035 be added to the Municipal Code to read
~,*~"';~(J.q,~ lIl:)HlitlCl af!lllt]l PflWtltlolier~:Refunclable Fe.
~:~i=~_j;fPm~=::s~u:~:.,t:~~%h=:~~:tl:~::~~
-.
WFC F:\home\wpc\8enUdy\10651.WPF
Y-/ii
Attachment #4-2
SECTION lll: That Section 9.12.160 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code be amended as
follows:
.
Section 9.12.160 Bingo-Term of license and fees.
A The term of a bingo license Is one year and may be renewed for a period of one
year upon application therefor.
B. The fee faF 8. Biage l:Ieease lUIa 8. Feflewallieeaee saaR be 8.S IlFeSefttly aesigflatea.
aT may 1ft the: [1:1t1:1f( 'Be ameaaea, 1ft the master fee 8efleatlle. The 8:fJPFsprtate fee
aha-ll aeesfftJJaRY the attbmieslsR sf (aflio tlIlplieat:ieB, ana In the eveRt an
8.IlIll:leaMElB Is Eieniea. ally IleFeeflt ef tlie fee sfiall Be rernflaea.
C. For W_U~~!j.Ppq~~t!9n9trqr each change In the bingo chairpersons who
will manage the bingo game. there shall be a fee for !AY~ftlit!9n!mi;1,[qr
processing the applicant's fingerprints. as set farth IfI. the master fee seftea1:l1e.
The 8.IlIll'elln8.te fee ~~~~~(l.Wl shall accompany the submission of each
application. ~p...~.!'IYl'mt@,n*ppllp*!\!9PI~j;Jl'm~q;.fI.!!Y.Pl#!Pl'mt9~tb~f~~~I;li\\:\!g~
.qQq~;
D. A fee ~. not to exceed one percent of the monthly gross receipts over five
thousand dollars derived from bingo games shall be collected monthly by the city.
.
SECTION IV: That Section 9.12.280 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Is amended to
read as follows:
Section 9.12.280 Casino Parties-Application, Fee.
An application for a casino party shall be made to the Chief of Police on forms
prescribed by the Chief of Police notless than fifteen (IS) days prior to the proposed date
of the party. The application shall be accompanied by 8. fee feF eElBEh:leMag an
iR~-..:eaM.ga.Mefl as set earth iH the Mester Fee Seheclttle BB itel:lffently e3'salB Bf Hla.y iR the
fl:ltl:lFe Be 8.ftIeflaea !;b~~It~~~~~~). The application for a casino party shall contain
at a minimum the f6ii6Wlng: ..... ..... ..
A A list of all volunteers who will operate the casino games or devices. Including full
names of each volunteer. date of birth. place of birth. physical description. home
address and home telephone number.
B. Name and address of company or Individual that will be furnishing casino
equipment or devices.
C. The date. hours of the date, and place of the proposed casino party.
D.
Casino Manager. Concurrently with the filing of an application for a casino party
license. each applicant shall file a statement specifying the name and address of
two persons who shall manage. supervise and be responsible for the conduct of
the casino party. The casino managers shall be present on the premises at all
times during which a casino party Is being conducted.
.
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraldy\1065I.WPF
g-)~()
Attachment #4-3
SECTION V: That Section 9.13.050 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Is
amended to read as follows:
Section 9.13.050 AppDcatlon and deposit for Dcense.
-
The applicant for any license or licenses in this chapter shall Be HIftEl.e te1:ke eWef
ef f)eliee and shaD he aee&Hif3aniea By a aep6sit 18 the 8:lll61:1Flt sf eRe Htlfldrecl fifty
e!eRaFS, ,..hiell. e!epseitsll.rill be HeH Fef1:tHaaele P~Y~i.'!B,~9,9!t~:W~I!!). If th.eliceJ1s~ is
issued, said e!epsslt (~!l!'l shall be aflflliea iH the flaymeHt ef 1:ke lieease fee r~!iQp~Af4~.
SECTION VI: That Section 13.14.090 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.090
Sewer Capacity Charge.
A: The owner or person making application for a permit to develop or modify use of
any residential, commercial, industrial or other property which is projected by the
Director to increase the volume of flow in the City sewer system by at least
one-half of one equivalent dwelling unit of flow shall pay a Sewer Capacity Charge.
All revenue derived from such fees shall be deposited in the Trunk Sewer Capital
Reserve Fund. The amount of such charge shall be the Required Feels).
B. OHe eEttJ.ivttieHt e!weHlag tHllt (EDD) sf fl6':: Is e!eIlHee! te Be 286 gallsHs fleF aay sf
se'",:.~ geBeFtltiea. The fee fer flfSJIerty iH".'6lviRg a meaiReatiaa in use shaR
F-e"Aeet anly the laerease la ae-y..~ge geae:F&tisa pffljeet'€;d fram that f,lf6peny. The
feRevJing Fates sf Re-r"y; fer vflrtel:1S lana1:1ses shaD Be tdili2ed 18 aetemWliRg the
tata} fee due fer any gYJeH flF8peFty:
-
Lana U ae
EDlls Bf YltwE
Single familj. reaiaesee
..:\pftf"tJBeHt/CeRdemifH1.1Hlliv~g l1flit
HeSfllt&! Bea
MeBlle I1Sffte
Metd, ll.ste11Mag 1:tnit
CatlPeH, theater, 8tlaUeriHIR
Pel" eaeh tlHit sf aeatiag ea13aeUy
fORe unit Being IIOpeffiaRB ar
any fMetlafl theFeat)
Rest:alfftlHt
12.87 flltis seatlflg aIleeatieH sf
1. e fer eaeh 10 seats SF fFaeMen
1:kereei)
1.0
0.76
1.0
1.0
.33
1.0
1.0
SeJ"'..'iee StaMaR
Self sen'iee laHR8FY peF --l.~heF
atka- (see eele";.~
2.671
vttl'iaele
2.60
.76
IN the t:ft:5e sf eeRHBeFei&l, meNsa-tal ana ether aevelspffient:a Rat iReltulea ah8'.'t:,
the FltlHlher af efll:.lY-laleHt cl-.};ellJ.ng Halts sf De-.); sflttil Be aeteFfl1.!aea in eaM ease
By tHe DireeteF ami SHall ee easee! tlfleH the estlffl.at:ea ..-el1:tffie ef Slmoage te Be
e!isekafgee! IHte tlie City sewa- system. The ReoN rete feF flFefla-ty iHveMag a
~
WPC F,\home\wpc\geraldy\ 10651.WPF
!5 ~/ ~(
Attachment #4-4
meeliftea.1:isH ill lana 1:lse sha:ll Fefleet aBly the laereaae la se9]J8.ge geIleflltiSR
IJrElj eet frem Hia t IJl'6lJerty '."Bieh eKeeees .6() eftti1"aleHt e'nelllHg tIflits Elf flew.
.
SECTION VII: That Section 13.14.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.100
Sewage Pump Station Charge - Disposition of Revenue -
Determination of Charges
A.
B. All revenue derived from sewage pump station charges shall be deposited into i,i:
tfte separate fund \'Wa~Wlt deemed appropriate by the Director of Finance. . .
C.
.
.
WPC F: \home\wpc\gerakly\ 1065I.WPF
%"~J5 ~
Attachment #4.5
-
p;
~;
t>
~?f:
-
SECTION VIII: That Section 13.14.11 0 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.110
A.
"'.
~~
9Y
Sewer Service Charges Designated - Payment Required _
Domestic Purposes. Defined.
'"'"
SV~/5;J
WPC F,\home\wpc\geraldy\1065I.WPF
Attachment #4-6
~. All revenue derived from such charges shall be deposited Into the Sewer IReElHle
~~~lfQ#lf Fund.
.
e:$. For the purpose of this section, real property shall be deemed to be used for
domestic purposes when such property Is used solely for single-family residences
or the furnishing of lodging by the operation of hotels, auto courts, apariment
houses, bungalow courts, housing units, rooming houses, motels, trailer parks,
or the rental of property for lodging purposes.
D. Be-Her aerviee eH8:Fgea 18 1:.lSefB iH the MSRtg8Hlery ..^....-....Relf8.tisR ...vea. BhaD he
esl:leetea In the fsrm sf tlr.Rttai ehMgeB oAa IlI'6f1eFty l:aK BIllB IlFeIlllfea By tfte SB:R
Diege CS1illty ..~BesS8F thfS\1.gR the eRa Bf '91 '92 f.laeal }'"e&r. MeRt.gemef)~ ~:\rea
efl.aFgeB shall Be eSHiIUtFaBle t8 these Bf the remalaaer sf the CUy, aiter ereait far
HRtlSe8 reSeF\"e maRies. aefltllred by the CUy fh:lfiag the ..'\Fee. aRRe3l8.t18R f)fseess,
flaa Been ~fJlied. BegilliliRg Ju.lj. 1, 1002, sey.~ aemee eharges fer the
Meat-gtlHiet). ...\nneH8.tlSR area shall Be Billed and. eelleet-ea in the B&l'Be Hl8.F1flef' as
iR tlie Fest sf the City.
SECTION IX: That Section 13.14.120 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
Is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.120
Reduced Sewer Service Charges Permitted
Wben-AppUcation-Contents-Refunds-Fees.
A.
The Director of Finance shall have the authority to certiJy eligibility for a reduced
sewer service charge, In the amount of seventy percent (700A>) of the rate charged
other residential users, upon Investigation, or upon application by the occupant
of a single family residence, apariment, condominium or mobilehome when the
occupant:
.
1. Meets the low Income eligibility criteria as presently designated In the
Master Fee Schedule, or as may In the future from time to time be amended
by city council resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule, or
2. Provides proof of payment of a monthly sewer charge greater than the
Required Fee(s) for minimum sewer service charge.
B. The occupant of premises subject to a sewer charge may request a reduced sewer
service charge by filing a completed City application form. The applicant shall
furnish data regarding the tYPe of unit. number of people in the household and
proof of total annual income (gross). of the household. Application forms may be
obtained from the City's Finance Depariment. Certification of eligibility shall be
annually established with the Director of Finance.
C. Eligible occupants of single family homes subject to the sewer service charge shall
have the option of either requesting an annual refund from the City or requesting
the reduced sewer charge be applied on the sewer billing as BASWfl. SR the IftBRthIy
8f hi Hl8Hthly \-7arer Billa.
D.
Residents of apariments, condominiums or mobilehomes who are eligible for the
reduced sewer service charge shall receive the reduced sewer charge as an annual
refund only.
.
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraldy\ 10651.WPF
Y--/31
Attachment #4-7
Requests for annual refunds shall be made by eligible households between August
1 and September 30 of each year for the past fiscal year beginning in July and
ending In June. The applicant will be notified of eligibility status within thlrly (30)
days of application and. If eligible. a refund shall be fOIwarded within ninety (90)
days of application.
F. Reslaeats ef the IHeefllsratea MeHtgefftt:FY Dlstflet -:1m Hst Be eligiBle fer either
refHOOS SF a :redueed se.w.~f 8eRiee eharge at the presEnt tim.e; they ...-liR, R8VJe\.>:t:F,
be eligiBle fur the res.ueea 3eV.~F se:n"iee eharge S8te they are soojeet 1:6 the full
ae-..ver aefViee charge set hy the Master Fee Schedule hecause the speeial
supplement fl::Ula is ed1a:ustea.
E.
SECTION X: That Section 13.14.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Is
amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.150
Payment of Sewer Service and Pump Station Charges _
Penalty for DeUnquency - Discontinuance of Service _
When - Unlawful Connection - BackbllUng and Penalty.
A ~P~i;j.pf'!~i!-Ymerit. All sewer service and pump station operation and
maintenance charges. elfeeflt these desertbecllH stlBseetieH F aerelfteele-w. shall
be eeffifltlt-ed l:l!'n~9 upon a monthly or bl-monthly basls;6#(j~~*~:JjIp!; as
determined by the City &()4t').cl~ sr the sefVing -;.'flrer Bgmey. and shall be payable
upon the billing of such charges to the owner or the occupant.
Director's Report. Annually, not later than August 10. the City Clerk shall
!let the Report of the Director of PubUc Works filed pun;llflnt to SeCtlQ.~
i3.14.100 andlor 13.14.110 for public hearing befOre the City Council arid
dtilycauseNotlcethereof and of the fi~ of sald reporttobepubllsheQ
once at. least ten days in. advance thereof in a newspaper of general
cti'culation published in the City of ChuIa Vista.
Notice toPrtiperiy Owner. When theDtrector of Public Works requests that
~~.~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~:t:t:;rs~~~~~\~~a?:~f~t~
ri:iailed to each person assessedfor each properly desCl'ibedtn the report;
at the address shown gnthe Iastavatlableas$essment toll. NoUceof. the
filing. of the report .and..of the date. time. an<:! place of the public . healing
Uiereon.If sUch charges are collected on the Tax Bill p'\irSuanttosuch
~otice;annually therea.ftersuch notice need not be given but only thll
notice by pUblication reqUlredby subsection B.1.
C. Counctl Action. The City CounCil shall conduct a .publlc hearing to. consider
the amoiIntof such.charges. and whether they shall be collected on the Tax Bill.
The first year saId Charges arepl'9PQSed to be placeQ on the Tax am. such action
Issubje(:t to .a nu\fonly protest.
B.
2.
L
1. If amajonty of theowneJ;s of affected properties protest plaeertlentOIl the
TaX.:JjIUl.thecba,rges shall not be So collected. but shall be eStabiished by Cll?
Coun;cttReso11itlon and collected pursuant to subsection D hereof.
~; If therets nomajortty protest and the City Council detennine5 to place the
charges;ot.soine of them, on the Tax Bill, for those to be cOllect:edon the Tax Bill
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraldy\1065LWPF ~ - J 5 5" Attachment #4-8
-.
......
.......
.
.
...
+"~
.
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraldy\10651.WPF
?'i)~
Attachment #4-9
eE.
BE. ~n9:\l;!~!:mtlj:jjl~n~~; In the event the owner or occupant of any premises shall
be delinquent In payment of the sewer service a,rtdZqrp!.Htips1ii!qQ# charge and
such delinquency continues for a period of five days after the final date for
payment of such charge. the city shall have the right. forthwith and without
notice. to discontinue sewer aQ9/,qtPWltRs~tiQrt service to such delinquent
owner or occupant. and sewer l:iOd./,Ol\pl!/Xlnllc1ii!Qqtt service shall not again be
supplied to such person until all delinquent sewer service a,rtqzPJ!P~R$tjit1;!Q1l
charges plus the penalties thereon as herein provided have been paid. The sewer
service apQ/PjfPWltpst4tl(ln charges may be collected by suit In any court of
competent jurisdiction or any other manner.
EG.t..l'~~9Pl;iQe~l1l>n. In the event that any parcel or building Is determined by
the Director to have been unlawfully connected to the public wastewater system.
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraJdy\10651.WPF
SV~/5?
Attachment #4-10
-
-
-.
.
the City shall have the right to terminate sewer ~19rpHmP~jigI',l;9n service to
such parcel or bulldlng as provided In section 13.06.110. Sewer ~tPrpHmP
~~!il9n service shall not again be supplied to such parcel or bulldfug until an
c1elli1quent sewer service ~j:!tPrpjil~!i\jig'tl9n charges which have been
accumulated during the current ownership of the parcel or bulldlng. plus jj;~!q
~~!~~1B~i~~~~~~~~~~f~~;;p;tP,;r~~llil;11~~~~f
~gpl!#g~~tp,~plfflg:p~!y(q~~gn!.lJ~j:!f9r~~m!i\ttg'tl~P9nY~~9r9Y
....'......'..,.,..... ~"'. '''.......u..."...''.. "'. ". ''''..'......,.. F... ."."."."". >."'... '>C' .'.'''' ." ''''''. .'..... '..1.. ') h b Id
"'~Hw~r~;;i"i4\~9"!~~9J~. as een pa .
F.
Sew'er seMee eRa~s far asers in the Mentgem.efY ...^.....-meHfttiSR Mea shall be
eeReetea in tHe farm sf QIlJUlal eharges ..'48. pre pert)- talL billa prepared by the San
mega CStlfil:y l\ssesssr W6I:IgR tfle eM sf 1991 1992 ftseal yeltf'. M6fltgamefy
lvet! ehltf'ges SHall be eSmflltf'al3le ia thee!': sf the remaiaaer sft:he City. Biter eretiit
fer 1:lFftlsecl reaeFVe Hi8Riea. EleflHlrea By t::he City atlring the 1\ree. aralle:H8.Mea
pFeeess, has BeeR applies. Begin..1ing July 1, 1992, ae-,;;eF seF\iee eftftFgt:s far the
AIsatgeftlety .^dlfle:UfttiSR &fea aBall Be billed and eelleetecl in the 88.11le mar.ner as
18 the rest sf the City.
SECTION XI: That Section 15.36.015 be added to the Municipal Code to
read as follows:
lH~tlOQU;86.015
AppUcatlOil fOf Penults
~()!:i9i;l4,Vl~Qt Article 4, Clf tbeUniform Fire Code as. It applies iiitbe Ci~of
<;:huIaVi$1'8,1$ h(i:tebyari1endedto rea(i.as foll0W5:
. ~.d~tftf:t::~~~:es~~:n~~pt;:c~~~r=~ns~:~o;=;:.x:
bysucl:l. plans 'il$i'equlred by tbe'diVIsion and by the Required Fee(s).
SECTION XII: Effective Date. ThIs ordinance shall take effect and be In full
force on the thirtieth day from and after Its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Lyman Christopher
Director of Finance
1M , vl k 1-/6
D. Richard Rudolf
Assistant City Attorney
.
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraldy\ 10651.WPF
g//5%
Attachment #4-11
.
.
.
!
,
g- JL~0
. \ ~-?"_L"-#.-
I
It--- /;j7
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 4 -
August 7, 1991
~ IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Fine Free Day on August 18th in conjunction with Library
centennial
The Friends of the Library have requested that Sunday,
August 18th be declared a fine-free day in conjunction
with the Library's 100th birthday.
MSUC (ViescajWilson) that the Library Board supports the
Friends request to make August 18th a fine-free day in
conjunction with the Library Centennial.
B. Library Fine Fee Schedule Update
The City updates its fine and fee schedule on a regular
basis and has asked all departments to review the fines
and fees they collect. The Library proposes increases
in two fees it currently charges and the institution of
a new fee.
1. Increase the overdue charge for children's books
from $.05 per day to $.10 per day.
2.
Increase non-resident of California Library Card fee
from $10 per year to $20 per year.
This is a per family fee and during FY 1990-91 the
Library issued 113 paid cards. Most of the people
obtaining these cards live in Baja California. The
Library does not charge this fee to active military
personnel.
3. Institute a $5.00 processing charge for lost books
or audio visual materials.
~
This fee is to replace the overdue book charge on
most books that are declared lost. The ALIS II
circulation system could calculate this fee, but the
new INLEX system does not.
~
MS (ViescajWilson) that the Library Board support
increasing the children's overdue fee, the non-resident
card fee and the $5 processing charge.
Chairman Williams argued that he faces students that are
unable to read on a daily basis and could not support
any measure that might prevent children from reading.
Trustee Viesca withdrew his motion and offered the
following:
Attachment #5-1
g-,/~o
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 5 -
August 7, 1991
MSUC (Viesca/Wilson 3-0) that the Library Board table
the issue of the children's overdue fee until the full
Board can vote on it and support the increase in the non-
resident library card and the $5 processing charge.
"'"
C. Grant Update
1. Family Literacy Grant
The City Council has approved the Library's
acceptance of this grant
2. Application for Grant to Serve Spanish Speaking
Immigrant Populations 1991-92
Library staff is working on this grant application.
If awarded, this grant could provide a total of
$12,000, $4,000 for each library building, with
which to purchase materials for Spanish speaking
immigrants to provide assistance in the process of
their adaptation to the United States.
MSUC (Viesca/Wilson, 3-0) that the Library Board
supports the Library's application for this grant
to serve Spanish speaking immigrant populations.
"'"
3. Major Urban Resource Library Grant
This grant is available to any library that serves
over 100,000 people. Chula Vista received these
funds in FY 1990-91 and will use 1991-92 funds, if
awarded, to' continue services to the business
community.
MSUC (Wilson/Viesca, 3-0) that the Library Board of
supports the Library'S application for MURL funds.
4. Application for Grandparents and Books Programme
Development Grants
If awarded, this grant can provide $5,000 for each
of the three libraries in Chula Vista. This grant
requires that funds be used to purchase books to
encourage adults to read to children. This grant
requires a high percentage of minority population
in the library service areas.
MSUC (Wilson/Viesca 3-0) that the Library Board of
Trustees supports the application for the
Grandparents and Books Programme Development Grant
-.
Attachment #5-2
g--~/tl
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 3 -
SEPTEMBER 18, 1991
.
The Trustees volunteered to "adopt" the following council
members.
Trustee
Alexander
Donovan
Viesca
Williams
wilson
council Member
Rindone
Malcolm
Grasser-Horton
Moore
Nader
Chainnan Williams asked the Trustees report on their
Council contacts at the December meeting.
D. Setting meet1ng schedule for coming year
The Library Board will:meet on the fourth Wednesday of
each month with the exception of their November, December
and August meetings. Meetings will begin at 3:30 pm.
.
October 23, 1991
November - No November meeting
December 4, 1991
January 22, 1992
February 26, 1992
March 25, 1992
April 22, 1992
May 27, ...992
June 24 1992
July 22, 1992
August - No August Meeting
September 23, 1992
MSUC (Alexander/Donovan) The
consolidate their November and
December 4, 1991.
Library
December
Board will
meeting on
MSUC (Alexander/Viesca) That the Library Board accept the
calendar as designated.
E. Master Fee Schedule update- Increasing the fines for
children 1 s books from five cents to ten cents per day per
overdue book
~
At their last meeting the Trustees asked that this item
be held over until it could be considered by the entire
Board. Director Lane explained that the purpose of
overdue fines is to encourage individuals to return books
in a timely manner. The Library is suggesting an increase
in children's overdue fines which will bring books back
faster. Also, the new INLEX system charges the five cent
children's fine on children's books even if adults check
?-- /6;L
Attachment #5-3
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 4 -
SEPTEMBER 18, 1991
them out. Teachers and parents often take large numbers
of picture books out at one time and are not being
charged the 25 cent adult fine. The suggested increase
to 10 cents is the norm for children's fines in the
County.
-.,
The Children's Librarian is opposed to this increase as
children often have no control over when they can return
their books and have little earning power. Chairman
williams stated that the Library should foster reading
on a children's level as much as possible, and that this
would be a bad public relations move.
MSC (Alexander/Viesca, 4-1, Donovan casting the opposing
vote) That the Library Board does not support increasing
the overdue book fee for children's fines and suggests
it remain at five cents.
F. CALTAC recognition awards application
Because these nominations occur at a bad time of the year
for the Library Board, Chairman Williams asked that
Trustees Donovan and Viesca prepare next year's
appl ication and that this item be placed under Continuing
Matters on the July agenda.
G. Summary of Library Board Activities - FY 1990-91
-.,
Trustees determined t~at the highlights of the previous
fiscal year included: support of the Proposition 85
Grant, attendance at the California Library Association
Conference, the Public Library Association Conference,
and Legislative Day, support of the Literacy Project and
the in-house workshop for new trustees.
Chairman Williams hoped that, the Chamber of Commerce
sponsored City-wide Board meeting would be continued.
Chairman Williams asked that in the future the Board
Secretary review the minutes after each meeting and
prepare a report of the highlights for the Trustees for
this report next year.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
The letter to the editor in the Star-News
This item was discussed in the Assistant Library Director's
letter to the Trustees.
)
-.,
Attachment #5-4
?-/ '3
November 18, 1991
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman Leonard and Members of the Board of Appeals and Advisors
FROM: Kenneth G. Larsen, C.B.O., Director of Building and HOUSing~a.t.-
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS ACCEPT THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS TO
CHAPTER 15, CHULtt VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELttTING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING
AND HOUSING, AS OUTUNED IN THE STUF REPORT.
STAFF REPORT:
.
Background: A comprehensive City-wide analysis of the Master Fee Schedule has been requested
by the City Manager for intended review by the City Council in December 1991. Prior to such
Council review, submittal for your evaluation and comment is the proposed recommendations to
the Master Fee Schedule by the Department. As you are aware, the Department adjusts our
valuation schedule annually at the beginnin~ of the fiscal year to coincide with the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) inflationary adjustments. Typically, this reflects approximately' three to five percent
(3-5%) upward adjustments, which in turn, impact fees collected via building permit issuance.
Beyond our annual valuation adjustments, the Master Fe ~ Schedule has not been adjusted
since 1987.
Discussion: The components of the package before you are recommended fee adjustments for two
classifications of servIce fee accounts. First is fees contained in the adoption of the model codes,
such as the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code and the
Uniform Administrative Code for fee adoption regarding the National Electrical Code.1 The
second classification is the operations category where services are performed beyond the scope of
routine Building and Housing Inspection activities such as COmpliance Survey Inspections,
Applications to the Board of Appeals and Advisors, issuance of Temporary and/or Certificates of
Occupancy, Foundation Only Permits and maintenance of plans via our microfilming and
microfiche of records activities. .
Proposed for the Board's consideration is the foll,owing description depicting staffs
recommendation for fee modifications:
Item #1:
To revise our $30.00/hour rate to reflect full cost recoverv for services rendered
outside normal business hours, assessed at a rate of the requested level of authority;
Building Inspector, Plans Examiner, Senior Building Inspector, etc.
.,
The National Elcctrical Code does nol contain proYislons for electric:al pennil fea.
Attachment #5-~
?>jtf
Board of Appeals & Advisors
-2-
November 18, 1991
-
Item #2: Same as Item #1.
Item #3: Same as Item #1.
Item #4: Compliance SUlVey - Revise from $75.00 to reflect full cost recovery for staff
involvement.
Item #9: Foundation Only Permit - Currently staff will, at the request of the applicant, process
Foundation Only Permits at no cost. Staff has experienced numerous time
constraints in processing, tracking, logging and recording separate permit documents
for the same structure. This recommendation is premised upon the actual time
involved by staff to accommodate such a request. Staff believes that encumbering an
additional 25 percent for the Foundation Only Permit will offset this impact.
Item #10: Aoolication for Board of Appeals and Advisors !:Jearing - The fee for filing an
application before the Board of Appeals and Advisors is intended to offset the cost
of staff time for research, report preparation and attendance at the Board of
Appeals and Advisors hearings. ThIs fee is consistent with the amount charged by
the Planning Department to have a variance request heard at a public hearing.
Item #11: Application for an Administrative Hearing. This fee is similar to that charged by the
Planning Department for an administrative variance and is appropriate when permit
applicant requests approval of a material or method of construction not currently
authorized under the uniform codes. This fee will offset the time staff spends on -.,
researching and preparing the reports that are required to document the equivalency
of these alternate methods oi materials.
Item #12: Certificate of Occupancy Issuance - Currently staff processes Certificate of
Occupancy activity without charge to applicants. As a result of the complexities
involving Certificate of Occupancy issuance, the Department has experienced time
constraints on the process of usmg occupancy clearances due to the number of
individuals/departments involved in signing-off of the project prior to authorizing
occupancy. An example for such is that each commercial building has a minimum of
Planning, Engineering, Fire, Landscape and Building & Housing Department review.
Since the process is conducted over a. three-ta-five day period, tbe Building and
Housing Department encumbers numerous staff hours in the initiation process, the
contact center for outside departments and the final authority for issuance and
distribution of the Certificate of Occupancy. Staff recommends a $100.00 fee,
.collected at time of permit issuance to offset this activity.
Item #13: Temporary Certificate of Occupancy - Same as Item #12; the only difference being
that this process is a separate requested function by the applicant to selVe selected
needs. Staff also recommends a $~OO.OO fee.
Section 15.24.060. Electrical Permits:
Staff is .recommen~i!lg a ~evision from curre.nt fees ass~s~ed by amphre to format adopt~d within
the Umform Admmlstratlve Code. The Umform Admmlstrattve Code more accurately Identifies
the scope of electrical installations and practices. _
2S 'l~ ~
Attachment #5-1>
Board of Appeals & Advisors
-3-
November 18, 1991
.
SUMMATION:
Staff believes that these proposals for adjustments to the Master Fee Schedule are parallel with
jurisdictions in the San Diego County and Southern California Region, and necessary in order to
continue to operate the Department with the highest service level to the citizenry as possible.
In the event further information or clarification should be necessary, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
KGl.:yu
(FEEREPkTJXlC)
.
.
?-/~?-
Attachment #5-~ 7
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS
CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
-
November 18.1991
Parks & Recreation Conf. Rm.
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Chairman Leonard, Vice-Chair Arnold, Board Members
Contreras, Gingerich, Harter, McArthur and Nash
None
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Assistant Director of Building and Housing Remp and
Administrative Secretary Uybungco
CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Chairman Leonard called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Members present constituted a quorum.
1. DECLARATION OF EXCUSEnfUNEXCUSED ABSENTEEISM: N/A
2. APPROVAL OF MJ\'l:TES: MSUC Gingerich/Harter (6-0-0) (Arnold) to approve the
minutes of September 23,1991.
3.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Review of Proposed Revisions to the Master Fee Schedule:
Members of the Board received copies of the staff report depicting staffs
justifications for recommended revisions.
Assistant Director of Building and Housing Remp explained that items struck
over are recommended for deletion, items underlined are proposed revisions
and everything else is existing language on the draft fee schedule. Assistant
Director of Building and Housing Remp further explained that the fees are
based on rates and valuations which are adopted throughout the County. The
City's Master Fee Schedule has not been adjusted since 1987.
Individual questions for clarification were entertained from the Board
Members.
-
Board Member Gingerich suggested the inclusion of minimum plan check
fees to be added to the fee schedule.
Vice-Chair Arnold questioned why the Board's Hearing fee is established at
$440 and not full cost recovery. Assistant Director of Building and Housing
Remp stated that this fee is consistent with the Planning Department's for
Variance Application fee and also that a full cost recovery program could
result in extensive time constraints placed upon staff tracking time spent on a
particular appeal. _
5~/tf;?
Attachment #5-t e
Board of Appeals & Advisors
-2-
November 18, 1991
.
Further discussion ensued pertaining to the Board's Hearing fee. Several
suggestions/recommendations were presented by the Board.
MSUC Nash/Arnold (6-1) (Harter) to approve the draft fee schedule based on
the following recommendations {rom the Board: (1) Include minimum plan
check fee in schedule and (2) Staff to investigate the possibility of establishing
a deposit account for Heanngs. (Staff to return to the Board with appropriate
findmgs and recommendations.)
4. DIRECTOR'S COM~IENTSIREPORT:
B.
Disabled Access Requirements. Assistant Director of Building and Housing
Remp informed the Board that the Federal Government has imposed new
requlTements regarding access for the physically challenged. The State has
been attempting to incorporate Federal requirements in the State regulations
by January I, 1992. On Friday, November 22, 1991, Assistant Director of
Building and Housing Remp will be meeting in Sacramento with fellow
members of California Building Officials (CALBO) Disabled Access
Committee to recommend delay of CAC Title 24 adoption schedule regarding
the A.D.A. implementation.
"Permits" Tracking System. Implementation of the program is anticipated for
early January 1992.
A.
. 5.
COMMUl'ICATlO:-;S (Punl.lC RE~I^RKS/WRlrI'EN CORRESPONDENCEl:
A. Vice-Chair Arnold informed staff that she read an article in the Eastlake
Newsletter which mentioned the new location for the Bonita Country Day
School. The article depicted the location for the school as if it was
permanent. Vice-Chair Arnold requested staff to investigate this case and
report ba,k to the Board at the next meeting.
6. Chairman Leonard adjourned the meeting at 6:27 p.m. to the next regular meeting
scheduled for December 9, 1991. .
wfi~ ~
KENNETH G. ARSEN, C.B.O.
DIRECTOR 0 BUILDING AND HO SING
SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS
J/~CA'
YEELlN lIYBUN CO
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND HOUSING
.
Iyu
(1IIt9'M.llOC)
55/'/~Y
Attachment #5-~'l
.
p ?f~
! V-LL- ~7
.
.
? "It?
C F
I
CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
FEDERATION
REGIONAL FEE SURVEY-1992
.
T be 1992 Regional Fee Suney by the Construction Industry
. ~ederation provides an overview of impact fees and charges
imposed by San Diego County land-use agencies. It is the only
comprehensive guide 10 the myriad of fees encouncered by the local
construction industry. The infonnation herein was gathered in Novem-
herlDecember of 1991. This survey marks the twelfth consecutive year
of publication.
The survey is not intended to he a definitive analysis, nor can it begin to
display the true cost of a new home or structure. Many expenses, such
as land, on- and off-site construction COSIS, indirect costs, loan and
closing costs, are not included.
Please Be Advised, CIF strongly cautions againsl simple comparison
of impact fee levels by jurisdiction. Each agency is unique-levels of
service differ. methods of calculation contrast, and legal findings of fact
vary. There is no basis upon which to compare the fees of one cilY 10
another.
On The Horizon, , , Several cities are expected to make minor
adjustments to their impact and processing fees in 1992.
. . Chula Vista is examining their public facility fee base, which
may lead 10 higher fees in early 199~. .
.
The County Department of Planning & Land Use is proposing a
new impact-fee program for animal control facilities, law
enforcement, and libraries.
The County Depanment of Public Works is examining a new
Bridge and Thoroughfare fee program.
SANDAG is examining a $4.7 billion proposal over a 20-year
period to pay for transportation; jails; parks and open space; and
health and social services. .
.
.
.
The Clean Water Program is proposing a new capacity fee on
development to pay for reclaimed water service.
And, although a significant San Diego city-wide impact fee
program was ultimacely rejected by Council in December 1990, a
revised plan may surface in 1992.
Q""stiollJ on the SuTV~ should be directed to John Mymoural 587-0292.
.
~{ .. - '.:' ;'~. ,',
:Wbat.is the Construcli0ll1Dduslry Pederalioa (CIP)?
~ CIF repeaeIllB the COIISIIuCIioa iDduIlry wilb ODe IIIIiled ~ 011
,.reponal8Dd 1oca11egisladw 8Dd poIi1icaI matIa'I. Our miaion is 10
;cfcqe a baIaac:e beIweeo tbelllViroamallal8Dd die ~ '-rOOIit'
'1".. oftbeSan DioaOJlIIIaD IO~~~ tbe quaIilyoflife.
'*-;':., .:-,#:;; ..;/;~,. ." " ~.~ .~'-.' . '~
.Proud SponllOr
of the Regional
F.. Survey-
1lM121
COlLINS I
GENERAL
CONTRACTORS
P /' j 7tJ
The cham be/ow show the magnitude of impact fee
increases over a five~year period/or selected cities.
OWl A VISl A
1!lV1
'1lVO
'1l8ll
11188
11187
$19.229
$1..tHl5
FSCOND1DO
'99'
11lVO
IIl89
11188
'1187
OCfANSIOE
'991
S23,14'
'1lVO
'1189
11188
11187
SAN OIr GO
199'
'1lVO
11l8ll
11188
11187
SAN nARCOS
1!lV,
IIlVO
IIl8ll
'1188
S'9,24O
11187
Attachment #6-1
m CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION REGIONAL DEVEL
.~ ..~~~ cJI'~ "",~.' t,\~~ ~..~ t,/ /~ .; /~ ~':;f'\ ~ ."
c; /~ ./ ....- ./ ....-~ ....- ./ ~ ~ ....- , /Ai(.
erttflcat. of $2401'1101 nla $1751 $3551 ... S100t S340l $2251 lUll'" I,OOt 125t/"" 11&51 13'. S1,000f S1".~f
Como<"nce I500d
I200l 0' 1500.
"""- 12751 I500l nla $1801 SO S8OOo< S.OOt I'SOd I500l nla nJa nla I350f nla
$, ,2OOd
leneral ~n ".5001 ".000d- Sl,OOOf. ",1901 17501 12.4OOd I'''", I850d UOOI S300l S1._ 16,1311 $1,2001' I3.W.
Amendment I4.000d 12.0001 +Sl.ClOOd
;anned Reel. 14.0001 12.000d I500l nla S400l -- l3.ll5Ol nIa S700l 12501 - ".0401' nla $1,700f $2,60(,
levelopment . MUP.... S400l
Rozona $8501 12.000d Sl.000t . $1,1901' S400l S2,400d S900l - UOOI S300l '1,5OOf $3.8011. S1.8OOl 12.50'
13.0001 . .181.... $7,6001
SIte Plan S2,nSf or "SOl or nJa nla 12501 ....... $1,0001 S300d I500l nla S300t nla nla nI.
15.53Of 12501 -,-
SpecIal U.. 12.5OOl SHX)Od . $5OOl 504751 S100t 12.000d $2,6051 I850d $700t $3751 .',0151 $1,8281 $, ,7OOf S2,6~~
'ermlt(CUP) 12000d
ipedflc Plan 15,7001 $39Of nla nI, I400t S2,400d "OM:Iro!'n(lr S850d S800l nI, $1,.t8Of $3.1301 varl.. $3.0<'
$2()l( MaIO'
Variance S280f $175for S300f $3551 S.OOt S600d 53551 $'BOd 1700f S120l .- $2.9461 S300f S72~'
$4401 ",or .
lallv.Parcel $5951 S500! .. $500. $1,2931
$16111 $2.5QOd $700t +$120! flOl $1.200t $905! S850d sa7Sl $9501 S700t $3.6('"
Map + $45Od $51101 S3OI1o. +1211101
Final Parcel $1,58Of $1,000d $300' $1201101+ $300! $5001 $8501 S800cl I500l $1.0001 $1,0001 $6371 $1,0001 17DI
Map $700d +$51101 +$senol ah.et
Tentattve $1,1501 $2,000d $1,5001 $1,7801 + $5501 $2,0001 S 11 051 S800cl S600 . 12.39Of I300l $1,943 12.0001 $3,60'-'
dMlIon Map $500d 130 1 lot +$1821101
Final S2.78Of + $5,OOOd I400t $1,2001 + 53501 I500l $8501 S800d $1,0501+ 15.0001 ".0000 S8371 $1,0001 $lIiO",
.dlvlllon Map $S/ecra $700d 155/101 +5811101 ""..,
wtronmenlal S2201 $1,OOOd 12501 1295 $'00f $1.0001 1855' $'5Od 12501 $125f S100t 1,7011 12501 $2.5C'
InltlarStudy
lYironrnental $2,2101 15.000d $1,0Q0f $595'+ $7501 $1,0001+ $2,1051 S850d $1,000d Sooa. . $8501 . $9,n2 15.000d $7,50'
,pact Repor1 coalS costs '0% 008"
flONAlCOf>IES AVAILABLE FROM THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRV FEDERATION. (619) 587.Q292
MPACT
JBLIC FACILITIES
FEES
d.bed 3.5 % of building permit ...aluation.
uta Vim S2,150/SFD. $12.04OIcomm & Indus. ac.
Re,l. Construe. Tu: of SA50+S25/BdAm.
condldo 12,2591 unit. $1.331Iq.tt. non.residential
ell\llde $1,131 I unit. S441/1.000sq.f1. non-resi
n Dtego City (tee Sidebar)
n Mlrcoa $ 6.4521 SFD; S 5.3n I MF; $18,15610
i,"93I InduI. ecre; $ 54,8391 office profesak>nalacre; $47,378
JSIneu par1t acre; $89,063 lcommerclal acre. Credits applied
!inIt f... fOf the oonttruc:tion of public faclll"".
.lanIi IIMch 1% of building permit ....,uatlOn.
4ta - S1,130/unll. $ 7,210/commerciaJ acre, I
$ 7,227 I industrial acre, I
RE FACILlTIES-F..may_nd"".",,,Illng.
unty Fire o.trict8. 12e, 17e, or 231 Isq.f1. EncinUas. did nol
,vide. San M.l'C08 . 1318 per unit. f>oway. $SO per unit.
,11.$352 per unit. $2.243 per Comm. 'CI'e. S2,20t.8 per Ind. acre
....,............~,_................-.:-.:"'* --._- .~
TRAFFIC MITIGATION
SEWER & WATER (C.... I County)
SEWE
RESIDENTIAL ......-..--..-.....-_.___._..
Fees per EDU SEWER WATER Fees per r
All ...., hoM-UDa 0..... add IIddltlonallHl for C(,
c.ri.bacunlAOT outside CFD. $41/AOT inlide
CFO. ....dd $530 if in o....rlapplng B & T area,
Chul. VI...: $ 3,060
Enclnltaa: $ 901
Eecondido: $ 1,930
OcNn.lde: S 1.787 (includes slgnal fee)
Poway: S660 'It acre Of leas. $990 over '/,-=re
San I*go City: (He lictebar: resi and non..,.ll)
.." Marcoe: $ Induded in publiC facility fee.
s.ntae: $ 2,364
V....: $ 1,200
NON.RESIDENTIAl -.---.......
c.rtabMl: $31/ADT 0lJt$ide of CFO
$1&....OT inllde Of CFD
Chula VI...: $122,400 acre. comm.
$ 81,200 acre. indus.
Enclnltal: S 781"OT It trip length factor
EeconcUdo: $ 49/ADT; fees are per sq.tt
OcMn.lde: S 5OIAOT (includeS Stgnal)
POWIV: $ 16.5OIAOT
SIn M.rcoa: $ InCluded in public faCility ,...
Slntee. S88.5OIAOT-comm: $178 AOT'indus.
VI.ta: $101"OT. comm.
'751AOT . Indus.
Cartllbed' . , .810 $ 2.250
Chula v.... 2.220 pbd
Co<onodo 850 0
Del ...~ 875 1.140
EICa,,", '.ne pOd
EncIn", pOd pOd
.- 1 .ctlclo 6,270 ".290
_'_II' 2.400 pOd
...._ 1.525 pOd
Lemon Grow ",189 1.995
_'CIly 0 pOd
00Mn...... 1,565 1,095
__ 2.356-3.356 2.5'5
San Diego' ",4$4 2.327
Son DIogo County 2.000-3.000 pOd
.... M.-rcoe 2,400 2.896
ao_ pOd pOd
Solana 8Mch ",800 pbd
Vleta 1.782 p
1 0Iw __ a.v- 1IltD...-d'''''' 1C*t....
2 0Iw --a.v- d8'1IltD-*l
3. 0Iw.... a.v- d 12OOIIltD...:tId
.. OIw--a.v-~I2'.I25fl_..-ct.
5. I~. .....!IonIIgI...oIS6.e50nl__
MnIgi'" d IUOQ.
II. OIw.....<fWVllIIltD..-:t.l30/rrlIIIIItr+til5Q)/,...
rail...... + IUDOh dWgI (IN'I).
7. w.rGlf'lf.....1Iam 7/1.91 , OIwd*VII*y.
Ikrrogo .
Rancho E P
Flllbroo~ '
Late.dln
OllYenhnlr
OIly'
PaclreDllrr
PI,.. HllI~
Ralnbo.....
Rlmonll
_hoE-
AtnQan Op
8M Dle,,11
South BIl~'
aw.twll'~
Ydeclto!!l
Vlliley Cer
YletIlrrlg.
Vulm.
~
1. ...
_ne6.
2. Reclalmtl'
3. ReClenmt
WIllow Oil
... OCher....'
~~!71
Attachment #6-2
-'..'- ....-...-,..
JELOPMENT FEE SURVEY
.i
$'"
S2,825fd .OOO7So-.003
.v. .v. ol8l'val~ so .v.
+ll,SOOd ."00<
$3,000d S9.6~ $5OOf ' $1('001 S1.7OOl $3,_
+2,125d $1,0001'
$2,000d 19,725d ..........., .v. $1,5001 $140
+$5,2OOd +CUP IM&
$2,000d s.4,925d Same as 51 ,MOl $1,5OOl $2,410
.',5OOd GPA F..s
$2,&45<:1 '1,&45-<om
.v. +$1,5OOd S350I .v. S800l ".S45-ind
S3,3Q5-apI
$2,85OC' $5,825d S35OI_' .00075-,003
+S1,5OOd $2OOlmlnor d.P......... 51,SOOt $2,86S
1\,1301
$13,855d Same as
$3,000d +$18.000 GPA Fees $10001 .va 13.190
d
$725. $2,0501 $1001 $5OOf $8001 $302
$1,0001 -t$1,5OOd
S3.6OOd $3,725<:1 $3001 $9001 $1,01S! $925
+$l,5OOd +1001/101
$100d not $1001 $1001 $S501 SO
provided +S201/101
S3.600d sa,225d 56001 $9001 $2,0901 $3.375
+S1,5OOd +$11Ofllol
100d S6.400d $2701 $1001 $7501 $260
+$2& /10\ +$2011101
$2,5OQd $1,5QOd $'001 $3001 $0 $',485
$7,5OOd $1Z,OOOcI Cosls ... 'l.2&1).U:!lOO Coals ... $900 .
20% "JO'llr,~ 8% 20% COIls
>EWER & WATER (Spool., DIII"ct.)
eel per EDU SEWER WATER
1M lor County Wm.r A.uthorltv C I P
iorrego' S 50 S 125
~.ncho Eltltel nle 705
",Ilbrook PUD' nla 3,661
..uC8d11 :2.800 nla
)Ilvenh.'" nla 4,580
""y' 2,500 eoo
)ad,. Dim 2,186 1,190
.Jlne Hili, nla 1.000
~.Inbow 1.813.2,850 1,870
~.mona 5,292 7,893
~lftCho I..... nla 705
~Incon Del OlIbIo nla 8,830
WI Dtegutto nla 3,270
iauth Bay InigMton nla 300
iWMtwater nla 1,170
J.Uecltos 2,400 2,500
.......y Center 3,625 2,836
"'IN Irrigation. nla 2,115
(\lIma nla 1,005
-=.RarnI Hill, develOper provIdee allacllltlet: outIide
Rk:Ialmecl WIller'" may Il1o be Charged.
Redllmad Wllter'" of S800 may llIao be elllded
W'tIIaw QIan...,. Chlrgn wry.
OCher water cnerv- of S3I55 may IIeo be exacted.
Proud sponso'of the CIF Re,
gional Fee Survey-1992:
ccwSG
ClCIFAlR1ghta~
..IlItluIry.1m
KEY
f lee
d _
nla not tppIk:abIe
pOd pnMdodbycillrid
ADT .__"'"
E DU equtvalent dwelltng unit
MF multi.family
SFD single-Iamily detached
Subdivision FHI are bUed on a
prOlect with ten loti OOlen acres
City of San Diego
Citywide Trust Fund F..s '~
Type of U.. F.. p., aq,lI.
OttIca 12,0.',
Hote' '1.22 ' "
A....rch & o...IOlllMnt '1.&3"
R.tall '1,22
....nut-.~ng S1.22 ..
w..._ . " 10.51 "
PARKLANDS
Fees per SFD
Carl.bad': $1 ,575. SFD & Duplex
$1,313. MF (4 units or <)
$1,050. MF (5 units or ::oj
$ 919. mobile hOmes
Chula Ylata:$4,375 lor Ianc! & lmprvmnts.
Enclnttas: $1,526 up to 2,000
Eacondldo: $2,289
ImpertalBNch: $1,100
La ....., $550
Lemon Grove: $200
Natlona' City, $125
OcMnakHl: $2,200
POWllyt: S2.5~SFO; $2000-MF
$1.820 . mobile hOme
Sant..: S3,606-SFO; $3,288-MF
$1,820 -1'1'\Obite home
San D6ego Ctty: (See Sidebar)
San Diego County:S400. eul county,
$800. mid-county; $1,000. coastalarea.
San Marcoe: Includedln pubMc faCility fee.
Bolena BMch: S600
View: $1,290
1,~""IfAlIY'wilhinDiltrlct1.tffl
2. Eftec::tIIo'I March 7, 1M
;'
PIlInned UrtlIInlzlnll Areu
:' . ~,.'):."
OTHER IMPACT FEES:
SCHOOL FEES - State Law
allOwS up 10 $1.58 per real-
den1ia1 per aq.ft. and $.26 per
lQ.n. of COl'M"Ief'daI, industnal
or Mnior rea6dential projects.
Mo.t district. charge the
maximum allowed .. tome
dlltricts Charva mora.,
Tha IIIIIt Impoaed C8&l may
IncreUe In 1892.
.?' -) ');;--
INCLUSIOHAAY HOUSING - 0ceanII0I ~ 10-4
~houeing. Example: . 100 unit aubcIVlaIon would
,.,. an -.....u. trnpIlCll.. of S!UOO per unit. OR. Itla
.,plcant could buId ten 'af'IorQab6lI" unIla wIIhln 1M protect
PUBLIC ART EacondIdo Jmpoan an ,,"-l"u.
Impect lee" 10 tunc! art In public places. All develop.
ment projects are Charged SO.30 per eq.ft, with the
"rat 1800 IqUlre IMt axempl.
DRAINAGE' FLOOD CONTROL Thaaa ,...
range _ due \0 buln type and location,
Attachment #6-3
, .-.....-.~..,-----
tllt6 v:) 'oh!O ns
d "s "'0 lp!"'lIOlU() 9((9
-
NOIlVlIBOBd
AlIJ.SnONI
NOIJ.:lnllJ.SNO:l
I
d J
t661 . AilA.ms ililJ: (8UOJJilH
~
ENGINEERING ~ND PUBLIC WORKS
Amounts below I\re city staff's ~stimate tor a 50 lot subdivision on 10 acres, 200.000 cubic yards grading, and $1,000.000 total improvement costs.
GRADING:
Plan Check
Penn~
PUBUC __NTS:
'Ian Check II Ij:lI C*"
GEOTECHNICAL:
--
C.rtabad 13,100 for 1111200,000 cys + 13.100 tor 111 10C1.000cys+ S 22.500 ,,*,Imum S 33.750 minimum Inc. In gtaldlng p&ancheck
180 for MCfIIIOdll1100,ooo $300 lot MCh ~ 10CHlOQ
Chul. VI... S 8000d S1'.000d 110,OOOd S 1',OOOd Inc. In gl'lldlng ptlinrwtew
Cofonodo $225d S181.5Qf nla nla nla
Del Mlir $4OOd minimum S80 I400d minimum I500d minimum nla
E'_ SO SO . 10,500 I 30.000 SO
IEnoInltM not_ not_ .....- .....- .....-
_1<10 $ 9.004 . 6,138 I 18,000 . 15.000 SO
Im......l8Mch 1088 use TIIbIe 7().A 1981 UBC T~ 70-8 -dly- per dty engtnMr nla
La_ . '00 minimum or 2.2% &228 S200 mk\Imum or 2.2"- 1200 mtnmum or 3.75% nla
or engtnMr'. Nttm8I. ~....,.. eetlmele .....r'. ..um.te
Lemon-Grov. &... S 787 I 3,000 2% of eng6nMr'1 "' ooel "00
~IClty nI. nla 3'W.~.~te nla nla
thun.kie ",593 &.. . 7,021 11,113 nla
P- 120,0404 & '00 I 20,404 . 18.104 ",800
a.n D-.go 17,eSOd 17,850 + deficit to acct. '"' --- lr'IC.wlgrMI.,*"",~ ".5OOd
.... _ County S1,13Od nI. 13.300<1 13000 d-... II400d
"n Ihreo. 1',100 11,172 . 18.825 S 25.000 nla
- . <4,250 . 7.250 113,500 111,000 1 300d for c::om + S500f
ao&.Nl 8Mch S 35,800 . 35,800 I 35,000 S3Il.eoo nla
v_ &035 S 1,394 I 35,321 SO ".080
-
g-r/7)
Attachment #6-4
.
+J '---<-<-- ~.
~. ~~~=
.
.
?~/7(
.
.
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMEIl'1'
Item: lo/J.IB
Meeting Date:4/21/92
Ordinance 2.S'OI. Amending Titles 1, 2, 3, 5,
6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of the
Municipal Code relating to fees and the Master Fee
Schedule.
Resolution Il.~,i Adopting an amended Master
Fee Schedule which reflects inclusion of fees
affected by Ordinance
SUBMITTED BY: city Attorney
Director of Finance~~
REVIEWED BY: city Manager~ (4j5ths Vote: Yes___ No~)
ITEM TITLE:
Several fees have been added to or changed in the Master Fee
Schedule since its creation ten years ago, but the document has not
undergone a comprehensive review since 1987. Staff has divided
this proposed update into two phases:
1). Transfer information regarding specific fee amounts
from the Municipal Code to the Master Fee Schedule.
2). Make several principally administrative
modifications in the Municipal Code and the Master
Fee Schedule for greater clarity and consistency.
Phase II 3). Update designated fees to account for increases in
costs: propose adoption of new fees.
Phase I
Because of the importance of scheduling and advertising for public
hearings, staff is presenting this item in two parts. Phase I -
being considered now - ac~omplishes the administrative groundwork
necessary for the Master Fee Schedule update to proceed. All
changes to the fees themselves have been scheduled for Phase II of
the update to ullow sufficient time to notify the public and other
interested groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business
Association, Building Industry Association, etc.) of the proposed
amendments.
There is no fiscal impact associated with this phase of the update.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Adopt Ordinance amending several sections of the Municipal
Code relating to fees and the Master Fee Schedule.
Note: Item 1 is directly linked to the following resolution
Y---/7f
Attachment #7-1
which provides for several corresponding changes in the City's
Master Fee Schedule and should. thus. be adoDted in concert
with Item 2.
2. Adopt Resolution adopting an amended Master Fee Schedule which
reflects inclusion of fees affected by Ordinance .
-
BOARDS/COMKISSIONS RBCOMMBNDATIONI N/A
DISCUSSION I
Transfer of Existina Fees
As originally established in 1982, the Master Fee Schedule is a
centralized listing of the fees charged by the City for services
and administrative acts and other legally required fees. The
schedule serves as a resource for the public to determine the costs
of various types of City services without the need for extensive
research or a specialized understanding of municipal government.
For the schedule to serve that purpose, it must be comprehensive.
In its current form, the schedule omits several fees which have
been authorized by previous Council actions and are included in the
Municipal Code. If the schedule is purported to be an
authoritative collection of City fees, the general public will
assume that if a particular fee is not listed in the schedule, it
does not exist. In order to eliminate such confusion, all fees
currently listed in the Municipal Code should be transferred to the
Master Fee Schedule.
-,
The process for such a transfer is as follows:
1. The Municipal Code is amended to remove the actual amount of
the fee and to refer instead to the Master Fee Schedule.
2. The Master Fee Schedule is amended to include the amount of
the fee and a cross-reference to the code.
Thus, the code retains the authorization for the fee, but the fees
themselves are all listed in a single document. Aside from the
convenience this provides for the public, it also lessens the
possibility of inconsistencies in the application or updating of
the fees on the part of City staff.
Administrative Modifications
Since the scope of this project was envisioned to be comprehensive,
staff has highlighted several secondary issues that also deserve
attention at this time. These changes are principally
administrative in nature and do not affect the level or assessment
of fees. In general, these changes fall into three categories:
vague or confusing language in the code, organization of the fee
-
g-/7?
Attachment #7-2
schedule, and various other issues involving legal clarifications
or amendments.
.
Language: OVer the course of the Master Fee Schedule's
initial adoption and subsequent updates, several different
phrasings have been used in the Municipal Code to reference
the fee schedule. In the interests of clarity and consis-
tency, and on the advice of the City Attorney, staff
recommends amending existing references to authorize
collection of the "a.quir." 1'...." A definition of "Required
Fees" has been added to the code to complete this amendment
through reference to the Master Fee Schedule.
2. Organization: Within the Master Fee Schedule itself, staff
has designed a new organizational format to ease public use of
the document. Historically.. fees have been listed in order of
their corresponding code section. To the general public,
these numbers are meaningless and provide no clues to their
relevance to a particular type of project. The proposed
changes would organize the schedule into chapters, provide
general information on fee assessment and waivers, and
facilitate the use and updating of the schedule through an
index cross-referenced to the Municipal Code.
1.
3.
.
.
Legal Issues: certain older sections of the Municipal Code
authorize fees for activities which the state has since
preempted local jurisdictions from regulating. Staff is
taking this opportunity to recommend repealing those sections
relating to ambulance and taxi driver licensing which have
thus been superseded.
Chapter 1.20 of the code p-ovides for general penalties and
for discretion on the part of the prosecutor in dealing with
those penalties. However, several code sections describing
violations of the code have variously referred to: violations,
infractions, misdemeanors, and specific fines or jail terms to
be imposed. On the advice of the city Attorney, staff
recommends amending all such references to make the proscribed
code violation "unlawful." (Note: Although the penalties for
code violations do not fit the definition of fees and are thus
not included in the Master Fee Schedule, staff feels that
these code amendments are similar enough in character to the
others contained in the attached ordinance to consider them
within a single agenda item.)
Another legal issue which has been addressed through this
update concerns certain fees the City currently charges which
have been authorized through Council resolution but not
through the Municipal Code. The City Attorney has advised
that, notwithstanding any prior resolutions, such fees should
also be specifically authorized by language in the Municipal
Code to avoid potential challenges.
Attachment #7-3
p--- /7 7
Phase II
In consideration of the legal concerns raised above, there are some
new fees to be proposed in Phase II for which additional ~.
authorizing language may be necessary. This language has been
included in the Phase I code amendments so that the authorization
would precede any imposition of the fees and any potential
ambiguity can be avoided. As the fees themselves would be
presented through a public hearing in Phase II of the update, this
language would have no independent effect on the City's fees.
PZSCAL IMPACT: N/A
~
A: \MFS 11 3 . GWY
Attachments
~.
B-~/?r
Attachment #7-4
.
~
.
.
s-- /71
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
.
The following is a summary of all public comments regarding the
Master Fee Schedule update proposal received prior to March 10,
1993. All comments received after that date will be addressed in
the public hearing. Most of the comments shown are the result of
several recent meetings held with interested community and business
groups. Immediately following is a list of all those who were
mailed notices of the proposal and the public hearing schedule.
Chamber of Commerce. Februarv 2
.
What is the reason for the increase in sewer construction charges?
Since the time of the last update of sewer construction charges in
1987, the Public Works/Operations division has compiled extensive
labor and materials data in its computerized Work Management
System. These data were used to calculate the proposed fees.
What is the reason for the increase in adjustment plat examination
fees? The proposed fees for adjustment plat examination are based
upon the number of times the services were provided and the total
service costs (figures from FY 1990-91). This represents the first
recalculation of these fees since 1987. (Note: Although staff is
proposing raising the adjustment plat examination fee to $420, the
County of San Diego currently charges $950 for this service and
requires an additional $100 fee for an accompanying certificate of
compliance; Chula vista provides an accompanying certificate of
compliance free of charge.)
Are copying charges of $ .15 per page sufficient to recover the
city's costs? Yes. The fee proposal was set to recover paper,
equipment and staff time costs for making copies but not for
locating the "identifiable public records" to be copied.
Would an increase in the fee for Zoning Administrator design review
create an incentive for developers to bypass the Zoning
Administrator and thus increase the workload of the Design Review
Commission? No. Most of the projects that could be reviewed by
the Zoning Administrator would be small (1-4 units). There would
.be little incentive for such applicants to go through the
additional time and expense required for a public hearing by the
Design Review commission.
How will the proposed changes in building-related fees compare with
the fees being assessed in other jurisdictions? The proposed fees
for electrical, mechanical and plumbing permits would bring the
City's fees up to the levels listed in the 1990 National Electrical
Code and 1991 Uniform Code updates. At that point, Chula Vista's
.
Attachment ta-1
sr~/~tJ
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
-
fees would be in line with those of other jurisdictions in the
region.
ODen Forum. Februarv 2S
(Attendees included representatives from Chamber of Commerce's
Economic Development Committee, Chula vista Economic Development
Commission, McMillin Development Company and Construction Industry
Federation. )
What is the reason for the increase in sewer construction charges?
See above.
What is the reason for the increase in adjustment plat examination
fees? See above.
What is the reason for the increase in environmental review of a
previous initial study and negative declaration? Upon staff review
of the fees charged for environmental review, it was determined
that the costs for this particular service were far in excess of
the existing fee. This fee has not been updated since 1987. The
proposed fee is based on the average staff time required of one
Senior Planner (1 hour) and one Associate Planner (8.5 hours).
Why was the basis of sewer capacity charges changed? What effects
will this have? The existing method of assessing sewer capacity
charges is based on Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs). While this
is an accepted method of calculating sewer flow, staff has proposed
incorporating an Equivalent Fixture unit (EFU) measure as well
which would assign more weight to the number of plumbing fixtures
in a given structure. As a result of this change, capacity charges
for mobile home parks and certain commercial or industrial uses
with low sewer-use will decrease. Charges for single family and
mUlti-family residential units will remain unchanged.
If a developer installs a traffic signal, is a credit given against
the traffic signal participation fee? If the traffic signals
installed are at locations called for in the City's General Plan
and are not primarily to serve internal project needs, the
developer could be eligible for a credit.
-
site plan and architectural review fees are linked to building
valuation. Why was this chosen as the basis for the fee? The plan
check process involves several different departments. To maintain
consistency in the assessment of these charges, they are all based
on building valuation.
Attachment #8-2
-
t'- / ff/
.
.
.
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
When would a temporary certificate of occupancy be issued?
Temporary certificates of Occupancy (TCOs) may be issued when all
safety requirements have been met but some development requirements
remain. A TCO requires that all remaining conditions be completed
by a specified date. The staff time required for a TCO includes
final inspections and interdepartmental coordination to identify
the remaining conditions to be met.
For design review fees, with only four levels of fees, the marginal
impacts of one or two additional units can be significant. perhaps
a base fee and a separate charge per unit would work better. Staff
agrees that a further breakdown of this fee would be more
equitable.
Original Proposal Revised Proposal
Units:
1-4 $390 $390
5-15 $590 $590
6-100 $1,000 6-25 Units $790
26-100 $1,000
100+ Units Deposit Deposit
What is the net cost per dwelling unit of the proposed changes in
the fee schedule? Many of the proposed fee updates do not affect
"typical" development. In some cases, one fee may' be applicable
but not another (e.g. design review to be done by the DRC or by the
Zoning Administrator). In other cases, a fee might only be
required if a specific condition is met (e.g. sign permits, use of
a previous EIR, foundation-only permits, cesspool installations,
house move permits). Assuming a "typical" project, the impacts
would be approximately +$5,750 for a 25 unit subdivision (or an
average of $230 per unit) and -$24,000 for a 25,000 sq. ft. retail
space.
Can estimates of final costs be provided for deposit-based
services? The final cost of deposit-based services varies
significantly with the complexity of the project, the hearings
required, and changes made to the initial proposal. On a case-by-
case basis, these costs may be estimated at the time of the initial
deposit.
If a builder obtains a "foundation only" building permit, is the
amount of this fee credited when the remainder of the building is
permitted? No. The fee paid for a foundation only permit is not
intended to be credited to the remainder of the project at the time
of final permit issuance. This is because processing the project
in two phases creates a duplication of effort in plan review and
inspection that would not be required had the project been
processed in a single phase. Although the fee has been set at 25%
of the total building permit fee, this percentage may be reviewed
Attachment #8-3
2? -- / () c?---
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
-
by the Building Official upon request. To clarify that this fee is
not intended to exceed 25%, the words, "following request for
review," have been added to the fee schedule.
Would a live entertainment permit apply to non-profit
organizations? No. Non-profit organizations conducting such
entertainment for social or charitable reasons are specifically
excluded from fee and licensing requirements (C.V.M.C. 9.13.020).
When would faxing fees be charged? If a customer needs to fax a
document, and it is not possible to use an outside fax machine
(e.g. at a print shop or mailing house), City fax machines could be
made available for this purpose at the rates listed in the Master
Fee Schedule. Due to the added time and cost involved in faxing,
staff encourages copying or mailing of such documents in-lieu of
faxing.
When would an alarm permit delinquency be assessed? Is there also
a false alarm fee? All alarm users are required to carry an alarm
users permit. The proposed delinquency fee would be charged if the
alarm user is more than 30 days late in applying for a permit.
This is typically discovered after an alarm call. A separate fee
already exists for passing on the costs of excessive false alarms.
There is no charge for the first two such false alarms within a
twelve month period. _
Economic DeveloDment Commission. March 3
If a builder obtains a "foundation only" building permit, is the
amount of this fee credited when the remainder of the building is
permitted? No. See above.
In-lieu of paying for sewer lateral construction to be done by a
City crew, could a homeowner hire a private contractor? Yes. A
private contractor could be hired to construct a lateral, but the
city would still need to tap this lateral into the sewer main.
While the cost of the sewer construction fee would be saved by
choosing this option, an encroachment permit would be required .for
the contractor to conduct the necessary excavation.
Questions received bv Dhone/mail
Why are tentative maps not listed in the summary? The summary
(Attachment #1) lists only fees which are proposed to change.
There are approximately 83 fees, including tentative map fees,
which are not proposed to be updated.
Attachment 18-4
......
~---/g)
PUBLIC INPUT: List of All Notices Mailed
.
NOTICE #1 - All Development Fees
Great American Dev. Co.
Greenwald/McDonald
HCH Partners
Homart Development Co.
Huffman Co.*
Hunsaker & Assoc.
Kelton Title Corp.
Ladera Villas Ltd.
Lane/Kuhn
Muraoka Dev. Corp.
Nolte & Assoc.
Odmark & Thelan
ONA
P&D Technologies
Patrick Development
Project Design Consultants
Rick Engineering
Ron Helderlein
Sammis Properties
San Miguel Partners
Stafford/ Gardner
Starboard Development Co.
Sudberry Properties, Inc.
Sunbow
UDC Homes
Way-Con
Woodcrest Dev.
Algert Engineering
Appel Development Corp.
Barratt
.
BHA, Inc.
Bollenbacher & Kelton, Inc.
Brehm Communities
Bren Company
Buie Corp.
Burkett & Wong
Cameo Development Co.
Century American Corp.
Craig, Bulthuis & Stelmar
Dick Kau Land Co.
Diversified Builders
Fenton-Western Properties
Fieldstone Co.
Frank E. Ferreira
GAFCON
.
*Mailing returned unforwarded
WPC F:\home\WPC\geraldy\594.93
Attachment #8-5
g~/?1(
NOTICE #2 - Enldneerin~ Fees
A. Lambert & Assoc.
Apec Civil Engineering
Baird Engineering
BDI
Bement Dainwood Sturgeon
Benevolent & Protective Elks
CM. Engineering Assoc., Inc.
California Engineering Corp.
Chula Vista 54 Assoc. *
Escondido Engineering, Inc.
Franklin Engineering
Fraser Engineering, Inc.
Hall Engineering
Income Property Group
J.P. Engineering, Inc.
Jones Engineers, Inc.
Kercheval Engineers
Klagge-Stevens & Assoc., Inc. *
Larwin-Rosedale Prop.
Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc.
Los Alisos Dev. Co.
Luke-Dudek Civil Engineers
McIntire Group
Nasland Engineering
NBS Lowry
RBF & Assoc.
Roberts Engineering
*Mailing returned unforwarded
WPC F:\home\WPC\g...ldy\594.93
-
San Diego Land Surveying & Eng.
SB&O
Sholders & Sanford, Inc.
Snipes-Dye Assoc.
SRT Engineering & Assoc.
Steen, McColl & Assoc.
Stuart Engineering
Team Five Civil Engineers, Inc.
Vista Hill Foundation
W. M. Hubbard & Assoc.
Winton Engineering
Xinos Enterprises, Inc.
.......
.......
3'-- / g-3
Attachment #8-6
.
.
.
NOTICE #3 - Buildin~ and Housine Fees
California Commerce Bank
Roy Carlson
CCBAC
Civic Center Barrio Housing Co.
Daniel Contreras*
CV East Investment
Oscar C. Davila
Carolyn Dicerchio
Hikmat Mansour
Charles Miller*
Tucker, Sadler & Assoc.
Unocal
V. J. S. Assoc.
Warmington Homes
Western Properties
Yoshinoya West
*Mailing returned unforwarded
WPC F:\home\WPC\g...aJdy\594.93
NOTICE #4 - Citv Clerk Fees
tA~enda /Minutes
Subscribers)
Ace Electric
Martin Altbaum/Coin Mart
Apec Civil Engineering
Automobile Club of So. CA
Bay Cities Service, Inc.
CINTI & Assoc.
CV Elementary School
Davidson Coscan Partners
S. Gains/Crosby Mead Benton
Wayne R. Gilbert
Bud Gray
Hawkins/Mark-Tell
Hunsaker & Assoc.
Kruger Development Co.
James J. Lantry Consulting
Vicki Loginski
James Louis Matherly
Meyers Grp.
M. F. Realty Corp.
Mae Quijencio
San Miguel Partners
SDG&E So. Bay Ofc
Attachment #8-7
g-/' / 6"~
NOTICE #5 - Business License Listin~s
(Subscribers)
NOTICE #6 - Full Fee Schedule
-
A-AN5-SER
A/R & Sea Advertising
AT&T
The Baldwin Co.
Bonita Business and Professional Assn.
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
Chula Vista Investors
Construction Industry Federation
Crossroads/Bill Robens
Downtown Business Assn.
Eastlake Development Co.
McMillin Development Co.
Rancho del Rey Partnership
So. San Diego Board of Realtors
SoPac (Olympic Training Center)
Sunbow
Carl Cornish
Financial Services
First International Bank
Gregg Greene
Hawaiian Gardens Suite Hotel
JVT Computer Solutions
Joel A. Levy
The Money Machine
William Neff
David M. Oliver
Protection Plus
Mark Romero
San Diego Business Journal
Cheryl Strom
Telecheck
James Vickers
Video Telephone Answering Service
Wilson & Cox Insurance
-
-.
WPC F:\home\WPC\geraldy\S94.93
Attachment #8-8
g-//~/
.
.
.
-',_',<,c,<t;,
. .~" <
,c."
MIlch 10. 1993
Jl'~ Maya
t'no_""""I)e~
CiIJ of Cbllla Villa
276Foartb A_
0IIJIa VlaIa, CA 92010
RB: FEES, FEES AND MORE FEllS
0eIr Mayor Nader IIld CQnnc'I"l('.IJlbcn:
'lbo ~Iloo IDdusuy Pedcralioo ~ Ibis uwOo~ to a:prelIII eIroDi c:onocm on
IllWlll fee iIIcrelwe prllJXlSl'Js OOOling Corw>'1d \J;'Ilq( CoaaclJ in Ille. Yr:lY __ faluR. Somo d
lbefeeillaease ~"j< w;;J:< h'lj..;:'.,.\c.'~'Gi wilbill;0104SdayL
G'-Ihe collll1wUtl j'rag/Je eCOM"f] and WI Impact tlIt1t _ t-u tIIId IaJruIuM /IlI1Iw btIIiIws
cOlllllllUll.ly and 1M COfllt1'UCliolllNiuslT]. ,.., art a.rIdIIg YfJM': c-dl /0 diJitzy ~II 01
IIw FoptJlld I.. i1tcrl4Jlslor OM J<<lI' or WIIiJ IIw etX)1UJM] iv<JCheI/l C/R'tQln "/wolthy I MI'IIIDl"
/,mI. We recommend Cor ywc """.;1eMt1ioo certain lIIrllCl "1I_...r 10 be reacbed \!den pew or
incR:UCd fceltaxea CIIII be imp!emealed 118 s~ 011 Jlll8C 3.
Mall of tile fee iDc:mIse proposals ~ are jU8lifiod 8Ild reuooablc. However, we CccIaoy
fee I WI ~ aI tbia lime seods a mixed $igDal1O lIJe basiDeas. ~ IIld olber
loduIricI puticularIy bit hard dwin& tbc =ssioo.
Tlwfollowill8 is /llbl (( KNOWN Jet ilu:rlQ6I propolllls whidl will 100II blforwarded IO]OW:
1. CIwla ViaIa Maalet Foe ~ Sc~Je
'Ibis scbeQJl. ~ fee lDcrI:ase8.new fees,lUId I(JIDC fee dec:o nil Ovcnll, City Staft'
bas a1lcu[atcd tile 10llil impact otllJe ll('~"""le 10 add $230 far 0lICb DeW boule. 'lbo busiDeea
CCIIlIIlanlty will also be impeclell. w. SW8gUl II -l"' delay CItII,",_ /us collU1JMd I1IIhe
~1NdM/4 whicll will directly ilrrpGcl WI businul and collSlTllakm lJeaors.
2. Ttafllc Devtlqlment Impa<:t Fee l-=ose-
Tbecwnnt lI'atfic fee 10 $3.D60. TbIa.~~ hi ir0p0ee4oo aIIlly W-IfIJI 'lViabing to
fll!Pl!IId, new ~.;:."'" -,,,,, 1'.1 .; "'~",":"t. "" bqII:~ ~ The fee II JIIllIllISlX!
to be iDcrcucd from $3,OW 10 $3,075. We rlquuI/I_~l"' delay ...Ihe Uu:re1lSe.
3. PubIlc PacWIIes Impact Pee lncrealJe -
Tbecumnt feefa'....... hoo>e COlllltnIclioo 18$2,150. SllIfl'............., III $89.00 foe
baeue fa' new baIle IXln8lnICUOIl. The good news is 1bIIt lho fee Car lXlIIllDaClaIlIId
In<!n..,.;a!;, cIcc:rcuin& by $845 pel """" W. rlqllUlQ D/II-J<<lI'UUz] Oil WI /Jtcruu..
~ ~/JYr
Attachment # 8-9
PlI&o 2
MardI 10. 1993
.
4. SR.l2S IIllllrilIl 0llYPJrvn- Fee - .
'I1IiI new fee wWd palIy iqIlcl_ ClOIIIm<<CiII CIplQtIIIIi1iu wiIIIlDIlD IocD iato die
Cily In the _ lbal the fee WIlUId bo levied. h WOlIJd liiio edIl $1,290 10 1bo COlt of_
bomea buill.1riIhin lbc boIlCIil area. We nquut IfWXC tIiIte GIld /Ifl1IIl/rWtt IIuueMd ""*'
I/) mom 1hU complu /MUllf'.
Tbe,cnmulAtiVfl to,,;::h Uj,f :W.'-"'ie_"~<J;1i-i~!{,n24mttl'JiPlJltndiel'!lfW'nEllft8W~ The
eD11nl.tive tnt91~ would al10 Iln".a(Jy iml'Jad new M.......... _,._ _l...lriM
0tJwr A,1UlCJ'ee /nr:nases (hi tife BorWll:
S. 0Iay Will<< DiItrict Clpacity Fees-
Tho Otay Will<< Oislrict is JlIQP<llIin& to in;:reaso lbc _ ClIpId1y fcca 011 Man:b 17th. The
iDcrea.lea wiI1 aIao peally Unp.:l new ~ dcIIriDg 10 Iol:IIIe wiIbio .. Cily of CbuIa
Visla. We aTe requel1illg more lime and /npulfrom ~ ""*' DII/Iv propoud
Increase before the 1'If4IIer is lvaTd by /he Otay W.u.r BotIrd.
.
6. Swe<<waklr IIIId Owla Vista CIty ScOOoIs Adopt a $1.00 Fee Jncrcae-
Both DiJlricIS =tIy alopcW. $1.00 ~ lIlj.f1lcoiDl:nlull. 'J'bb wID 8d4appoowl.....1Illy
$1.800 III the COlt olDOW homea built owIdll 01 a M'eIIo ltooa DiIII:lct. ToII1 a::boo1 fcca per
bome IlOW equaI~y $5,(XX)1
.'K/(.
,:l1~M~,""~'llh
cc: JoIm Goes
JoIm LippiIl
Many Cbue
Olay Will<< 0lslrIct BoIrcI 01 Ditectm
.
Attachment' 8-10
g -- /3/
P8&o 3
NarcII10. 1993
.
T1'-<:rll1()lnlc Triggers
w. ...."......~, f<q\IOIl)'VllrCouuoil "Iink~ rcO itm 1111 ............ buIIaeA --''Y 1114
IIlo 0ClIII1I1Ial0a lDclwl:)IlIl b)' ~....v iDcIi<"- Ooco IIlo iDdIcaIan ......-cIIocI1 "IIuIIbf 1_
_.~-..I. r:ue. lea could dMra be ~ New or'" -..t _1IDakl1Dt bI ~--"".un
dlO lIrlOll" JNCbod or lIIIIoa oYoaidiD& ~ ... be IIlIlIo '" die CilJ' eo.-Il.
JlegioaaJ Unemployment
1987 - 4.:5'4
1981 - 4.3'4
1989 - 3.9'4
1990 - 4.4'4
1991- 6.1'4
1!1!l2- 7.4'4
11193 (1IDllIt)') , 7.8"
B..ItJJ1_.,lo,... taU MiNIJtl H __.."._ ",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_,
(TIlo S_Ibplo)'llllll>lUcoolo;.-..r l~~'"",,", om< "'''"lIloclall:lid)'lllDpriorlD 1!1!l2-apocIlId
~.. _iD :r.-.l!l93)
.
Regional Residential BuiJtling Permits
1987 - 31,321
1988 - 28,394
1989 - 18,813
1990 - lS,8I17
1991- 70992
1!1!l2 - 6.081
BIfIlIII] rq/oINl "","1ItItIl.atId/af,,,. kNlr 1lul1UIl"........... ""- u.- at _. ...,.,.
IIUS-m.p ..-
"Real" G~ Regional Product GRP (1IlorIlljuAodbld...... nalCJ1PIIlllolOlll
m.ukot _LIllo of pcb m:I ~ produced by Iebar m:I ~ witia ilia.......)
1987 - 3'l. iDa_
19&8 - U'l. u........
1989- 2.8'4il1l:r....
1990- 1.:5'1'0 iIla....
1991- . (~~~,WQ'Iolf'.'
1!1!l2 - 1.8t. ""''''''''
;....~ l.)"'~,"':i}~"':d <~;
1IMJtA;T "RMl" 0__ RlfWN rr.lruttPlI1_ _ __".,..."",. _"'.....,.. 7k
_,S-DIIp C_ oJC-- ""1"'/J<dJlo"" Jll> '-fw JIM'" IIUSaDMp.......
.
g--/'10
Attachment # 8-11
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
March 15, 1993
AN
INVESTMENT IN
THE FUTURE
The Honorable Tim Nader &
Chula Vista City Councilmembers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President
T Pat Cavanaugh
Dear Mayor Nader and Councilmembers:
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
President Elect
Diane Flint
The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce has reviewed the proposed
"Master Fee Schedule" and had representation at the public workshop.
The Chamber has three major areas of concern. First, while we would
like to have increased revenues within the city, the economic reality is
that we do not. Most business, most cities and most jurisdictions are
reducing staff and overhead in order to remain fiscally solvent and
within the levels of available revenue. In contrast, the City of Chula
Vista appears to be looking at these fees as a method to increase or at a
minimum maintain staff composition.
Vice Presidents:
Rod Da~'is
Mike Ma~,c~
John F VC2'"
Members:
Pat~I:::5. 82.ne::
Russ B:...i:er'"i
Steve Col':.s
Chuck Day
RobM Ga'cla
'usa," He',.,'
1h JaJ"f1:sC'~
I liS Lew;,;,
Tim Lew:s
Noorr. R::'1's
Mary Anne St~(:
BOD Tnoma~
JiiT1 Wea\'C"
The second area of concern is in the area of affordable housing. The
proposed fee increases will add close to $1,624.00 to the cost of a new
home. For every $1,000.00 added to the price of a home, 120 families
cannot qualify to buy that home. A $1,624.00 increase would mean 195
families could not qualify for that home. Adding to the price of a home
is not supportive of the city's stated commitment to providing affordable
housing.
Past Pres,der.:
M~ke G:ee'-'
Finally, there is the distinct possibility that increased fees will drive
construction out of Chula Vista. This would mean a loss of jobs to the
residents of Chula Vista and a loss of revenue to businesses in Chula
Vista, at a time when we need to fight for jobs and business revenue in
our city. If the construction industry will not build in Chula Vista
because of onerous fees, then the city will accrue no increase in
revenues because of increased fees.
Executive Director
Donai:)' R Rea::::
The Chamber urges no increase in fees until the appropriateness of
staff/service reductions are assessed. In view of the impact of proposed
fees on affordable housing, we recommend that the City of Chula Vista
follow the County of San Diego's lead in deferring any fee increases for
at least one year. The Chamber would be pleased to work with the City
in implementing these recommendations.
.
Sincerely yours,
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
-1lf~/M).ir
T. Pat Cavanaugh
President
TPC:ce ,?' /' / ~ /
:; 3:: F (1 \,.: P T H A V E N U E . C H U l A V 1ST A, C A L I FOR N I A 9 1 9 1 0
TEL (619)420-6603
Attachment # 8-12
.
A
.
.
ORDINANCE NO. ~'I?_"u READING AND f;Il::.:.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI1Y OF CHUIA VISfAAMENDING
SECTIONS 3.44.021. 9.12.160, 9.12.280. 9.13.050.
13.14.090, 13.14.100,13.14.110,13.14.120, AND 13.14.150
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS
5.36.035 AND 15.36.015 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES
......"
The City Councll of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 3.44.021 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Is
amended to read as follows:
Section 3.44.021 EzemptlonB-SeDior citizens.
The tax Imposed by this chapter shall not apply to any individual sixty-two years
of age or older who uses telephone. electric and gas in or upon any premises
occupied by such individual; provided the combined gross income of all members
of the household in which such individual resided wa~ less than seven 1:fts1:fslifta
ave fttlflarea aeHlH'B M;Y.~9#lt(~1...pf~~.~p.{~~g9~(9r~~gly~
b9us~I1Cl'4.$~ for the calendar year prior to the fiscal year (July 1 through June
30) for which the exemption provided in this chapter is applied. ~d~giii~
!:It.at.lstiC$'.sh;nI..P1'i'..4s..4et~~...~ti~11Y(9t~..l?~j!igq\MSYPpq1i~~FJ.W:!t.l~
Mea...l>y...t,h~"f~q~...l?~p~t..P!.H.99fW.g..~.'Y~~gpiii!m~~).
The exemption granted by this section shall not eliminate the duty of the service
suppliers from collecting taxes from such exempt individuals or the duty of such
exempt individuals from paying such taxes to the service suppliers unless an
exemption is applied for by the service user and granted in accordance with the
provisions of subsection B of this section.
B.
Any service user exempt from the taxes Imposed by thls chapter because of the
provisions of subsection A may me an application with the director of finance for
an exemption. Such an application shall be made upon forms supplied by the
director of finance and shall recite facts verified by declaration under penalty of
perjury which qualifY the applicant for an exemption. The director of finance shall
review all such applications and certifY as exempt those applicants determined to
qualifY therefor and shall notifY all service suppliers affected that such exemption
has been approved. stating the name of the applicant. the address to which such
exempt service Is being supplied, the account number, If any. and such other
Information as may be necessary for the service supplier to remove the exempt
service user from Its tax bUling procedure. The certification of such application
for exemption shall be granted If the eligibility requirements of subsection A are
met. except that no exemption shall be granted to an applicant who is receiving
service from a service supplier through a master meter, or who is sharing or
prorating service with other service users even though such service users qualifY
under the provisions of subsection A; provided, however. that the person receiving
service through a master meter or sharing or prorating service with other service
users shall be eligible for a rebate of the utility users' tax in the amount of twelve
dollars per year, or any larger amount upon a showing of actual bUling from the
person having control of said master meter, to be paid at the begtnnlng of each
WPC F,\home\wpc:\g.nIdy\l065I.WPF
Attachment #4-1
9-1
fiscal year for the preceding fiscal year. commencing on July I, 1977. Such
person seeking said rebate must file the application therefor on or before
September 1st of each year to receive said rebate for the preceding fiscal year. It ........
is further pr vlded that said rebate may be prorated If the applicant has not
resided In the e location for the full preceding fiscal year. No exemption shall
be granted wi respect to any tax imposed by this chapter which is or has been
paid by a pub c agency or where the applicant receives funds from a public
agency specitl y for the payment of such tax.
Upon receipt of s h notice, the service supplier shall not be required to continue
to bill any further imposed by this chapter from such exempt service user until
further notice by e director of finance Is given. The service supplier shall
eliminate such ex t service user from Its tax billing procedure for bills dated on
or after July 1. 1976. pon receipt of such notice from the director of finance prior
to July I, 1976. and ereafter from bills dated no later than sixty days after
receipt of such notice m the director of finance.
All exemptions shall con ue and be renewed automatically by the director of
finance so long as the pr equislte facts supporting the initial qualification for
exemption continue; provl , however, that the exemption shall automatically
terminate with any change the service address or residence of the exempt
individual; and further provl , that such individual may nevertheless apply for
a new exemption with each ch e of address or residence. Any individual exempt
from the tax shall notify the dlr tor of finance within ten days of any change In
fact or circumstance which m1gh disqualify said individual from receiving such
exemption. It shall be a m1sdem or for any person to knoWingly receive the
benefits of the exemptions provld by this section when the basis for such........
exemption either does not exist or ce es to exist.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions f this subsection. however. any service
supplier who determines by any means t a new or nonexempt service user Is
receiving service through a meter or conn on exempt by virtue of any exemption
Issued to a previous user or exempt user 0 e same meter or connection, such
service supplier shall Immediately notify the ector of finance of such fact, and
the director of finance shall conduct an Inves tion to ascertain whether or not
the provisions of this section have been compl d with and, where appropriate.
order the service supplier to commence collec the tax from the nonexempt
service user.
as follows:
SECTION II: That Section 5.36.035 be added to e Municipal Code to read
Section 1536.0315 H. U""c. H-""th P.actltl . er-RefiliJi""''"'1e
. . . 0.....,. .. ...... . .... ... d.~...... ... . .... ~. ....
Forthepurposesotpr~lngarid~t,tgiltlO~PQllstle~
pay the Required Fee($),~d (~!ltiall~ ~t#1dlil,)Je~PQn,.~ ....
license.
.-.
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraJdy\10651.WPF
r/ i/;'f , eJ.. '
g ").(7
Attachment #4-2
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
9
BtJ-O\NG
S'i-CONO .
Meeting Date 4/13/93
ITEM TITLE: D Resolution I ? pf7 Amending Resolution 17049 Regarding Citizen
. Input to the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and Payment of Fees
?1\ON , L'" Llr
fji:f},PdfifInce ~ ., . Approving the Prezoning to P-C Planned
Community (PCZ 93- ) for the San Miguel Ranch General Development
Plan (second reading and adoption)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning J!lt/
City Manager& ~ @1l
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 23, 1993, the City Council approved Resolution 17049, approving the San Miguel Ranch
General Development Plan, and placed Ordinance 2548 on first reading, adopting the P-C pre-zone
for San Miguel Ranch. The City Council also approved a motion creating a citizen's ad hoc
committee in order to obtain more formal public input at the SPA level in regards to the plan. Staff
was to return to the Council with a report on this proposed committee. This motion was
incorporated into Resolution 17049.
Since March 23, staff has discussed the membership of such a citizen's ad hoc advisory committee
with the applicant and the City Attorney, and as a result is proposing an amendment to Resolution
17049 which would delineate the membership of a citizen's ad hoc advisory committee for the
Rancho San Miguel project.
In addition, staff has determined that the applicant has not yet fully reimbursed costs related to the
processing of the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan. Staff is recommending a new
condition to address this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Resolution amending Resolution 17049 which approved the San Miguel Ranch General
Development Plan.
Adopt Ordinance 2548 on second reading, which approves the pre-zoning to P-C Planned
Community (PCZ 93-H).
DISCUSSION:
Citizen Input
The proposed amended condition to Resolution 17049, which would carry out Council direction
regarding the formation of a citizen's ad hoc advisory committee for the San Miguel Ranch project
reads as follows:
q,/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Establish a formalized cUlzen input process, in conjunction with the City Planning
Department, for review of all Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans and subsequent
discretionary permits. This process shall include formation of an independent ad hoc
citizen's advisory committee, consisting of one member from each of the following groups:
Representative from Sweetwater Community Planning Group
Representative from Sweetwater Civic Association
Resident of adjacent Bonita area
Resident of adjacent EastLake/Salt Creek area
Non-resident adjacent property owner
Representative from Endangered Habitats League
At-large member
This condition would meet the Council's intent to have a citizen's ad hoc committee in place to
review and provide recommendations to staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, on
all subsequent development applications for the San Miguel Ranch project. Proposed membership
for the committee would represent all major interests regarding the project. Staff shall report to the
Council on the membership of the citizen's ad hoc committee once it is formed.
Cost Reimbursement
In reviewing the project accounting records for San Miguel Ranch, it was determined by staff that
certain reimbursable costs for this project have not yet been paid by the applicant. It is our
understanding that these costs were for services which were rendered during the final review of the
project. Staff is recommending that a condition be added which indicates that approval of the
General Development Plan is not final until all required fees are paid.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Creation of a citizen's ad hoc committee for San Miguel Ranch will result in additional staff time
devoted to working with the committee. However, staff costs on this project are recoverable from
the applicant's deposit account, so no additional costs to the city will result.
rsmrsrpt.gh
9'~
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
RCC MINUTES
.
.
.1-3
'.
.
.
. Excerpt From Draft Planning Commission Minutes of 3/3/93
Commissioner Tuchscher was excused from this portion of the meeting because of a conflict of
interest on the following project.
ITEM 1.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO SAN MIGUEL GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (EIR 90-02) (SCH-90010155)
PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 93-14, PCZ 93-H; APPLICATION BY SAN
MIGUEL PARTNERS FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY PRE-ZONE FOR SAN MIGUEL
RANCH, LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR,
WEST AND SOUTH OF MOTHER MIGUEL. MOUNTAIN, AND
NORTHEAST OF PROCTOR V ALLEY ROAD - San Miguel Partners
ITEM 2.
Principal Planner Howard asked that these two items be considered simultaneously and presented
the staff report regarding the General Development Plan and pre-zone and the major issues
regarding the surrounding properties. Mr. Howard requested the Commission to adopt the
resolution certifying the Final EIR for the project recommending that the City Council approve
the General Development Plan and the Pre-zone for the San Miguel Ranch Project.
Associate Planner Reid presented the contents of the Final EIR, noting that 10 letters of
comment had been received regarding the Draft EIR and 11 individuals provided testimony at
the February 10, 1993 hearing; response to comments had been incorporated in the Final EIR
with the errata and draft. Ms. Reid noted that final decision on the approval of the northern
portion was being deferred until after the NCCP process had been completed, and commented
on several points made in a letter received from California Fish & Game. A letter had also been
received from CaITrans, and Ms. Reid stated the City's Traffic Engineer had commented that
the project was in compliance with the City's General Plan and the traffic generated by the
project made use of the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Ms. Reid commented, also,
that the City and Sweetwater Authority were working closely regarding the impacts of the run-
off diversion system.
Commissioner Tarantino questioned the success of transplanting endangered plant species and
what happened if it was not considered successful. Barry Jones, the biologist on the project,
answered that all of the mitigation measures would be bonded, so that if at the end of the five-
year period the criteria had not been met the applicant would have the opportunity to try to
rectify the problem. If the conditions were not met, the City would have the option at that point
to pull the bond and rectify the problem. Answering Commissioner Tarantino, Mr. Jones said
there had been a fairly high degree of success in transplantation of Barrel Cacti; in the case of
wetlands, there had been a mixed success rate. There was very intensive monitoring, and it was
in the applicant's best interest to make it work. The City also required a separate monitor from
the applicant's monitor be involved in the process in identifying problems early on.
f~i
I
Commissioner Martin asked how the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator would be paid and who
employed him. Ms. Reid said the City selected the consultant, and the applicant paid the
coordinator through a three-party agreement--paid by the developer through the City. Mr. Jones
commented that the Coordinator's role is as a City employee, looking out for the City's interest.
Ms. Reid said the Coordinator and Mr. Jones took their direction from the City ultimately with
developer input.
,
--..
Commissioner Moot asked for clarification of Mr. Howard's comment during the staff
presentation that the proposed development in the north could disappear entirely. Mr. Howard
answered that at the SPA Plan level, there may be an approved NCCP which would fmd that
the northern parcel was a key component of a regional open space network for preservation of
the Gnatcatcher. If that was the conclusion of the NCCP, it would preclude development on the
northern parcel. If the NCCP found that some limited amount of development was consistent
with the amount of resources on that type of parcel or did not come to fruition, at the SPA Plan
level there would probably be some development potential on the northern parcel. Replying to
Commissioner Moot, Mr. Howard said if the NCCP did not come to fruition, the City had the
discretion to require up to 100% preservation for various species with no development allowed
on the northern parcel.
Chair Fuller noted that if the northern portion is not developed, the developer had agreed to a
no-density transfer to the southern portion. Mr. Howard said that under the current General
Plan designations for the site, the developer would actually lose density on the southern parcel
because of the requirement for more estate lots on the southern parcel to make up for the lost --..
lots in the northern parcel; however, the applicant had the option to apply for a General Plan
amendment which would recoup all or part of the density from that parcel. There was no
commitment from the developer never to ask for a General Plan amendment.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Assistant Planning Director Lee clarified that the public review period had been closed on the
EIR on February 10, 1993, so the current public hearing was regarding the amendment to the
General Plan and the general development plan of the project.
(The following two speakers gave a prepared presentation on behalf of the applicant.)
David Nairne, 950-4350 La Jolla Village Dr., San Diego 92122 representing San Miguel
Partners, the project applicant, thanked Principal Planner Howard and Associate Planner Reid
of City staff, and Ms. Hon and Ogden for their assistance, and turned the presentation over to
Denise Ashton.
Denise Ashton, Tierra Planning & Design, 34191 Camino Capistrano, Capistrano Beach,
CA, representing the applicant, gave a pictorial presentation of the project.
Eugene J. Sprofera, 3311 Fairway Drive, La Mesa 91941, speaking as a legislative analyst,
was concerned with EMF. He asked for prudent avoidance and that safety standards be set. ~
He wanted to make a strong point that this was not the kind of project to put under power lines.
7/;;
;;,
'.
.
.
Robert E. Thompson, 6503 San Miguel Road, Bonita, noted the different organizations that
were against the project, and the project was predicated on future development that may not
happen. He asked that the Commission take a rational look at considering a project that nobody
seemed to want except the developer, and that the Commission vote against the EIR and on the
site development plan.
Stephen Ezakovich, 7475 Carrie Ridge Way, San Diego, represented Sierra Club, South Bay
Group, who opposed construction or development of the northern parcel of Rancho Miguel. He
said its unique biological topographical features should exist undisturbed and be utilized as a
study area open space. They were concerned with the density of the southern portion; mitigation
of the loss of Diegan Sage Scrub, wetlands, sensitive flora and fauna; cumulative impact to the
natural environment. The asked that the Commission preserve the north parcel and decrease the
density of dwelling units in the south parcel maximizing natural open space or preserve the sits.
George Kost, 3609 Belle Bonney Brae Road, Bonita 91902, commented on the cumulative
transportation problems, and the ultimate widening of several streets in Bonita, the economic
factor, and the impact to human beings, the air pollution, noise pollution, and crime. He
commented on the difficulty to decide on a project without knowing the routing of SR-125 and
the types of roads which would run north and south.
Michael J. Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita 91902, speaking on behalf of the owners
of3645-3655 Proctor Valley Road, and Sunnyside Ranch Equestrian Community, said he was
both for and against the project. He said the Bonita residents were in favor of the trails, and
land use and the plans for the norther community but the documents did not support that. He
said the documents were not correct; there had to be an overriding consideration for the benefit
of human beings and the northern portion had to be approved for development for appropriate
housing developments. He reiterated the concept of the Bonita residents as to the use of the
property. He stated the EIR was neither sufficient nor complete, issues were not mitigated in
the EIR; the EIR should be denied. He concurred with some of the ideas of the developer, but
Mr. Roark did not believe what was before the Commission was what the applicant wanted or
thought they were getting. He concurred with Commissioner Ray's comment at a previous
meeting that the project should not be considered as if SR-125 was a consideration. The project
had to stand or fall on its own merits without consideration of SR-125. He felt the applicant
should not have to give up land without compensation for SR-125, without knowing where it
would be located. Mr. Roark felt the northern territory should not be preserved for a species
which was not on the endangered species list, for plants which are easily replanted and grow
naturally, and for species that are common in the area. He suggested that the applicant's ideas
be considered, not just City staff.
Mary Renaker, 1374 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, representing the Endangered Habitats League,
and San Diego Sierra Club on the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan in North County,
supported the project and said the land had highly significant habitat value in San Diego County;
the applicant had agreed not to plan development in the north section of the property until the
Statewide Natural Communities Conservation Program and the County's Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Program had finished map and designing core reserves and corridors. Ms.
Renaker said the San Miguel project was critical for redefining California's development style
?~?
}
for the future; the groups she represented were very concerned about the negative precedent .-.
which could be set wherein their efforts to map and preserve critical habitats before they become
endangered are blocked by inflexible city codes. She felt if San Miguel Ranch was forced to
build a pristine, virgin landscape in order to satisfy municipal zoning ordinance requirements,
it would be a setback for their efforts. They were asking environmentalists also to re-examine
their views on building densities. She felt the California suburban ranchettes were too wasteful
cf the air, land, water, and biological resources. Development needed to be clustered on less
sensitive land in order to preserve mountains, hills, and rivers for wildlife corridors and future
open space. In-fill, redesign and rebuilding was necessary where land had already been farmed
or paved, and virgin landscape should be left alone to preserve biodiversity. Ms. Renaker asked
that the requirement for the number of units on the less sensitive land be deleted, and the
previously approved density be allowed.
John Taylor, 3142 Orchard Hill Road, Bonita, was concerned with noise impact from SR-125
on the southern portion of San Miguel Ranch and the noise impacts on human and wildlife
health. He said continuous noise levels in excess of 80 decibels could cause documented
elevations on certain cholesterol and other stress hormones. Mr. Taylor said there was a federal
regulation establishing levels of noise exposure limiting human exposure to continuous sound
levels of 85 decibels for no more than 8 hours per day to avoid permanent damage to the inner
ear. SR-125 would produce significant levels of noise, and he felt additional in-depth study
should be done in order to be sure there would not be a health problem.
Muriel Watson, 3120 Anderson St., Bonita, spoke about horse trails, and said there was ~
nothing definitive regarding location or utilization. There was nothing specific dealing with the
rural lifestyle.
Gretchen Burkey, P. O. Box 321, Bonita, represented the Sweetwater Community Planning
Group who had concerns with the EIR and General Development Plan regarding mitigation of
biological impacts, the destruction of high visible landforms; size, scale, and intensity of the
proposed project; EMF and visible adverse impacts of locating residential development adjacent
to transmission lines; discussion of impacts of SR-125 should be terminated; proposed by-pass
road would bifurcate some properties which would create hardships of owners; further work
needs to be done on EIR before certification, and the GDP should be fine tuned.
Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista (assisted by Brent Rivers), representing
CROSSROADS, asked that the dwelling units on both parcels be limited to 1262 units and that
the Commission adopt the preservation plan which preserved the landform of Horseshoe Bend.
He was concerned with traffic, noise ambience level, and visual impact. He said the proposed
plan exacerbated the impacts in the regional facilities and would strain the County's ability to
provide services such as jails, animal control, health and social services. Mr. Watry noted the
Council had made it clear that the General Plan was a maximum, and the maximum number of
units did not have to be approved. He also was concerned about the increased number of power
lines to be installed after the project is completed, and grading the landform to the south to a
flatland subdivision. CROSSROADS' proposal was to change the south parcel to a maximum
of 907 units with 357 units in the northern parcel with a total of 1262 units. He noted the .-.
)J~7
f
'.
.
.
advantages of changing the density as requested, preserving the Horseshoe Bend formation and
building executive houses on top of Horseshoe Bend,
E. J. Burley, 6500 San Miguel Road, Bonita, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic
Association stated the EIR was inadequate and inaccurate. He was concerned with flooding and
mitigation of water flow. They endorsed the recommendations of Mr. Roark.
Sheri Todus, 600! Bonita Meadows Lane, Bonita, referring to Figure 2.3 of the Supplemental
EIR, was concerned that the proposed access road and the proposed SR-125 wiped out her home
and two of her neighbors. She did not believe SR-125 should be considered in the EIR since
it had not been defInitely aligned, and she did not believe much of the project would be
compatible with her neighborhood.
Patricia Holland Roark, 3645 Proctor Valley Road, Bonita, reported that she had recently
attended a San Diego County Water Authority meeting. They had approved purchase of the
northern section and were negotiating with San Miguel Partners. She asked if this was the San
Miguel Ranch project or if it was another project.
David Nairne, San Miguel Partners, returned to the podium to answer questions. In answer
to Mrs. Roark, he stated they had received an offer from the County Water Authority to acquire
the northern portion of the property to be used as a biological preserve as mitigation for impacts
they had in both the water pipeline being proposed and for future projects. San Miguel partners
had not responded to the offer. In response to Ms. Todus' concern regarding the SR-125
interchange, the figure she was referring to in the Supplemental EIR had been deleted and was
not shown on their plan. The bypass road was taken from the Circulation Element of the
General Plan as it currently exists for the City. Regarding the horse trails, Mr. Nairne said
there were horse trails shown in their plan--approximately 6-1/2 miles--but that was a SPA level
review and the biologist would determine where they could go.
In answer to Sheri Todus, Associate Planner Reid said that Figure 2.3 in the Draft EIR showed
the proposed access road and transportation corridor; the wrong figure was included in the Final
Supplemental EIR; that interchange had been deleted and was no longer part of the new plan and
was not included in the analysis. That correction would be made before being presented to
Council.
Jim Burley returned to the podium to say there was an international riding and hiking trail from
Mexico to the Canadian border, and he felt the riding and hiking trails of this project should be
tied into this.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chair Fuller commented that many of the concerns of the speakers were to be considered at the
SPA Plan level, and explained that the Commissioners were aware of these concerns but they
could not be specifIcally considered at the General Plan amendment level.
9-~
s
Commissioner Ray asked, with the omission of Figure 2.3 and no alignment of SR-125, could ........
the adequacy of the EIR be questioned? If that alignment was moved significantly or an off-
ramp or interchange changed, it would change the traffic flow significantly.
Katherine Hon, the EIR consultant, said there had been considerable discussion on this issue
because the alignment had not been determined and would not be determined for several years.
They had shown the aligI11'1ent to be consistent with the General Plan, and that was the best that
could be done short of declaring a moratorium on all EIRs effected by that alignment.
Commissioner Ray asked if, in the opinion of Ms. Hon, with the uncertainty of the alignment
and the interchanges, that would meet CEQA requirements. Ms. Hon said it would; it was a
program level EIR which tried to address the concept of the development given the assumptions
which had to be made and using the City's General Plan as its basis.
Mr. Nairne approached the podium and asked that their attorney, Mr. Dillon, respond to that
question.
Mark Dillon, attorney for the applicant, said that based .on Commissioner Ray's comments at
the last hearing, they had done some research to address that particular legal issue. He
concurred with the environmental consultant that the generalized alignment shown was the same
alignment that was shown in the Chula Vista General Plan. The CEQA cases they had looked
at allowed a development project to assume a generalized road alignment; if that alignment
changed down the line, the project would require revisions according to those changes. .......,
Commissioner Ray commended everyone involved on the preserve plan. Regarding the concerns
about the run-off issue and recent flooding, the monitoring, and funding, he did not fmd
anything in the EIR.
Principal Planner Howard asked if Commissioner Ray was speaking of the general drainage
question or the question of run-off into the reservoir. Commissioner Ray clarified that it was
the run-off into the reservoir.
With Chair Fuller's permission, Mr. Nairne said that under the EIR, they were required to have
the plans for the run-off protection system approved by the Sweetwater Authority and to have
it fully constructed and fully operational before any grading could be started on the northern
portion of the development of the first house. That plan also involved a long-term maintenance
program in order to be acceptable and a funding source so the maintenance of that could be in
place. A two- or three-year bond would probably have to be put up for the start of that in order
to insure there would be funding available prior to houses being sold.
Commissioner Ray asked if the Water Authority would be the monitoring agent, or if there
would be a third party.
Mr. Nairne answered that the Water Authority wanted to be the monitoring agent as part of their
existing run-off protection system. . .......,
1~1
Iv
'e
e
.
Chair Fuller clarified that by action that evening, the Commission was not establishing the exact
or final number of dwellings in either parcel. Principal Planner Howard said they were
establishing a maximum; that number was subject to further refinement at the SPA level. There
was additional uncertainty because of the northern parcel and the potential impact on decreased
density on the southern parcel as well.
Chair Fuller said there would not be a need to discuss the proposal by CROSSROADS at that
time, and it would be more appropriate at a later date. Principal Planner Howard pointed out
that the CROSSROADS proposal indicated that if there was no development on the north, that
density could be transferred to the south. If that happened, in fact the CROSSROADS proposal
would have a greater density than the staff recommendation. If there was a development in the
north, the density would be less. Mr. Howard noted that as he spoke, he had heard protests
from the audience.
With concurrence by the Commission, Chair Fuller recognized those speakers.
Mr. Sprofera said he did not agree with Mr. Nairne that Sweetwater Authority should make the
ultimate decision on the flood control. He felt that was what was wrong with the EIR--it left
the public out--and the public demanded that they be part of the EIR process and that it not be
turned over to an agency like Sweetwater Authority who was concerned about the water in the
lake. The public was concerned about where the water was going to run off in the project, and
he felt they had that right.
Mr. Thompson was concerned that if the northern portion was sold, the southern portion would
have to stand on its own and a new EIR may need to be done.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf clarified that the way the subject EIR was structured, if the
Commission found the EIR adequate and the norther parcel was sold, it would be an adequate
EIR for the project. If the northern portion became part of the NCCP in its entirety, the other
portion would still be developable.
Commissioner Ray stated that if the whole northern portion stayed open" space, the same issues
would have to be readdressed at the SPA level before drawing any permits. Mr" Rudolf agreed--
to the extent the issues needed to be addressed.
Commissioner Ray, referring to the Summary of Impacts and Mitigation, page 1-9, was
concerned about the buffer planned at the SPA level, and if more information would be available
on the EMF at that time.
Principal Planner Howard answered that there may be no further information on the EMF of a
conclusive nature; however, there would be other general land use compatibility, noise and
visual impacts to address, and there would be impacts to buffer through a buffer plan whether
or not there was more information on EMF.
';-/ ()
1
Commissioner Ray was concerned about future liability for the Commission, the City, developer, ""'"
or anyone approving projects once the issue had been raised in a public hearing. He would not
be comfortable at a SPA level to go ahead with it.
Associate Planner Reid responded that staff had to rely on the scientific community, and if there
was no better information, staff was required to base the EIR on that information. If
Commissioner Ray was asking for consideration cf something of a general nature by. the City
in terms of a policy regarding EMF even though there had not been a stand by the scientific
community, that would be a different issue. Mr. Ray affirmed that was what he had been
considering.
Mr. Nairne stated that the comment regarding buffering had to do more with visual buffering;
under the SDG&E existing EIR for expansion of the facilities, there was a requirement for them
to do additional buffering. Depending upon where they finally locate their facilities, their
buffering should be adequate. Their development is located on the east from the development
and, therefore, any present development is as close as any development would be; everything
in the future phases would be further away.
Chair Fuller said that she believed everyone shared Commissioner Ray's concerns regarding the
buffering and there should be comprehensive planning between SDG&E and the developer to
make sure it is not only visually buffered, but for protection. The developer and SDG&E want
that protection.
""'"
Motion by Commissioner Tarantino to certify that the Final EIR-90-02 for San Miguel Ranch
has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and the
environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista and adopt the recommending
resolution including items a through e on page 2-2 of the staff report.
Commissioner Carson suggested that each part be taken individually, because she had a concern
with the overriding considerations. Commissioner Tarantino agreed.
AMENDED MOTION
. MSC (Tarantino/Carson) 5-1-1 (Commissioner Ray opposed; Commissioner Tuchscher-
conflict of interest) to certify that the Final EIR-90-02 for San Miguel Ranch has been
prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State Guidelines and the environmental review
procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
MS (Martin/Tarantino) to adopt the attached recommending resolutions approving the General
Development Plan based on fmdings and conditions, adopting an ordinance establishing the
Planned Community Prezone, approving the CEQA Findings, and approving the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the EIR.
Commissioner Ray said he had some very specific concerns about this EIR and several other
EIRs that were before the Commission, but the Commission would have an opportunity to
change some things they were not comfortable with at the SPA level. He was concerned about
"""'.
tj /'11
1
,
.
.
.
voting on the CEQA Findings since he had voted against certification of the Final EIR; however,
he was not against other parts of the motion.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf suggested that the CEQA Findings be bifurcated from the motion
and considered separately. Chair Fuller asked the maker of the motion of he would agree to
that. Commissioner Martin concurred.
AMENDED MOTION
MS (Martin/Tarantino) to approve the General Development Plan based on imdings and
conditions, and adopt the ordinance establishing the Planned Community Prezone.
Commissioner Moot said they were not voting on the actual number of units that would be in,
and he wanted to go on record that he had a tendency to support the CROSSROADS
recommendation but it didn't seem appropriate at this level to make that specific a finding.
Commissioner Carson stated that in the resolution there was a maximum of 1,654 dwelling units
and the Commission would have to look at dropping at least 300+ dwelling units if it was to
be dropped to 1,262. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said the new plan had a maximum of
1,619. Principal Planner Howard noted the maximum number in the resolution should be 1,619
and it would be corrected.
VOTE ON MOTION: 6-0-1 (Commissioner Tuchscher-conflict of interest)
MSC (Fuller/Moot) 4-2-1 (Commissioners Carson and Ray voted against; Commissioner
Tuchscher-conflict of interest) to approve the CEQA Findings of EIR-90-02.
MS (Fuller/Ray) to approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR-90-02.
Commissioner Ray asked if they were to sell the northern portion, would there have to be a new
mitigation monitoring plan put in place. Associate Planner Reid said it would be necessary,
because this was for the General Development Plan level and they still had to go through a SPA
Plan level environmental for the south parcel. There would be a mitigation monitoring plan for
the SPA level; however, much of it was already set up and in place in the mitigation monitoring
program.
Commissioner Ray was concerned that if the dwelling units were dropped to a certain point, it
would not be feasible to do some of the mitigation monitoring proposed for the San Miguel
Ranch. If the norther portion was not included in the project, would it still be economically
feasible to implement the mitigation monitoring plan. Mr. Nairne answered that the plan was
separated and if the north was sold as open space, all the mitigation monitoring plan was divided
into north and south issues, all the north issues would go, the south issues would stay, and those
which would apply to the whole project would have to be complied with.
Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that staff and the consultants agreed with the statement of
Mr. Nairne.
9 -) ;L
q
VOTE: 6-0-1 (Commissioner Tuchscher-conflict of interest)
-.,
MS (Fuller/Moot) to approve the Statement of Overriding Considerations for EIR-90-02,
San Miguel Ranch.
Commissioner Carson stated she had concerns regarding Horseshoe Bend; she believed it was
a landform which should be preserved.
Principal Planner Howard said to preserve Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob would require
a significant alteration to the proposed project to the point where the EIR and GDP would need
to be redone. In order to approve the proposed General Development Plan, the Commission
needed to find overriding fmdings of the visual impact of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob
grading. Mr. Howard suggested that if there was a concern that Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's
Knob should be preserved, the Commissioner should not vote for the proposed project.
Commissioner Carson said there were many things about the project she liked; the elimination
of Horseshoe Bend was the one thing she did not agree with. She would vote against the
overriding considerations to let the City Council know she had one objection.
VOTE: 4-2-1 (Commissioners Carson and Ray voted against; Tuchscher-conflict of
interest)
-"
.-.
L}-/}
/D
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM 93-14)
WHEREAS, San Miguel Partners, hereafter referred to as "appl icant" ,
has submitted an application for a General Development Plan (GDP,
Case # PCM 90-19) to be approved on approximately 2,590 acres,
divided into two parcels of 1,852 acres ("Northern Portion") and
738 acres (" Southern Portion"), and generally located south and
east of Sweetwater Reservoir, north of Proctor Valley Road, west of
Mount San Miguel, east of the Sweetwater Valley, and including
Mother Miguel Mountain within its boundaries ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has also submitted an application for a Pre-
zoning of the property to the P-C (Planned Community) District
(Case # PCZ 90-M, collectively, with the GDP, the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant's proposed General Development Plan is
contained within a document entitled "San Miguel Ranch General
Development Plan," dated December 16, 1991, and proposes the
construction of 1,654 dwelling units and related commercial, parks,
schools, on the project site; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Case # EIR 90-02),
dated December 1991, was prepared for the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report indicated
following issues were significant and not mitigable
proposed project:
that the
for the
Land Use
Landform/Visual
Biology
Air Quality; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report, was transmitted by
the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties
for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the draft Environment.al
Impact Report was given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the draft
Environmental Impact Report were accepted from December 7, 1991 to
February 5, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing and
1
?J--/f
If
accepted public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ~
on February 5, 1992; and
WHEREAS, based upon a dispute between the applicant and staff over
the Land Use Section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
relating to general plan consistency, the Planning Commission held
a publicly noticed workshop on April 1, 1992 to further study the
issue of this project's consistency with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the April 1, 1992 Planning Commission workshop, the
applicant introduced two new modified plan alternatives, labeled
the "Modified Concept Plan" and the "Preservation Plan;" and
WHEREAS, subsequent to this meeting, the applicant refined the
"Modified Concept Plan," renamed it the "Mitigation Concept Plan,"
and submitted it as a new project alternative designed to respond
to the public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report;
and
WHEREAS, an Addendum was prepared to the Draft Environmental Impact
Report which analyzed the "Modified Concept Plan" and the
"Preservation Plan;" and
WHEREAS, a second addendum was prepared to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report which also analyzed the "Modified Concept Plan" and
included an alternative finding for the issue of general plan
consistency and included alternative mitigation measures for ~
impacts to biology (which, however, do not change the finding of
significance within the Draft EIR); and
WHEREAS, agency and public comments and staff responses thereto are
addressed in the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (Case #
EIR 90-02) for the San Miguel Ranch project, dated September 1992;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
General Development Plan and considered the Draft
Environmental Impact Report on September 30, 1992; and
on the
Final
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to
October 19, 1992 in order for staff and the applicant to work on a
mitigation plan for biological impacts on the Northern Portion of
the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on
the General Development Plan and considered the Draft Final
Environmental Impact Report on October 19, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did not certify the Draft Final
EIR (by a vote of 4 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstaining) and
recommended denial of the proj ect (by a vote of 4 in favor, 1
opposed, and 1 abstaining); and ~
2
9 "/~
j)..
.
.
.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Project and
considered the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report on October
27, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the City Council remanded the project to the Planning
Commission for further analysis and review (by a vote of 5 in
favor, 0 opposed); and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 1992, the applicant withdrew the proposed
Project and submitted a new application for a General Development
Plan and Pre-Zone (Case # PCM 93-14) on January 26, 1993, hereafter
referred to as the "New Plan;" and
WHEREAS, a Draft Supplement to Environmental Impact Report EIR 90-
02 (hereafter referred to as "Draft Supplement") was prepared to
address the revised environmental impacts of the "New Plan;" and
WHEREAS, the Draft Supplement contains revised information and
environmental findings for the following issues:
Land Use
Landform/Visual
Biology
Traffic
Parks & Recreation; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Supplement was transmitted by the City of Chula
Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and
comment during a 30 day public review period; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Supplement was
given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Supplement
were accepted from January 8, 1993 to February 10, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing and
accepted public testimony on the Draft Supplement on February 10,
1993; and
WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the
Final Environmental Impact Report (Case # 90-02), dated March,
1992; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the "New
Plan" and considered the revised Final Environmental Impact Report
on March 3, 1992;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Commission finds, determines,
resolves, and orders as follows:
3
'j ---/?
/3
1.
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the project (EIR 90-
02) consists of:
-..
a. 1) the Draft Environmental Impact Report, issue date
December, 1991, 2) Comments and Responses to Comments on
Draft EIR, 3) the Draft Supplement, and 4) Comments and
Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplement.
b. Appendices A through J to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report dated December, 1991.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista has
reviewed, analyzed, and considered FEIR 90-02, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this
project, the Candidate CEQA Findings attached hereto, the
proposed mitigation measures contained therein, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached
hereto, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations
attached hereto prior to approving the project.
3 .
The Planning Commission does hereby find that FEIR 90-02,
the Candidate CEQA Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
the State EIR guidelines, and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
-.,
4. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the
Chula Vista Planning Commission.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT based on the Findings contained in the
attached Draft City Council Resolution, the Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the project as modified ("New Plan"
and Pre-Zone), enact the draft ordinance, and adopt the draft
resolution subject to the conditions therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission recommends that the City
Council certify that it has reviewed and considered the FEIR, that
it was prepared in accordance with CEQA, and reflects their
independent judgement, adopt the CEQA Findings, Mitigation
Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations as
set forth in said Draft City Council ordinance and resolution and
as attached hereto.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be
transmitted to the owners of the property and to the City Council.
-..
4
~ --/7
/ If
.
.
.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 3rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Susan Fuller, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
rsmpcrsu.gh
5
<j-Ir
If
.
.
.
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING
Resource Conservation commission
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday, February 1, 1993
Council Conference Room
Public services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order with
a quorum at 6:20 p.m. by Chairman Kracha. Present: commissioners
Hall, Kracha, Ghougassian, Johnson, Myers; absent: McNair.
1-
the
the
stephanie Snyder briefly discussed
report on the AB939 SRRE and HHWE.
following:
the significant changes in
Comments from RCC included
The executive summary is the same report as presented a year
ago with errors and typos carried over to the current report.
The duplication of services between Chula Vista and the county
was questioned and it was pointed out that Chula vista is
responsible for its own regional recycling program.
Regarding exemptions for municipal government and school
districts, it is noted that under the mandatory ordinance
within the city, no one is exempt. However under AB939, the
issue is not addressed specifically and will be handled the
same as the city ordinance.
2. Overview of Rancho San Miguel Draft Supplemental EIR by David
Nairne, applicant, and Catherine Hahn, project manager. Barbara
Reid advised that the draft was initially presented in December
1991. At that time, RCC passed a resolution to recommend against
the proposed Rancho San Miguel plan due to concern of the numerous
environmental impacts with inadequate mitigation. Remarks made by
the commission were then incorporated into this revised draft.
Discussion included issues on: criteria and need for affordable
housing; minimum lot size requirements; air quality; optional use
~f solar in new homes; water and sewer availability; funding of
schools; ynd impact of plant and wildlife ynd its connection with
the Natural Communities Conservation Plan. The effect of electro-
magnetic fields generated from SDG&E towers, although undetermined
at this time, causes concern of the possibility of substantial
health effects. The impact of traffic, noise, etc. was addressed
in the draft by providing different lot lines and wall barriers,
yet the alignment of SR-l25 is still unknown at this time.
Myers suggested abandoning the project altogether due to most of
the above issues not being mitigable or unacceptable even with
mitigation. Johnson stated the environmental impact of the project
is quite extensive and unpredictable; caution should be used in
approving the project. Ghougassian did not object to the project.
1---/;
lIP
Page 2
-.,
A summarization of the comments by RCC to be forwarded to Planning
Commission include:
(1) A closer look at all planning efforts in which the future of
125 is still unknown.
(2) ~ity of Chula Vista support the work of NCCP.
(3) Future consideration of unpredictable environmental impacts be
minimized.
(4) Adequate financing for schools not be deferred and should be
one of the considerations for the EIR; Mello-Roos funding by
itself is inadequate.
(5) City of Chula Vista take an active part in requiring or making
voluntary solar heating in all ne~ construction.
(6) City of Chula Vista play an active role in the availability of
water and sewage capacity in future projects.
STAFF REPORT: None
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: None
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Kracha at 7:54 p.m.
--.,
Respectfully submitted,
EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES
'-h, (/~(-0-~
Barbara Taylor
:._j/'.! J, I 1...-_/
I
--.
c;-~o
/1
~820682
EXPRESS SECRETA~:A~
53~ P02
FEE 11 '93 11:57
A
-
.
.
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday, February 8, 1993
Conference Room #1
Put!,c Services Building
CAll. MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m. by
Vice-Chairman Hall. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll.
Present: Commissioners Hall, John'son, McNair, Myers. Absent: Kracha, Ghougassian.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (Johnson/Myers) to approve the minutes of the
meeting of January 25, 1993. It was MSUC (Myers/Johnson) to approve the minutes of the
meetini of February I, 1993.
OLD BUSL"-'ESS was moved up on the agenda:
1. Review of Negative Declaration 15-93-14: Ed Batchelder presented the document with
comments by Commissioners from the January 25th meeting incorporated. Letter received this
date from Latham & Watkins, attorneys for APTEC, was also distributed and presented. This
letter raised concerns as to the appropriateness of the Negative Declaration. Further discussion
. of this Negative Declaration was trailed until Mr. Kracha arrives later in the meeting.
2. Final Action on Draft Supplemental EIR.90.02, Rancho San Miguel: Discussion on this
item was continued from the meeting of February 1, 1993 for fin..1 approval. Myers stated she
still does not approve the project due to too many issues being unmitigable (see comments
summary in minutes of February 1, 1993, page 2). She specifically noted the unavailability of
water and sewage capacity, potential hazards of electro-magnetic fieles from 5DG&E towers,
environmental impact, and concerns on the future of 125. Additionally, the ErR does not
comply with CEQA r~uiremenlS.
[Mr. Kracha arrived at 6:34 p.m.].
After discuss.ion, it was then moved and seconded (Myers/McNair) that Draft Supplemental EIR-
90-02 not be a=pted due to the number of unmitigable impacts, specifically: (1) the unknown
future of 125; (2) impact of L'le run.off waters polluting the reservoir with development of the
northern portion; (3) potential heal:h hazard in the southern portion near SDG&E power lines;
(4) inadequate funding of schools; (5) unavailability of water and sewage capacity; and (6)
impact on plant life and endangered spedes. (Ayes. Myers, McNair, Hall, Johnson; no .
Kracha); motion carried 4-1.
3. With Mr. Kracha's arrival, Ed Batchelder highlighted the changes to the Negative
Declaration and discussed the letter of February 8 from Latham & Watkins. Mr. Batchelder
. noted that the letter's allegations were synonymous to those previously presented by Latham &
Watkins to the Planning Commission and addressed in Attachment 1 to their January 13, 1993
staff report, a copy of which was pro\ided to the RCC for this meeting. 11 was noted that as
C;~c2/
13
...;:~'O.:::~
~ ~,- ~ .
- _.
---~~---.,
- - ...:. .....- ~<
:::- '-,
:.,,::::::
FEE JE'
'S3
E:JJ
. .
Pl\ie2
.
~
reflected in that attachment, it is the opinion of the city attorney's office that the allegations are
without merit. These and other allegations regarding the subject amendments are currently in
litiiation. Further, it is staffs recommendation to approve the Negative Declaration. Kracha
asked if APTEC was specifically notified of tonight's meeting. It was confirm~ by staff that
they were notified, and that all other parties involved were also notitied that this matter was
rescheduled for consideration by RCC. It was then moved and seconded (Hall /Johnson) to
recommend approval ofN'egative Dedaration 15-93-14; Ayes: Hall. Kracha, Johnson, McNair;
no: Myers; motion carried 4-1.
[Mr. Johnson left the meeting at 6:50 p.m.).
NEW BUSINESS
I. Kim Glasgow of Ogden and Kim Kilkenny of Baldwin were present for the discussion
on the Otay Ranch Final Program ElR Doug Reid displayed the maps depicting the Resource
Sensitivity Analysis. Environmen:JJ Alternative and Phase I and II Progress Plan.
Issues discussed and reviewed by the Otay Ranch representatives included: mass transit,
environmental impact and sensitive areas, archeological surveys, the new village concept,
Resource Management Pla:1. water master plan, schools and population estimation, Kim _.
Kilkenny nott:{! that neither the UC campus nor the Olympic Training Center (located in Salt
Creek) are pan of this project and not included in any of the studies.
Kim Glasgow summarized that the Olay Ranch project was examined with a very programmatic
approach, i,e., very general but not necessarily detailed. Re~arding questions on the specific
flora and fauna Impacle<J. thi s is dc'cumented in the 12/] 8/92 staff repor1 Page 15 of that repor1
summarizes the biological impacts "ith all appendix listed of the details.
Myers stated her objection to the current alternative and questioned why the environmental
alternative is not acceptable. Stafipointed out that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife made a presentation
to the Planning Commission but did not fully support the environmental alternative because it
contained too many unmiligable impacts.
McNair concurred with the concerns expressed by Myers.
Kracha received clarification of specific wording of the document relating to air pollution, the
sewer district, greenbelt of Chu]a Vista and plans for the expansion of the landfill. He also
asked what would happen if 125 is never buill. The eit), of Chula Vista would then monitor its
thresholds annually to er.sure the circulation of element operated at a Level C. If it fell below
that set threshold, an alternate'north/south corridor would still have to be buill.
~
~r;)eA
/0
.
.
.
Page 3
The next meeting on Otay Ranch is scheduled for a special meeting on February IS, 1993.
McNair requested that issues concerning the environmental impact and what is considered
sensitive be reviewed at that time. Myers requested information on why the environmental
alternative is not viable. She also stated that mass transit reports for the State of California
show it is not feasible; additionally, the environment would be destroyed.
STAFF REPORT: Workshop on CEQA is tentatively scheduled for March I for new members.
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Kracha announced a workshop by the Save Our Heritage
Organization on February 18th.
Planning Commission Agenda - Rancho San Miguel: no further action by RCC.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Kracha at 9:28 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES
-, I
j' ~ /
\i'-:.'{' {U Cd 1..,.L/ '- <~/
Barbara Taylor
.' /
(~- \,./
9 <J-}
~
.
EIR SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
.
.
9/,21
.
,
.
.
lie
.
.
I
R
I
,
I
.
.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FRO~ SUPPLEMENT TO DRAFT ErR
1.4 SUMMARy OF IMPACTS AJIo'D MITIGATION
The following table summarizes impacts and mitigation for those issues which are analyzed in
this Supplement. For all other issues, see Draft EIR 90-02 (Vqlume 2).
Table 1-2
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS A."'D MITIGATION
Issue Impact Mitigation
Land Use Development of the northern Mitigation for this impact includes
POrtion of the site is potentially approval of storm Water management
incompatible with the Sweetwater plans, and is discussed further in
Reservoir due to degradation of Section 3,9, Water Quality. It is
water quality from urban runoff. expected by the Sweetwater Authority
this significant impact is discussed that the plan will reduce significant
in Section 3.9, Water Quality. water quality impacts to SWeetwater
Reservoir to below a level of
significance.
Land Use POrtions of the proposed trail The proposed trail system will be
(contd.) system cross SDG&E easements. reviewed at the SPA Plan level in
The City Parks & Recreation order to minimize the location of
Depanment discourages the trails within SDG&E easements.
placement of trails in these This measure will reduce impacts to
easemen ts. below a level of significance.
Land Use Locating residential units adjacent Provide future residents with
(contd.) to the SDG&E Miguel substation is information concerning SDG&E
a significant impact. The utility expansion plans. Prepare a
plans to expand the facility in the comprehensive buffer plan at the SPA
future, and potential conflicts could level. Provide site plans to SDG&E
arise with residents adjacent to the for review. Coordinate with
facility when expansion begins. SDG&E. The applicant shall not
oppose SDG&E expansion Proposals.
These measures will reduce impacts
to below a level of significance. ~
1-5
-----
7 ---/!7
J.-f
Land Use
(contd.)
General Plan
Consistency
Land form/
Visual
Landform/
Visual (contd.)
Landform/
Visual (contd.)
* *
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SUMl\lARY OF IMPACTS A1~"D MITIGATION
The project GDP does not
discuss the issue of affordable
housing, and therefore is
inconsistent with the City's
provisions relating to
affordable housing.
Grading techniques for
proposed interpretive center
and conference center on
slopes greater than 25 % are
not discussed in GDP,
therefore, the landform/visual
impacts are unknown.
Two topographic features in
the southern portion of the site
(Horseshoe Bend. Gobbler's
Knob) will be removed by
extensive grading. The
landform impacts are
considered to be significant.
Large and conspicuous potable
water storage tanks are
proposed for provision of
drinking water at adequate
pressure. The exact locations
of the tanks have not been
determined at this time,
therefore, the impacts are
unknown.
This issue shall be evaluated at the
SPA Plan level. The project
applicant has made a commitment to
comply with the City's affordable
housing performance criteria.
Satisfaction of these criteria at the
SPA Plan level will eliminate any
general plan inconsistency.
--
This issue shall be evaluated at the
SPA level.
* *
Impacts to the significant landforms
in the southern portion of the site
are unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
This issue shall be evaluated at the
SPA level.
Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the
project as proposed
1-6
'7';2?
,;Z ~
.,
'..
=-
~
.
.
.
..
.
.
II
-
.
.
"
I.
.
.
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS A."ID MITIGATION
Issue Impact Mitigatiqn
Land form/ A limited number of lots on the Provide future residents with
Visual southern p~cel will be oriented information concerning SDG&E
(contd.) toward the existing SDG&E expansion plans. Prepare a
facility. Lots along the nonhern comprehensive buffer plan at the
perimeter of the southern parcel SPA level. Provide site plans to
overlooking Wild Man's Canyon SDG&E for review. Coordinate
will be impacted by planned with SDG&E. The applicant shall
expansion of the SDG&E not oppose SDG&E expansion
facility. This is a significant proposals. It is anticipated that
impact. these measures may reduce impacts
to below a level of significance at
the SPA level of analysis. A
determination of the level of
significance will be made at that
time.
Landform! Views from a small portion of Implementation of landscaping and
Visual East H Street. a designated development plans consistent with
(contd.) scenic roadway. would be General Plan guidelines for scenic
degraded by grading and roadways would reduce impacts to
development associated with the below a level of signi ficance.
proposed proj ect. The impacts
are significant.
Biology The project would disrupt the * *
rich biodiversity of the site. Impacts to biodiversity of the site
This is a significant impact. are not mitigable with the project as
proposed.
* *
Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the
project as proposed
1-7
'7<27
A3
Issue
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
. .
Table 1-2 (conld.)
StJMMARY OF IMPACTS A......n l\HTIGATION
Impact
The project would
result in the loss of
3.1 acres of wetland
habitat. This is
considered to be a
significant impact by
the California
Department of Fish
& Game (CDFG)
due to the high
sensitivity of this
habitat.
The project would
result in the loss of
467 acres of diegan
coastal sage scrub
habitat. This is
considered to be a
significant impact
due to the overall
loss of this habitat in
southern California,
and because many of
the sensitive plant
and animal species
found onsite are
concentrated in this
habi tat, incl uding the
California
gnatcatcher and coast
barrel cactus.
Mitigation
A 1603 agreement between the project proponent and
CDFG, submission of pre-discharge Notification to the
Army Corps of Engineers, and a 404 permit are
required as mitigation for any filling of wetlands. To
comply with the no net loss of wetlands criteria
established by the CDFG, impacts to wetland habitat
would be reduced. Where impacts cannot be avoided,
onsite creation of wetland habitat is required at a
replacement ratio agreed upon with CDFG, to b~
carried out under the direction of a qualified wetland
revegetation specialist and the CDFG. These measures
would reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
. .
The impacts to coastal sage scrub are significant and
unmitigable with the project as proposed. The impacts
will be partially mitigated by the following measures.
Commitment by the applicant to participate in the
South Bay Natural Communities Conservation Program
(NCCP) and abide by its conclusions. Placement of
biological mitigation criteria on the northern parcel (in
case the NCC? does not come to fruition) which will
allow the City of Chula Vista to require preservation
of between 85 % and 100% of all Diegan Sage Scrub
habitat on the nonhern parcel. Hydroseed graded
areas with native plant species. Restrict site
preparation activities to areas not designated as open
space. Phasing plans and the final site plan must be
reviewed by a qualified city biologist and the CDFG
for compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring
Program. Alternative projects which would also
partially reduce impacts are discussed in Section 5 of
the Draft EIR (Volume I). Impacts to this sensitive
habitat remain significant even with implementation of
these measures.
Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the
project as proposed
1-8
f / pC/
/)11
~
~
-...
.
.
.-
~
...
~
-
~
-
-
III
-
iii
~
-
----'-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
..
-
---
..
-
~
---
....
..
Issue
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SL;\L\IARY OF [\IPACTS A1'.'D :\HTIGATION
Impact
Otay tarweed: Roughly 70
percent of an estimatt:d
total of 200,000
individuals would be
impacted by the project.
Dense populations of this
state endangered plant are
in the western and cen tral
parts of the southern
ponion. This is a
significant impact.
Palmer's 2rappline hook:
All of the estimated
11,000 individuals on the
site would be impacted by
the proJect. The loss of
such a large population of
this specIes is a significant
impact.
Coast Barrel Cactus:
Roughly 80% of an
estimated 8,000 individuals
would be impacted by the
project. This site
represents one of the more
impressive barrel cactus
populations in the County.
This is a significant
impact.
Mitigation
* *
Impacts to Utay tarweed are unmitigable with the
project as proposed. Partial mitigation shall be
achieved by the preservation of a contiguous
preserve area of approximately 42,000 of
144,000 plants on the southern parcel, and
preservation of approximately 10,000 plants on
the nonhern parcel. Additionally, funher
preservation of Otay tarplant on the nonhern
parcel may be required (between 65 % and 100%
of remaining plants). Impacts to Otay Tarweed
remain signiticant even with implementation of
these measures.
. .
Impacts to Palmer's grappling hook are
unmitigable with the project as proposed. Partial
mitigation shall be achieved by preservation of
approximately 1,000 plants on the nonhern
parcel. Impacts to this sensitive plant remain
significant even.... ith implementation of these
measures.
Preserve approximately 40% of the 2,892 cacti
on the southern parcel in situ, with
transplantation of the remainder. Preserve an
additional 1.226 cacti on the nonhern parcel as
mitigation for southern parcel impacts. Require
preservation of at least 60 % of remaining cacti
on the nonhern parcel, with trans-plantation of
the remainder, at the SPA plan level. This is a
significant impact at the General Development
Plan level. It is anticipated that these measures
may reduce impacts to below a level of
significance at the SPA level of analysis. A
determination of the level of significance will be
made at that time.
.. Impacts wnll:.'n are SIgnifIcant and not mitlgable to below a level 01 slgnlllcance wan tne
proj ect as proposed
1-9
1/J-1
:/)
Issue
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
Mitigation,
Preserve approximately 40 adolphia in
the eastern portion of the southern
parcel. Preserve approximately 350
adolphia on the nonhern parcel as
mitigation for impacts to the southern
parcel. Require preservation of 50%
to 100% of all adolphia on the
nonhern parcel at the SPA plan level.
This is a significant impact at the
General Development Plan level. It is
anticipated that these measures will
reduce impacts to below a level of
significance at the SPA level of
analysis. A determination of the level
of significance will be made at that
time.
~
~
..
II
.,
~
Table 1-2 (eontd,)
Sl.'MMARY OF ThIPACTS A:\'D :\IITlGATlON
A void wetlands, where this plant
occurs. to the extent practicable.
Implement a revegetation program for
plants that are impacted. These
measures will reduce impacts to below
a level of significance.
Avoid wetlands, where the plant
occurs, to the extent practicable.
Enhance wetland areas to include
revegetation of spiny rush for plants
that are impacted. These measures
will reduce impacts to below a level of
significance.
Impact
Ylifornia adolphia: Roughly
345 individuals would be
impacted by the project. This
is a significant impact.
San DieEo marsh elder:
Roughl y 90 % ot" an esti mated
total of 340 Individuals would
be i mpacled by the project.
this is a significant impact.
Soinv rush: Roughly 50% ot"
an estimated 400 individuals
would be impacted by the
project. This is a significant
impact.
Impacts to the following
sensitive plants either do not
OCcur or are not considered to
be significant: Munz's Sage,
mesa clubmoss, San Diego
sunflower,' variegated dudleya,
Cleveland's golden star,
Palmer sagebrush, San Diego
needle grass, and western
dichondra.
1-10
No mitigation is required.
~ .r :J r:J
;;J.fo
.
I
...
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
.
-
..
.
.
.
---
.
.
.
.-
.
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The impacts to the cactus wren are
unmitigable with the project as proposed.
Panial mitigation measures include the
following. Preserve 3 of 4 existing
occupied territories on the southern
parcel. Require panicipation in the South
County Natural Communities
Conservation Program (NCCP) and abide
by its conclusions. If the NCCP does not
come to fruition, require preservation of
at least 6 of 7 cactus wren ter, itories on
the northern parcel at the SPA plan level.
Impacts to this sensitive species remains
significant even with the implementation
of these measures.
mllcant and not mltlgabJe to below a level ot slgmllcance wnh the
~
Impact
California I1:natcatcher: The
project would have
significant impacts on the
California gnatcatcher. The
gnatcatcher population on
the proposed site is pan of a
larger core population for
the entire species. The
project would cause direct
impacts to 40 of the existing
69 pairs onsite. Other
significant impacts to
wildlife include
fragmentation oi habitat.
constricted movement
corridors, and impacts irom
pets, lighting, noise. and
wildfires. This is a
significant impact.
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
Cactus Wren: The project
will impact 7 of 13 occupied
cactus wren territories on
site. This is a significant
impact.
.. Impacts which are Slg
project as proposed
Miti~ation
. .
The impacts to the California gnatcatcher
are unmitigable for the project as
proposed. Panial mitigation measures
include the following. Mitigate for the
loss of 6 gnatcatcher pairs on the southern
parcel by preserving 9 pairs of
gnatcatchers on the northern parcel at this
time. Require panicipation in the South
County Natural Communities
Conservation Program (NCCP) and abide
by its conclusions. If the NCCP does not
come to fruition, require preservation of
an additional 80% to 100% of existing
pairs, 80% to 100% of occupied
gnatcatcher habitat, and 50% to 100% of
unoccupied gnatcatcher habitat on the
northern parcel at the SPA plan level.
Impacts to this sensitive species remains
significant even with the implementation
of these measures.
. .
1-11
cz~:3 I
;)1)
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SL"MMARY OF L\1PACTS A..''D MITIGATION
Issue Impact Mitiga'lion
Traffic Traffic that would be gen".ated Impacts can be reduced to below a
by the project is only slightly significance by designating project-
higher than that project by the proposed roads as described in
General Plan. Therefore, the Section 3.10.
impacts are not significant.
Road classifications for project-
proposed roads have not been
determined, and are not
designated in the circulation
element of the General Plan, and
the impacts are significant.
Parks, The project proposes a ~O. 7 acre No mitigation is required.
Recreation. and community park, which would
Open Space satisfy city threshold standards
requiring 3 acres of park land
per 1.000 residents.
Parks, The project proposes an The biological impacts of the
Recreation, and integrated hiking and equestrian proposed trail system can be
Open Space trail system that connects to the mitigated to below significance
County's regional system. The upon implementation of the
trail system would provide mitigation measures described in
access into areas designated as Section 3. 16
open space that contain sensitive
biological resources, creating
significant biological impacts.
Parks, Portions of the trail system are The trail system layout and site
Recreation, and in the SDG&E power specific designs shall be prepared
Open Space transmission easement. The in coordination with the City's
City Parks & Recreation Parks and Recreation Department
Department discourages the and the Environmental
placement of trails in these Coordinator. Impacts of revised
easements. portions of the trails must be
evaluated at the SPA level.
Parks, The location of staging areas for The location of the staging areas
Recreation, and the proposed trail system have shall be determined and the
Open not been finalized, and the impacts evaluated at the SPA
impacts are unknown. level.
1-12
7/3;2-
p-
.
-'
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'l
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
,.
:;
,.
.
.
--
--
~
.......
~
-
..
,.
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS A:\'D !\fiTIGATION
.
Issue Impact Mitigation
Parks, Approximately 64% of the site is No mitigation is required for
Recreation, and designated as open space. No areas designated to be open
Open Space significant impacts were identified space.
for this acreage. However, about
43 acres of land currently
designated as open space would
be developed in the sou them
portion.
9rJ?
( '7
,
:) c;
:: ,
1-13
,
.
.
.
I
SUMMARY OF .IMPACTS FROM ORIGINAL DRAFT ElR
--
Table 1.2
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Land Use
Development of the nonhero
portion of the site is potentially
incompatible with the Sweet-
water Reservoir due to degrada-
tion of water quality from urban
runoff. This significant impact
is discussed in Section 3.9.
Water Quality.
Ponions of the proposed trail
system cross SDG&E
easements, which is not
acceptable to the City's Parks
and Recreation Depanment.
This represents a significant
impact for the GDP.
Locating residential units adja-
cent to the SDG&E Miguel sub-
station is a significant impact.
The utility plans to expand the
facility in the future, and poten-
tial conflicts could arise with
residents adjacent to the facility
when expansion begins.
Mitigation for this impact includes
approval of stormwater manage.
ment plans, and is discussed
funher in Section 3.9, Water
Quality. It is expected by the
Sweetwater Authority that the
plan will reduce significant water
quality impacts to Sweetwater
Reservoir to below a level of
significance.
The proposed trail system must
be modified at SPA level to locate
all trails entirely within the project
boundaries. This measure will
reduce impacts to below a level of
significance.
Provide future residents adjacent
to the substation with a white
paper describing SDG&E expan-
sion plans. Achieve general
visual separation through land-
scaping, topography variation,
and homesite orientation for units
adjacent to the substation.
Provide grading site plans and
other information to SDG&E to
assist them in developing future
improvements on their site. These
measures will reduce impacts to
below a level of significance.
(I) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
proposed are designared by..
~
~
?~ 31'
Table 1.2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
~
Issue
ImpaCt
Consistency Issues
i_
il
il
II
..1
!
'I
,I
'I
,
LandfOrmlVisuaJ
I
I
Mitigation(l)
Based on the City's consistency
analysis, development in the
southern portion was found to
be inconsistent with the Chula
Vista General Plan in several
areas: character of
development, COmpatibility with
adjacent use, lot sizes,
encroachment into open
space/greenbelt systems, overall
densi ty, preservation of
significant landforms,
clustering, and landform
alteratiOn/grading. The impaclS
are considered to be significant.
..
Impacts related to inconsistencies
with the General Plan are
unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
The project GDP does not
discuss the issue of affordable
housing and Iherefore is
inconsistent with the City's
provisions relating to affordable
hOusing.
This issue shall be evaluated at the
SPA level. The project applicant
has made a cOmmitment to comply
with the City's affordable housing
performance criteria. Satisfaction
of these criteria al SPA level will
eliminate the General Plan
inconsistency.
"""'\
Grading techniques for pro-
posed interpretive center and
conference center on slopes
greater than 25% are not dis-
cussed in GPD, therefore, the
landfOrm/visual impacts are
unknown.
This issue shall be evaluated at the
SPA level.
(I) Impacts which are significant and Dot mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
II'CPOsed are designaJed by..
"""'\
1.13
tj :7Y
~
I'.
I
I
I
I
t
i
I
I
.
.
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(1)
LandfonWVisual
(Continued)
SignifICant topographic features
in the southern ponion of the
site (Horseshoe Bend, Gobblers
Knob) will be removed by
extensive grading.. The land-
form impacts are considered to
be significant.
--
Impacts to the significant land-
forms in the southern portion of
the site are unmitigable with the
project as proposed.
Large and conspicuous potable This issue shall be evaluated at the
water storage tanks are pro- SPA level.
posed for provision of drinking
water at adequate pressure. The
exact locations of the tanks have
nOl been determined at this time,
therefore, the impacts are
unknown.
About 15 lots in the southern
ponion would be located along
the northeastern ridge
immediately adjacent to SDG&E
property. SDG&E has plans
for expansion of the facility that
would occur within the
viewshed of these lots. Placing
lots in close proximity to
SDG&E propeny where resi-
dents will eventually experience
industrial-type views is consid-
ered to be a significant impact
for homes located along this
ridgeline which overlooks Wild
Man's Canyon.
--
The impacts of placing homes in
close proximity to the future
expansion area of the SDG&E
substation in the southern ponion
along the ridge overlooking
Wildman's Canyon are un-
mitigable with the project as
proposed. Measures that would
reduce impacts but not to below
significance would be to buffer
development in the area in ques-
tion through landscaping, topo-
graphy variation, and homesite
orientation. Leaving this area in
open space, as shown on the
General Plan, instead of allowing
the General Plan Amendment to
the Land Use Element would
prevent this impact.
(1) lmpllClS which are significant and IIOt mitigable 10 below a level of significance with the project as
...~ are dcsignaJed by ..
yr4
~
I
7~3k
Table 1.2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
I
I
I
I
J
-
Issue
Impact
LandfomVVisual
(Continued)
Mitigation(l)
Biology
Views from a small portion of
East H Street, a designated
scenic roadway, would be
degraded by grading and devel-
opment associated with the
proposed project. The impacts
are significant.
The project would result in the
loss of 3.1 acres of wetland
habitat. This is considered to be
a significant impact by the
California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) due to the
high sensitivity of this habitat.
The project would disrupt the
rich biodiversity of the site.
This is a significant impact.
Implementation of landscaping
and development plans consistent
with General Plan guidelines for
scenic roadways would reduce
impacts to below a level of
significance.
A 1603 agreement between the
project proponent and CDFG,
submission of pre-discharge
Notification to the Army Corps of
Engineers, and a 404 permit are
required as mitigation for any
filling of wetlands. To comply
wi th the no net loss of wetlands
criteria established by the CDFG,
impacts to wetland habitat must be
reduced. Where impacts cannot
be avoided, on site creation of
wetland habitat is required at a
replacement ratio agreed upon
with CDFG, to be carried out
under the direction of a qualified
wetland revegetation specialist and
the CDFG. These measures
would reduce impacts to below a
level of significance.
---
'..
Impacts to the biodiversity of the
site are not mitigable with the
project as proposed.
(I) Impacts whi(;h are significant and nol mitigable to below a level of significan(;e with the proje<;l as
p.~ are designaJed by..
---
~
~--3 7
~
i
I
,..
.
I
I
I
I.
I
,
,
.
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Biolozy
(Continued)
The project would result in the
loss of 467 acres of Diegan
coastal sage scrub, designated
as a sensitive habitat. This is
considered to be a significant
impact due to the overall loss of
this habitat in southern
California, and because many of
the sensitive plant and animal
species found onsite are concen-
trated in this habitat, including
the California gnatcatcher and
coast barrel cactus.
Otav tarweed: Roughly 70 to
80 percent of an estimated total
of 200,000 individuals would
be impacted by the project.
Dense populations of this state
endangered plant are in the
western and central pans of the
southern ponion. This is a
significant impact
Coast barrel cactus: Roughly
80 percent of an estimated
8.000 individuals would be
impacted by the project. This
site represents one of the more
impressive barrel cactus
populations in the county. This
is a significant impact
--
The impacts to coastal sage scrub
habitat are unmitigable with the
project as proposed. Alternative
projects which would partially
reduce impacts are discussed in
Section S. The following general
mitigation measures will serve to
partially reduce impacts. Hydro-
seed graded areas wi th nati ve
plant species. Restrict site prep-
aration activities to areas not
designated as open space. Phas-
ing plans and the final site plan
must be reviewed by a qualified
city biologist and the CDFG for
compliance with the adopted
Mitigation Monitoring program.
Impacts to this sensitive habitat
remain significant even with
implementation of these measures.
--
Impacts to Otay tarweed are
unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
--
Impacts to coast barrel cactus are
unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
(I) lmJllll'lS which are siJlliliClllt IIId not mitigable 10 below a level of significance with the project as
..~ are dcsignaied by..
....-MO
~i
7-- 3 tY
Table 1.2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
~
II Issue
I' Biology
, (Continued)
II
i
I
II
II
i
II
II
,
II
r
I
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Palmers' Im\pplinl! hook: All of
the estimated 11,000 individuals
on the site would be impacted
by the project. The loss of such
a large population of this
species is a significan t impact.
California adolphia: Roughly
85 percent of an estimated total
of 350 individuals would be
impacted by the project. This is
a significant impact.
San Diel!O marsh elder:
Roughly 90 percent of an
estimated total of 340
individuals would be impacted
by the project. This is a
significant impact.
Soinv rush: Roughly 50
percent of an estimated total of
400 in-1ividuals would be
impacted by the project. This is
a significant impact.
Impacts to the following
sensitive plants either do not
occur or are not considered to
be significant: Munz's sage,
mesa clubmoss, San Diego
sunflower, variegated dudleya,
Cleveland's golden star, Palmer
sagebrush, San Diego needle
grass, and western dichondra.
--
Impacts to Palmer's grappling
hook are unmitigable with the
project as proposed.
--
Impacts to California adolphia are
unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
Avoid wetlands, where this plant
occurs, to the extent practicable.
Implement a revegetation program
for plants that are impacted.
These measures will reduce
impacts to below a level of
significance.
-.,
Avoid wetlands, where the plant
occurs, to the extent practicable.
Enhance wetland areas to include
revegetation of spiny rush for
plants that are impacted. These
measures will reduce impacts to
below a level of significance.
No mitigation is required.
(I) Impacts which are significlm and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
~ are designaled by..
-.,
~
;;/3 J
~
.
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(1)
Biology
(Continued)
The project would have sig-
nificant impacts on two
sensitive wildlife species. the
California gnatcatcher and the
cactus wren. The gnatcatcher
population on the proposed site
is pan of a larger core popula-
tion for the entire species. The
project would cause direct
impacts to 40 of the existing 69
pairs onsite. Other significant
impacts to wildlife include frag-
mentation of habi tat, consaicted
movement corridors. and
impacts from pets, lighting,
noise and wildfires.
Archaeology
The archaeological study deter-
mined that eight imponant sites
will be directly impacted by the
proposed project. Eight sites
will be indirectly impacted
resulting from residential use of
project open space areas. The
impacts to these sites are
significant.
.
--
The impacts to the California
gnatcatcher and the cactus wren
are unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
The significant impacts to
archaeological resources can be
reduced to below a level of sig-
nificance by implementation of the
mitigation measures described
in Section 3.4. The principal
focus of these measures is
preservation of the resource and
data recovery.
.
(1) ImpllCU which are significant IIId not mitigable 10 below a level of significance with the project as
.."""""" are designated by ..
~.
~
7-J///
--
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
f
I
I
I
,
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
-,
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Paleontology
The project would res;;lt in
extensive development in areas
where the underlying fonna-
tions have a moderate to high
potential to contain paleonto-
logical resources. Mass excava-
tion in these fonnations would
result in significant impacts.
The significant impacts to paleon-
tological reSOurces can be reduced
to below a level of significance by
the mitigation measures detailed in
Section 3.4, ArchaeologY/Paleon_
lology. These measures include
verification to the City that a
qualified paleontologist has been
retained by the project applicant to
cany out the mitigation program
and monitor original cutting of
'sensitive fonnations, and prepara-
tion of a final report SUmmarizing
the results of the mitigation
program.
The significant impacts of the pro-
ject can be reduced to below a
level of significance by the miti-
gation measures detailed in Sec-
tion 3.5, Geology/Soils. These
measures include preparation of
supplemental geotechnical reports
prior to approval of the project
precise plan and prior to and
during grading activities;
compliance with the Unifonn
Building Code, City of Chula
Vista General Plan, County of
San Diego General Plan, Grading
Ordinance, and all other applicable
guidelines; excavation and
recompaction or replacement of
materials potentially subject to
liquefaction or dynamic settle-
ment; removal or COntrol of
~
Geology/Soils
Geotechnical constraints onsite
present impacts that include
ground acceleration,
liquefaction, landsliding, ex-
pansion, erosion, compaction
and settlement, reactive soils,
shallow bedrock, and ground
water, These impacts are
significant.
(I) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
JI'CPOsed are desigl\aled by..
~
~
1-1/(
~
I
i
,
..
.
.
---
Table 1.2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
GeologylSoils
(Continued)
Mineral Resources
Conversion of
Agricultural Lands
Mitigation(J)
expansive soils using moisture
control techniques or chemical
stabilizers; slope stabilization and
erosion control techniques; and
monitoring of grading operations
by a qualified geotechnical
consul tan l.
Potential impacts to mineral No mitigation is required.
resources from the proposed
project are not considered to be
significant due to low resource
development potentials, lack of
existing mineral development
onsite. and the region's wide-
spread extent of geologic
deposits.
No prime farmland or existing No mitigation is required.
agricultural production would
be eliminated due to the pro-
posed project. No significant
impacts to agricultural resources
are identified.
(I) ImpllClS which are sillliflC8ll1 and not mitigable to below a level of silllificance with the project as
............,d are dcsignaIcd by ..
~..
c; - tj~
~.
I
I
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
")
Issue
Impact
Hydrology
Mitigation(l)
The project would generate
substantial increases in surface
runoff due to increases in
impervious surfaces, and
could cause significant flooding
and scouring downstream.
Water quality in the Sweetwater
Reservoir may be compromised
by urban runoff from the project
site. The hydrology impacts are
considered to be significant.
Water Quality
The project could cause
increases in containment con-
centrations in Sweetwater Res-
ervoir resulting from conversion
of undeveloped land to urban
uses. There is a potential for
sewage to enter the Sweetwater
Reservoir or nearby streams if
the development's sanitary
sewer system malfunctioned or
overflowed.
A detailed drainage repo" and
plan subject to approval by City
Engineer must be submitted prior
to SPA approval. Drainage
design must include plans for
runoff conveyance, sediment
control, routing of runoff to avoid
compounding peak discharge, and
protection of natural channels
from scouring, as well as
protection of Sweetwater Reser-
voir from street contaminants.
Upon approval and implemen-
tation of the drainage design plan,
and the runoff protection program
being designed and implemented
by the Sweetwater Authority,
impacts would be reduced to
below a level of significance.
Mitigation measures discussed in
Section 3.9 include the following:
Prior to or concurrent with SPA
Plan approval, an acceptable
runoff protection system plan
shall be prepared and approved by
the Sweetwater Authority and the
California Depanment of Health
Services. This plan will be
submitted to the City of Chula
Vista for review and comment. It
is anticipated by the Sweetwater
Authority that the plan will reduce
significant water quality impacts
to Sweetwater Reservoir to below
a level of significance.
-.,
(I) lmpac;lS which are significant and not mitigable 10 below a level of significance with the project as
fa ~ are designa/ed by ..
.-.
~
/~~
~
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(l)
---
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
J
1
I
I
I
I
J
,
.
Table 1.2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Watel" Quality
(Continued)
Sediment deposition may
increase following construction
activities, and water quality in
tributaries draining the develop-
ment may degrade. The
proposed runoff protection
system for the reservoir will
diven runoff to Sweetwater
River, increasing grease, oil,
and fuel concentrations in the
river. The impacts to water
quality are considered to be
significant.
Traffic
Traffic that would be generated
by the project is only slightly
higher than that projected by the
General Plan. Therefore. the
impacts are not significant.
Road classifications for project-
proposed roads have not been
determined. and are not
designated in the circulation
element of the General Plan,
and the impacts are significant
.
A detailed water quality plan
subject to approval by the City
Engineer. and City Environmental
Review Coordinator mUSI be
submitted prior to GDP approval.
The repon must address project
specific and cumulative impacts
and mitigation plans to reduce
onsite, reservoir, and downstream
water contamination. Significant
impacts would be reduced to
below a level of significance by
implementation of an approved
plan which addresses all
significant water quality issues.
Impacts can be reduced to below
significance by designating
project-proposed roads as
described in Section 3.10.
.
(I) ImpBClS which are significant and nol mitigable 10 below a level of significance with the project as
..~ are desigrwed by..
~
~
1~ijr
.
ill
.
I
.
II
II
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
~\
Issue
Impact
Air Quality
Mitigation(l)
The entire Rancho San Miguel
project area is not consistent
with 1982 SIP air quality attain-
ment regulations since the
majority of the area was
designated undeveloped by the
SANDAG Series V growth
forecast, the basis for the SIP.
However, the updated SIP
planned for release in 1992 will
include the proposed project.
The project would have
cumulative and significant
impacts on the region's air
quality strategy to meet e)(isting
federal and state standards.
Project emissions of NO",. reac-
tive organic gases (ROG), and
PM 10 from vehicular and
stationary sources will add to
existing violations of state and
federal ozone standards.
Because San Diego currently
violates air quality standards for
several pollutants, any addi-
tional emissions will conoibute
to San Diego's inability to meet
Stated standards, Therefore,
these air quality impacts are
considered to be cumulative and
significant.
..
Based on 1982 SIP regulations,
the project would increase air
pOllution in the region, and
therefore, hinder strategies to meet
air quality standards, The impacts
are considered to be only partially
mitigable by the measures outlined
below and detailed in Section 3.11
Air Quality, and remain
significant.
..
The following mitigation meas-
ures will only partially reduce air
quality impacts. Design fireplaces
or other wood burning appliances,
and natural gas burning appliances
such as water heaters and
furnaces, to adhere to the
standards set by the county, state,
and EPA. Use solar water-
heating technology to the greatest
extent possible in all residential
units. with backup lOw-NO",
water heaters. Install low NO",
commercial-size water heaters in
larger onsite facilities to be used in
conjunction with solar water-
~
i_
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
"
I
t
~
(I) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
pI'Op0ged are dcsignaled by ..
.J;.ll
~
//1(~
~
"
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
.
Iss ue
Impact
Air Quality
(Continued)
Mitigation(l)
.
Shon-term pollutant emissions
will occur during the constrUc-
tion phase of the project. The
air quality impacts are consid-
ered to be significant shon-term
impacts.
heating technology. Outfit gas-
f1I'ed furnaces with NOx reducing
heat transfer modules. Incorpo-
rate low natural hydrocarbon
(NHC) drought-tolerant plant
species into the landscape design.
To reduce vehicular emissions the
following measures shall be
implemented: a ride sharing pro-
gram within the development.
increased bus service with funds
provided by the developer as
subsidy, inclusion of bike paths
along roads, and bike lockers at
bus stops. Due to uncenainties
regarding the effectiveness of the
above mitigation measures,
pollutant emission impacts are
considered to be only panially
mitigable and remain significant
The following measures shall be
incorporated into the project plan
to reduce significant shon-term
impacts to below a level of
significance. Use heavy-duty
construction equipment with
modified systems for emissions
control. Landscape, hydroseed.
or develop disturbed areas as
soon as possible. Cover trucks
hauling f1ll material. Enforce a
20-mile-per-hour speed limit on
unpaved surfaces. Water graded
areas to control dust unless
drought conditions prevail.
.
(I) Impacts which are signilI<:ant and oot miligable to below a level of significance with the projec:t as
..~ are designaIed by..
~
~
;J ---if ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
I
,
t
I
.
.
.
-
i.
'.
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
-,
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Noise
Noise levels in many areas of
the development would exceed
the 6S dBA ~n standard. The
impacts are significant.
Placing noise walls or wall/berm
combinations on the top of slopes
adjacent to major roadways, as
indicated on Figure 3.12-4, will
reduce impacts to below
significance. However some of
the walls must be 8 to IO feet
high to reduce exterior noise at
homes to appropriate levels (e.g.
along SR 125 and H Street), and
walls over 6 feet high are not
acceptable to the City. Therefore,
only a walIlberm combination
Would be acceptable in these
areas.
Community Social
Factors
Increases in housing stock,
population, limited employment
opponunities. and a pattern of
predominantly residential
growth due to development of
the project are anticipated under
SANDAG Series VII grOwth
forecasts. Therefore. impacts
are not significant.
No mitigation is required.
-,
Fiscal Analysis
The project's cumulative oper-
ating revenues are projected to
exceed cumulative operating
costs, resulting in a positive
fiscal impact to the City of
Chula Vista.
No mitigation is required.
Public Services
and Utilities
The location of water facilities
required to serve the project has
not been determined. therefore.
the impacts are unknown.
Prior to approval of the SPA Plan
the applicant shall provide a Water
Master Plan to be approved by the
City. The impacts of the Water
facilities shall then be evaluated at
the SPA level
(I) ImpeclS which are significant and /lOt miligable to below a level of significance with the project as
!lnJposed are designated by..
~
)45
)7 -'J/l
#
i
I
I.
t
,
I
-
Table 1.2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact
Mitigation(1)
Issue
Public Services
and Utilities
(Continued)
The project applicant has
included certain water
conservation strategies that are
recommended by the City, but
some strategies have not been
included in the GDP. This is a
significant impact.
.
Adequacy of sewer infrastruc.
ture to serve the project is
unknown at this lime.
Significant impacts would be
reduced to below significance by
implementation of the following
water conservation measures.
The applicant shall prepare a
Water Conservation Plan for City
approval, and include strategies
such as the use of reclaimed water
where feasible. of drought
tolerant vegetation in areas to be
landscaped. of water conserving
irrigation systems, and the
installation of low. flush toilets
and low. flow showers and
faucets.
Prior to approval of the SPA Plan
the applicant shall provide a
Wastewater Master Plan subject to
review and approval by the city
engineering depanment. The
impacts of the sewer system shall
then be evaluated at the SPA
level.
The project would require No mitigation is required.
approximately II percent of the
City's unused capacity in the
METRO sewage treatment
system. lbis is not a significant
impact.
.
(1) ImpllCts which are significant and not miligable to below a level of significance with the project as
",.."....,d are designaJed by..
..,....l-:1O
//r~ 4r
Table 1.2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
I
:1
I
I
r
~
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(1)
Public Services
and Utilities
(Continued)
The project would require :he
addition of three new officers
and five additional suppon staff
to the police force. This is a
significant impact.
The exact location of the new
fire station to serve the project
area has not been determined by
the City of Chula Vista at this
time. Several scenarios for the
location of the station are
proposed and analyzed. Fire
service response times would be
inadequate for the nonhern
portion of the site under several
scenarios. Constraints to fire
protection in the northern
ponion include the negative
impacts associated with the
provision of only one access
road to serve the entire
1,852 acre nonhern ponion,
limited maneuverability for rITe
trucks once in the nonhem
ponion, slowdown to access
gated conununities, and steep
roads. In addition, fire pro-
tection for the proposed con-
ference and interpretive centers
cannot be determined without
more detailed information on
these facilities. The impacts are
significant.
The project applicant shall be
responsible for fronting the
necessary funds to enable the City
to purchase the requisite
equipment for the new officers
and suppon staff. If required to
finance this equipment, the project
applicant will be entitled to a
credit against all or a ponion of
the Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee for Police.
The applicant shall provide a
second access road for the
nonhem ponion of the project.
The applicant shall install fire
sprinklers in all buildings and
residences in the nonhem portion
of the site. To access the gated
communities the applicant shall
install a light activated control
system in cooperation with the
rITe depanment. These measures
would reduce impacts to below
significance. Fire protection for
the proposed conference and
interpretive centers shall be
determined and evaluated at the
SPA level.
-...
(I) ImpllClS which are significant and not mitigabJe to below a level of significance with the project as
llo"lJU'lCll are designaled by 00
~
yrr
~
/ ~t(7
T ..lIle 1.2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
e
Issue
hnpact
Mitigation(l)
Public Services
and Utilities
(Continued)
Impacts related to placing A brush management shall be
homes in close proximity to submitted prior to approval of the
large areas of natural vegetation SPA plan. Impacts of the brush
are unknown pending submittal management plan shall be
of a brush management plan. evaluated at this SPA level.
Emergency Medical Service
(EMS) response times would be
greater than City standards in
the northern ponion of the site.
The impacts are significant
,
,
I
I
The project could bring 496
additional elementary school
students 10 the district. An
elementary school is proposed
by the project. however.
financing for this facility has not
been determined. The impacts
from the project are considered
to be significant.
.
,e
I
The applicant shall provide a
second nonh entry road that
enables EMS vehicles to reach the
northern ponion of the site within
acceptable response times. This
measure would reduce impacts to
below significance.
The applicant shall provide the
funding mechanism for the
proposed elementary school using
options described in Section 3.15.
Prior to SPA approval the appli-
cant shall provide documentation
that adequate school facilities and
associated financing will be
provided. These measures will
reduce impacts to below sig-
nificance.
The number of middle and No mitigation is required.
junior high school students
generated by the project can be
accommodated by existing
facilities. therefore. no impacts
are iden tified.
.
(1) ImpllCts which are siJllificant and not mitigable 10 below a level of siJllilicance with the project as
..~ are de:signalOd by..
~
-
4G
:J --~D
I
Table }-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
-,
I
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Public Services
and Utilities
(Continued)
The project could bring 318
additional high school students
to the disttict. Existing high
schools in the vicinity are func-
tioning at or above maximum
capacity. An agreement has
been reached with Baldwin
developers for a new high
school to be located within the
Otay Ranch development,
however, funding for this
facility has not been determined.
Therefore, the impacts from the
project are considered to be
significant.
,
The project applicant shall provide
documentation to the City and
SUHSD that adequate school
facilities and associated financing
will be provided prior to approval
of the SPA plan. These measures
will reduce impacts to below
significance.
The project would require the No mitigation is required.
extension of delivery lines into
the project site to accommodate
the increased demand for
energy. SDG&E is committed
to providing energy to the
project site, and would supply
the needed extensions. There-
fore, impacts are not significant.
""""\.
The project would generate No mitigation is required.
43,418 pounds of solid waste
per day. The Otay Landfill will
accommodate disposal of solid
waste in the area until capacity
is reached. Currently, the
county is evaluating landfill
sites to accommodate future
refuse. The impacts of the
project are not considered to be
significant.
(I) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
puposed are desigJlaled by 00
~
-.,
9-5/
~
~
i
~
.
.
.
.
-----
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact Mitigation(l)
Parks, Recreation,
and Open Space
The project proposes a 20.5 No mitigation is required.
acre community park, which
would satisfy city threshold
standards requiring 3 acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents.
The project proposes an
integrated hilting and equestrian
trail system that connects to the
County's regional system. The
trail system would provide
access into areas designated as
open space that contain sensitive
biological resources, creating
significant biological impacts.
Portions of the trail system are
in SDG&E power transmission
easements, which is not
acceptable to the City's Parks
and Recreation Department.
This is a significant impact
The location of staging areas for
the proposed trail system have
not been finalized, and the
impacts are unknown.
The biological impacts of the
proposed trail system can be
mitigated to below significance
upon implementation of the
mitigation measures described in
Section 3.16.
,
J
The applicant must provide a
revised site plan that identifies a
new trail layout, with no trails in
transmission easements, as pan of
the SPA plan. The trail system
layout and site specific designs
shall be prepared in coordination
with the City's Parks and
Recreation Depanment and the
Environmental Coordinalor.
Impacts of revised portions of the
trails must be evaluated at the
SPA level.
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
t
The location of the staging areas
shall be determined and the
impacts evaluated at the SPA
level.
(I) ImpllClS which are significanl and 1101 miligable to below a level of significance wilh Ihe projecl as
..~ are designalal by ..
~
fT
9---->cA
Table 1.2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
""""\
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Issue
-
.
I
.
I
.
.
I
.
I
.
I
Parks, Recreation,
and Open Space
(Continued)
Approximately 64 percent of the
site is designated as open space.
No significant impacts were
identified for this. acreage.
However, about SO acres of
land currently designated as
open space would be developed
in the southern ponion. This is
a significant impact.
No mitigation is required for areas
designated to be open space.
Approval of an amendment to the
General Plan Land Use Element
would mitigate the impact of
developing SO acres of land
currently designated as open
space. This mitigation would
have a spin-off impact of
eliminating an imponant buffer
between the proposed
development and future SDG&E
facilities.
-.,
(I) lmpeclS wltich are significant IDd not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
p.~ are dcsignaJed by..
II
.
..Y31.
-..,
1-5;5'
.f-r
~~~
-: .JC> _ _
~:::~~
---
.
em Of
CHULA VISTA
PARKS AND RECREA110N DEPAR1MEN1
LAN D seA PER E V I E W SHE E T:
Dear Applicant:
Date:
...., 'r,' ~2.."'"
.. ..,. ..:t~......
Project Nome
. . .~ : : ~~i: :ki&..:ii-i : : : : : '~' . , , , , : :it:rL: : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : :: : : : : ::~ :: : !:~: :.:: SUI' .~:~:::::::
Th,$ D1o)e:' nos bee~ revieweO fo~ cOlT\phonce W1'1't1 the Ctty :;.1 Chuto Vlsto Perks and Qecrea110n Deportment landscape rtondcnd$ and
rec..pe......e~.s ;11e ~O::OW!';g co""""e""l~S we'e Qe'"'leroled dUTI')Q 0 reView of the plones) for the above referenced project The trems
loe""~e~ :.eo...- o'e ;de"')e';:) oes::'loti0I15 Of t!"le speCific com!"!"\e'its 1'T"lot ore on the r&O-llned pions 1'hO'f Ofe being returned for corrections
Please 'e........ '"'"'Ie fOliOW:'1g W'ie"' res.Jo"'nitrmg OII~Vlol red'~r'led pions. re'Vlsed plOn$ ond the review Sheet. Pion cheCks wit! be scheduled
ccco'o.-.g tc s.JO""'"1,"O' ocr:e
Com""eC1ts
~.'1J~ -1:
a :.:.. f~~.hl:..Q,O. . ~ .
.E:~ "'"T~--'~':."..:
.~~ :~':Tl=e'
.~
. . I'",=-
PIS'" ~~~~, · :~ · :-.rh..:j. :~:.~: : ~: ~. : : : :
.. ':o...JJ~~r:c....J. .~.. .~'FI'\_.. '~J..~.. ,\.~.....
'.~I,.~
.. ..... .. ... .. . .... ........ ..... ....
:f\> . : :l.~: : :~ : : ~r: :~~~(;)S:
. .. ... .. ... .. ... . .. .... .. ..... .... .....
. . .,.:'. t'- . . . .~. . . I.....""""~. . . , . . . . . . . . , ' . .
. . ...,,,~. . .-:'1-:-. . . \'7'r~.f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-
.~.Fi~' :A.:: ~ic.::: :~iti~L:r::~::::::::
..,.:. :-/'';'';''; s' ~ : : : D;~~~';';": · :t;":~I; ~ : : : : : : : : : : :
.,.. . "l"" t/-!'... rl~,~"""""", I~_. #. .~..,.....
.. ... ....................................
- \~.PC). ~ry .~~?:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.. .... ..... ........... . .............. .....,
\\I\~' .1........-...,,. _ . . ~~: : . .~\~~.'--: : : :~~~: : : ~ :'\: : :.. : : : : : : :
. ". . . . . J . . rr-. ~l~_ . . . \.~."'" . . . , . . , . ,. ., . ' . , . . , . , ~. , . , . . . . . . . .
· : : ~~~~D r.J : · . -=.... \,1.t.y~: : ~~ : :~~: :"-: : : : : : : : : : : : : : · : · : : :
. : : : : . : . . . . . . . :t O. : : :~ . :-r : : ,\: : : : : , : : : : : : : . : : : : ::-: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
. . ''''''''''''-\ -::='t:::/>.t.)d':" . , , . , , . ' . , , . , . , , , . , . . , . . , . , , , , ' , . . . . . .
. . ....I'J""\\ .J. . . .---. . , , , , , , , , . . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , . , . . , .
:t. .~
\~~~~
. .pt.;tJ'1.
-
... . ... . ,. . .....................................,.......
-.
. . . . . .. .. .... ............................;-'........................
· · : J.i-.~: :P",,~> : :~~1tt1~",,"~: ~~ :r\6..>\i;::::l ;~,,~ I :.;..;.:::::::
. . .\~~ : 'l~ : :~~:.: : ~~:;-;: : : ::: ::: :: ::: : :: : :: :: :::: :: : : : : :: .
: p~~:\,.. . : SfoC!~ : :~ . : ~~~~; . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
..
9-51( SJ-
\
\
27E I="OURTH AVE CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 91il'O/161g,\ €?"-5:-'
lC"'10s:c:>e Review Sneet
Dege; C''t.
:)0'. 'Z '11' '? .
.......,
Cc~~€r;'s
. ..........(..) ,.....,.
P~~.l"'. ';:.... OF.,. ~~.:::'.: :..~":. :~i':" :.:....'..::. !
:'.::::::.:.::...:::::::::::::::::::::! ::::::~::.::~:: ~'~:r:~
· . · : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :; 'j,...;~{~): : ':::\fl'i,: : : ~~; . . . . : T' . ~:...: : : : : ~ ~~5': : :\'\~~..o.l...
, .."""",..,... __ .... Q. . .1 . V~ . . . . ~I~~~' , . ~~l~. . .,., . . .,.. ,-pn...,..
. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ..........................................
......... .... . . . . . . ....................................................
· : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : i~l~~: : : :~~ : . 'U't.c;i'";Q:::)ot.:.: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ..
,...".",......,. .1.. .~,.. ,~)...~ .1.. .1.1.. ..;#.....................,...,
.... ... .. ..... . . . . .. . . .. ... ............. ...............................
. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ,.. . ,. ... ......... ...............................
. . , . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ... ... .... ..... ...............................
. '\"'1./..... :\.;.: ~~::: ~~::: ~~~::...;.::' ~t.:: :'';'''';'';';'';'';\L~''';'';': :~I";~:"L:
. ..,. . \'RD .\1:0\\- . T'"\<O'Y\~~~~ , :1"",' : :~,,~~~: : Y~':
_ \. - . . . ll:..:" .~.~,...;r..' ~ ~'A; ; :-; N · :~t...: . ij~~ . :,.;,..;. . , .
\.<;C t--'\'It . UIII-' .11 . . . ,,,,\~~'i . . . 1f.'4l , . . . , . . : : ~.... : :
f . . . . , . . . . , , . . , . . . . , , , . . . , , . , . . . . , . . , . , , . . , . . , . . . . , . ,
. . . . ~O~~ . P,\~ . .d~ · . ~~ . . .,.\ii.t~~. : · : : : : : : : : . · . · : . : : : .
. . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . ... " .. . . ... . ..
- . . . . . . . . ..." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . , . . . .
. '~\"\,~$ . .",,?,;,. . . ,. . t,.)':>,",,"L~.R, : .....,c;-r: . : Co.; 1"liI;o.: . . . . . : . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ". .. ...... .
~I.I.""C" .." C".;.... ~-4.''': ,C" . , , , , , , , . , . . , . . , , . , . . . . . , . . , . , . , ,
"T' \ ~...} . , .. l~\)il:..~ \ ~..1 ..: . . . : . : : : . : : . . . : : : : : : . : : : : . . : : : : .......,
. . . . . . . .. ........................
. . . .. .. . . . . . . '" . . . . . .. .....
. '\
'? )
.. . , . . . . . . . " . . . '" . .. . .. .. . . . . ...
~ ....-'I"i.l..~ . .1i . . . . . . . , . . ;.,) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .t
\\j~,c.r" . ~~ .,~..., (1Al~'..'-o. .~~. .~.df=: .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . " ... .. . . .... .. . ......
.....,....., ~
\\J~ \~ '~'...~'tF:?'.~9~::Of:~..~:'-"
. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .... ... . " ..,.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... ., .. . . . ... . . . . .. .. . .. . . ....
-. '\\jl~J7" '~iSt~O~~~:I. ~~.: :~~t;:-^~::
. .. ...........................,..................
:.:.:. ~. ~cGc;Jt1~qo:S~:.: :~: :P.t.r::~: :<ot~~'t~
........".,...................................... ...~
...:.:.: .~dT' :~~CS@ .~::: .~.h.i~:: ~~~~~:: ~~~,Di~.
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..., ..... ....... ..... ............... .
.. ........ . .. ....... ..... ..... ........
. . . . . . .. .......... .....,.......................................
. ......... .T4it... ~:~rn~~:: :~~:: :~~:: :~:: i\~::~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .:..... .~. · : : . . . .~S : : :~~: : :A~: : : ~~~: : :~~ : .. .. ~:::::
...........::...:~:'::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::.l::::~:/:::
. '\\J~.' .~..: .~~. .~~:: :~::: :r)'i:.~:~: .~~::: _
. . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .... .. ..... ..... .. .. .... . .... . . , ....
. : . . . . . E'~<f\~~; .::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\~ '~IS .~
:::~~~..::.:::::::.:.:..:::::.:::::.:
r;-55 rf?1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ICTV1
CIItenIiI T,..~itl'l
V_Olio<.
1230 CoWie Sir"'
Slit. 640
s.llioto, CIIIonio 92101
619-331-&315
FAX 619-338-8123
.
""'.....1. by
r..... .....""""
0....... Gr." lac
FIoow DoIitI
.......CIrp.
T.-..te
I'nodootiol ..dle
~oI F.....
February 12, 1993
Ms. Barbara Reid
Planning Oepanment
City c:I Chula VISta
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Calitornia 92010
I "'.1(
.....
Dear Ms, Reid:
, .
~
?-~(,
,,"t
, I .,..: 't ~
r'
..l'
.". , ~
We have the following comments on the Rancho San Miguel General Oevelopmem Plan,
Volume 3: Draft Supplement to EnvirOMlental Impact Report EIR.90-02.
We originally proposed an interchange at San Miquel Ranch Road If a Proctor Valley
alignment is retained. However, the SR 125 South environmental document is in the
preliminary stages and, at this time, seven alignments are being considered in the
vicinity of the Rancho San Miguel Development. SR 125 South conceptual plans
indicate an interchange at San Miquel Ranch Road If the Horseshoe Bend or either
Proctor Valley altematives are selected for route adoption by Caltrans. Final interchange
locations will be determined in future Rancho San Miguel and SR 125 South
environmental stages, If interchanges are WBrranted.Caltrans anticipates circulating the
SR 125 South Draft Attematives Repen by the end c:I June 1993 and the SR 125
Technical Studies beginning in May through October 1993, for Iocaf agency review.
As currently planned, the Rancho San Miguel Development initial stages may precede
the SR 125 South route adoption and If the SR 125 South environmental process does
not resutt in the Proctor Valley West alignment being adopted, community disruption
and a waste of resources could resutt. Development 01 Rancho San Miguel should be
phased so SR 125 South route adoption is not constrained, the Rancho San Miguel
Community is best served by SR 125 South and the appropriate interchanges, and
noise and other impacts are minimized.
We appreciate the City 01 Chula Vista's continued participation in the SR 125 South
EIR/EIS process, led by Caltrans, and believe your involvement will ensure the above
objectives are met.
Sincerely,
CAUFORNIA TRANSPORTATION VENTURES
\~.
Robert Garin
Executive Vice President
cc: Caltrans G. Gray
C.Stoll
T.Vasquez
PB/CTV G. Harvilla
A. Koby
1~5?
-!):J.-
-
~
SlUt: Of C....lIfORNI....~USrNESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
,..
PfTE WlLSON. Gowmor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
"
,~ " I T
February 10, 1993
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
11-SD-125
PM 0.0-11.2
11115-926475
Dear Ms. Reid:
The following are comments to the Rancho San Miguel General
Development Plan Draft Supplement to Environmental Impact Report
(SCH 90010155). These comments are in addition to those
submitted by our agency through the State Clearinghouse.
The discussion of a proposed interchange with Route 125 on
Page 3.10-20 is confusing. It appears that some of the
references to San Miguel Ranch Road should be San Miguel Road.
If the discussion is suggesting that current plans provide for an
interchange at San Miauel Road, this is not accurate. Although a
preliminary design for an interchange at San Miguel Road was
originally developed, preliminary interchange designs at the
proposed location of San Miguel Ranch Road for each alternative
alignment under consideration have also been produced for the
current Route 125 EIR/EIS studies. These are only conceptual
plans to show that an interchange can be accommodated. The issue
of interchange location, if any, has not been decided. If the
City determines that there is a need for an interchange as a
result of future development, the details of design and location
would be subject to coordination and review at future stages of
the environmental approval process for both the Rancho San Miguel
development and the Route 125 project.
We are also concerned with the suggestion that only one
alternative alignment for Route 125 will remain viable if the
construction of the Rancho San Miguel development precedes route
adoption. Upon review of the project Phasing Plan (Figure 2-4),
it appears that several of the proposed Route 125 alignments
currently under study avoid the area shown as "Phase I." With
route adoption expected by mid-summer of 1995, it seems possible
that alignments other than "Proctor Valley West" could be
implemented without displacing any improvements that may be
constructed prior to alignment selection.
<J --- ~?
d
.~
--
i__
..
.
.
Ms. Barbara Reid
February 10, 1993
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document
and we look forward to continued coordination of all efforts to
provide for the transportation needs of this area. If you have
any questions, please call Charles "Muggs" stoll, Project
Manager, at (619) 338-8385.
Sincerely,
JESUS M. GARCIA
Distri:: ~irector 7 1. ~
By Ct"{ <.8~(:'/.-
CHARLES "MUGGS" STOLL
Project Manager
Privatization
CMS:
c;-S-Y
.c=/-
~r
. ,
STAn 01' CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
me WILSON. Go""mor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
. 1416 NINTH STREfT
1".0 eox 9.01.04209
SACRA. MENlO. CA 94244-2090
(916) 653-4875
February 16, 1993
Mr. Robert Leiter, Director
Chula Vista Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Comments on the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan,
Volume 3 Draft Supplement to
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 90-02,
State Clearing House 90010155
We would like to preface our comments on the Rancho San
Miguel GDP - EIR with a reminder that the Natural Communities
Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, in which the City of Chula
Vista, the project proponent (San Miguel Partners), and the
County of San Diego are participating, is intended to provide an
early planning framework for proposed projects within the
planning area in order to avoid, minimize, and compensate for
project impacts to wildlife. In order to accomplish this,
enrolling, landowners agreed not to develop enrolled properties
during the planning period and enrolling jurisdictions agreed not
to approve proposed projects which would compromise the
development and implementation of a viable NCCP.One of the
purposes of this voluntary enrollment was that new plans would
not be proposed by enrolled landowners nor approved by enrolled
jurisdictions in areas that could compromise the developing
NCCPs.
While encompassing a broader range of species and habitats
than the Coastal Sage NCCP, the San Diego Multi-Species
Conservation Plan (MSCP), which is included in the NCCP program
as an ongoing multi-species program (OMP) is effectively a
regional NCCP effort and is anticipated to result in one or more
NCCPs. The City of Chula Vista is an active participant on the
MSCP Working Group. One of the primary commitments of the
voluntary enrollment in the NCCP was the recognition of the
importance of being able to plan on a regional scale in order to
maximize the options.
~-51
~
@~'
.-.,
.-.,
.
.
.
Mr. Robert Leiter
February 16, 1993
Page Two
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has provided comments
on earlier versions of the proposed project [the DFG's
January 29, 1992 comment letter on the Draft EIR; the DFG's
August 10, 1992 letter suggesting criteria appropriate for the
northern parcel and comments on the southern parcel mitigation
plan (PSBS 464, May/July 1992); the DFG's September 29, 1992
comment letter on the south parcel mitigation plan (PSBS
August 9, 1992) and including responses to San Miguel Partner's
(D. Nairne) August 26, 1992 letter to the DFG; the DFG's
October 15, 1992 comment letter on the second addendum
(October 1992 version); the DFG's January 21, 1993 comment letter
on the "revised" second addendum (December 1992 version)].
These comments (copies included for your convenience)
address various aspects of the mitigation program for the project
and are still applicable even though the project has slightly
changed. Most of the issues are still outstanding and should be
addressed in the Final ErR for the Rancho San Miguel General
Development Plan. In addition, the DFG has the following
specific comments on the supplemental general development plan
document and the "new plan" for Rancho San Miguel:
1. The DFG did not receive a copy of "Plate 4" with this
or any of the previous documents. This figure is
important to assist us in evaluating the concept open
space preserve plots and the reconfigured development
bubbles both in the north and south parcels of the
project site. Please send a copy to us for our review
and subsequent comment.
2. The Supplement is confusing in its "Southern Mitigation
Plan" on page 3.3-50. This section appears either to
combine both north and south impacts for the coast
barrel cactus,or to identify an increased impact
(1,867 individuals) that is inconsistent with the impact
mentioned on page 3.3-54 (1,647 individuals). Please
clarify this. Inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies must be
corrected in order for the DFG to adequately evaluate the
project and its suggested mitigation.
This supplement, as did the previous EIR, makes a finding of
significance with regards to impacts to biological resources
for the south and the north parcels for the project as
proposed. The new plan modifies som~ development boundaries
for various reasons; however, these adjustments are not
delineated nor are acreage, resources, or land uses
defined. The supplement does refine some issues, but
other issues of concern to the DFG are yet to be
resolved. Presumably, the SPA plan level will address
these biol~gical issues with the specificity expected ~
by the DFG. '1--~ 0 ,...--::) ~
3.
Mr. Robert Leiter
February 16, 1993
Page Three
---
These issues include the general inadequacies of the
proposed California Environmental Quality Act required
mitigation stated in Table :::.3-8. The Table lacks details
which need to be included for all impacted species and
habitat types. Additionally, the areas recommended for
redesign and preservation as a mitigation measure should be
delineated on a map to allow meaningful evaluation of the
adequacy of the document-recommended mitigation.
4. Additional open space plots for the preservation of the
additional 12,000 otay tarplants and 1,000 Palmer's
grappling hook plants should be delineated and included
in Plate 4 for our review and comment prior to project
certification.
The DFG believes development proposals on the north as
suggested in the new plan (cOnference center,
interpretive center, and neighborhood A) are premature.
South proposals should only be considered in the
context of an approved south county NCCP, City of San
Diego's Multi-Species Conservation Plan, and/or related
conservation plan for this area.
6. The DFG concurs with the analysis of significance as
stated in this supplement, page 3.3-72. The DFG
remains willing to work with the City and project
proponent to resolve the biological issues for the
Rancho San Miguel Project. The DFG is in the process
of scheduling a meeting between landowners and agencies
which have populations of the otay tarplant on their
project sites. There is a need to discuss a regional
plan for the preservation of this species and to
address a regional mitigation strategy. The City and
San Miguel Partners will be asked to participate. ~
5.
-
Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this
/~\
/ I
?i~i ,'~~~~J
Turner, Chief
onmental Services Division
cument.
y,
Attachment
cc: See attached list
---
1---i> /
~
'.
.
.
Ms. Barbara Reid
October 15, 1992
Page Four
cc: Mr. David Nairne
Senior Vice President
San Miguel Partners
4350 LA Jolla Villiage Drive Suite 950
San Diego, California 92122
bc: Ms. Terri Stewart
Department of Fish and Game
San Diego, California
Mr. Curt Taucher
Mr. Glenn Black
Department of Fish and Game
Long Beach, California
Mr. Larry Eng
Department of Fish and Game
Sacramento, California
Cj-b~
~ _\1
.
.
LETTERS OF COMMENT
ON GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
.
.
c;--J ;J
. .
'.
e
<
BRIAN P. BILBRAY
CHAIRMAN
SUIltfPMSQIIl, ""IT D1IT-'ICf
IAA OliGO COUNTY DOMO OF SUPERVlSOAs
March 16, 1993
The Honorable Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
RANCHO SAN MIGUEL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PlAN, PROPOSED
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Dear Mayor Nader:
. The Cuunl)' appreciates the upportunity to review the Statement of Overriding
Consideratiuns for the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan. We have also
received the responses tu uur letters uf comment on the Draft Envirunmental Impact Report
and Supplement.
We remain very concerned with this project and its impacts to the circulation system in the
unincorporated area of Sweetwater. The impacts to the County's roads that would result
from this project are not being mitigated, and are being put off untils1>me future date when
the SP ^ will be prepared. The County helieves that these transportation impacts and
appropriate mitigation should he. addressed at this stage, and not put off intu the future,
We continue in our position that transportation impacts are significant and not mitigable.
SUMMARY OF TRA~.PORTAT(ON CONCERNS
The Cuunty's main concern remains that access for the project is totally inadequate, The
project relies on eventual construction of a planned four lane road, Rancho San Miguel
Road, for direct access. This road would be wholly within the County's jurisdiction. The
.
~--k;{
,.-C;
.....-.::;:' I
COUInY AOMINISTIlATION CENTIR 1eo<! PACIFIC HIGHWAY' ROOM 3358AH Olmo, CA 112101-2470 1"8l 631.S!11 FAX (11') 467040a$
CHUlAvtIl'AOfF'JCe .430 DAvt080N ITNE'r, aurTI 0 IOCHUl.AYI8TACA t2O'1o-acl1 "'....'.4100
ZO'd ZTO'ON ~O:91 ~6'91 J~W
6~P9-T~~-6T9'ON l31
T>lHl
,
-2.
County's Circulation Element designates San Miguel Road as a two lane light collector west
of one of the po~~ihle routes for SR-125. This plan does not envision the magnitude of
traffic that would be generated by this project, and the road would not provide for even a
portion of the project's traffic. The County has no plans to upgrade this road to a higher
classification nor are any funds identified to construct improvements.
-,
The project will also use Bonita Road and will generate significant new traffic that will use
the road system in the unincorporated area of Bonita. The County's COncerns regarding
impacts tu the County's circulation system have essentially gone unllnswered, with any
possible solutiuns being left to the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) stage. This is not
acceptable. The time to address these issues, and to determine whether or not
transportation impacts could render the project a~ proposed infeasihle, is now, not some
undetermined point in the future.
The interchange of San Miguel Road and SR 125 also presents problems. Interchange
design is a concern, but the bigger concern is that the applicant assumes this interchange
will he in the location he prefers. There is currently no agreement on where interchanges
in this area will be located, and no guarantee that an interchange will be located at this
intersection.
QYERRIDING FlNDTNGS
The Statement of Overriding Considerations contains a number of "benefits" that appear to
be just the fulfillment of typical subdivi~ion requirements and/or are mitigation measures
for this project, For example, the construction of roads through the project and fair share
contribution to off-site roads hardly seems to be a benefit over and beyond what would
normally be required uf any subdivision. Additionally, the preservation of open space is
mitigation for tht: negative impacts to biology caused by this project and should not be
considered as a condition for an override. Items 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 15 are either
mitigation measures or typical project requirements and should not be considered as a basis
for overriding considerations.
-,
The override makes a number of statements and claims regarding benefit, but does not
prOvide a rationale for these statements. Each statement should be amplified on to provide
further information on why and how these items really are benefits.
-,
/~t/
~
~O'd ~10'ON ~O:9T ~6'9T JPH
6~V9-T~S-6T9'ON l31
Idtll
.
.
'.
.3.
.. CONCLUSION
The County remains concerned with the environmental impacts of this proposed project and
the lack of responsiveness on the part of the City of Chula Vista to meaningfully address
these concerns. Issues raised in the February 5, 1992 and February 10, 19931ellers from the
County should be resolved now, prior to approval of the General Development Plan for this
project. More effective and thorough planning needs to be done at this stage so that well
reasoned decisions can be made and later problem.~ can be averted.
Sincerely,
~L5~ ~
Chairman
San Diego County Hoard of Supervisors
BB:TC:jb
cc: Robert Leiter, Director, Chula Vista Planning Department
Chula Vi,ta City Councilmembers
.
.
/--~k
~
~O'd ZTC'ON 20:9T 25'9T Jew
6Z~9-TZS-6T9'ON l31
Idl:Jl
BRANTON & WILSON
LAWRENCE S. BRANTON'
J. CLANCY WILSON'
"'CHARD H. WAGNER
JAMES H. GARRETT ....
MICHAEL N. TAYLOR
nANOALL B. KLOTZ
L. MAXWELL ANASTOPULOS
""RO"E'SIONAL CORr"OnAnON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
701 8 STREET SUITE 125!1
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 02101.8181
.........
M4f. ,
..... "
v
MAILING ADDRESS:
~:f:OST OFFICE 90X 12219
, , ,SAN DIEGO. CA 92112
TElEr-HONE
16191238.1991
rACS1MILE (8191236.9175
or COUNSEL
KENNETH E. BONUS'
HAND DELIVERED
nLE NO.
CEFHIF"IED SF"EC1AUSl
.. TAXATION LAW
"PROBATE. ESTATE PLANNING 6 TRUST LAW
CAUFO"NIA BOARD or LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
3500
September 29, 1992
City Planning commission
city of chula vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case No: PCM-93-14. PCZ-93-H. EIR-90-2
'1'0 TilE MEMBERS OF TilE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TilE CI'1'Y OF
CIIULA VISTA:
.........
'1'his firm represents Crockett & Company, Inc. Crockett &
Company, Inc. is the owner and operator of the Bonita Golf Course
located at 5540 Sweetwater Road, Bonita, CA. The purpose of this
letter is to notify you of a potential adverse impact that may be
caused by the development under consideration.
The golf course is situated near the bottom of several water
sheds which flow into the Sweetwater River. Portions of the
Sweetwater River run through portions of the golf course.
The principle concern of Crockett" Company, Inc. has to do with
the effect of any increased drainage or sediment that will be
caused by the grading and development process contemplated by the
general development plan, as well as increased drainage that may
be contemplated by the proposed development. Unless appropriate
mitigation steps are taken to prevent the discharge of increased
drainage and sediment from the area under development, the golf
course could be damaged by the introduction of silt and drainage
onto the playing area. Unless the drainage plan designed for the
area under development directs any increased drainage away from
the gold course, this damage could continue even after the
development process is completed.
-,
9 --??
~
3500.01RYC15
.
.
.
city Planning commission
september 29, 1992
Page 2
Crockett & Company, Inc. is particularly concerned about the
impact of drainage from the development due to its experience
with other d~velopments near the golf course. In approximately
1984, Treetops Unlimited and Pacific Scene, Inc. developed the
subdivision on the hills immediately to the west of the golf
course. Drainage from the subdivision was allowed to discharge
from a drainage pipe owned by the City of San Diego into a County
drainage pipe and from there to be discharged directly onto the
driving range of the golf course. Crockett & Company, Inc. was
eventually forced to take legal action against the developer, the
city and the County to recover for the damages it suffered as a
result of this discharge. Crockett & Company, Inc. was
successful in this legal action.
As the owner of property near the bottom of a naturally occurring
water shed, Crockett & company, Inc. is obligated to accept
naturally occurring drainage and run off from the water shed onto
its property. The golf course has been designed to accommodate
this naturally occurring runoff. Crockett & Company, Inc. is not
obligated, however, to accept increased drainage or sediment
which may be caused by the proposed development of the water
shed. In your review of the proposed development, including
especially the Environmental Impact Report, please ensure that
sufficient provision is made to prevent the discharge of the
increased silt and drainage that will be caused by this
development.
Very truly yours,
~~~\
MICHAEL N. TAYLOR
MNT:rc
3500.01RYC15
'1-tr
-?3
'.
.
EIR LATE COMMENTS
.
.
9-kl
~ '
,_ "r.'
STATE OF CAlIFORNI.t.--auSINESS, TRANSPORT.t~TIOtol AND HOUSING AGENCY
,..
PnE WfLSON, Go"",mor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
'.
.
.
. ,
"
(' l'If'
February 10, 1993
11-SD-125
PM 0.0-11.2
11115-926475
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Ms. Reid:
The following' are comments to the Rancho San Miguel General
Development Plan Draft Supplement to Environmental Impact Report
(SCH 90010155). These comments are in addition to those
submitted by our agency through the State Clearinghouse.
The discussion of a proposed interchange with Route 125 on
Page 3.10-20 is confusing. It appears that some of the
references to San Miguel Ranch Road should be San Miguel Road.
If the discussion is suggesting that current plans provide for an
interchange at San Miquel Road, this is not accurate. Although a
preliminary design for an interchange at San Miguel Road was
originally developed, preliminary interchange designs at the
proposed location of San Miguel Ranch Road for each alternative
alignment under consideration have also been produced for the
current Route 125 EIR/EIS studies. These are only conceptual
plans to show that an interchange can be accommodated. The issue
of interchange location, if any, has not been decided. If the
City determines that there is a need for an interchange as a
result of future development, the details of design and location
would be subject to coordination and review at future stages of
the environmental approval process for both the Rancho San Miguel
development and the Route 125 project.
We are also concerned with the suggestion that only one
alternative alignment for Route 125 will remain viable if the
construction of the Rancho San Miguel development precedes route
adoption. Upon review of the project Phasing Plan (Figure 2-4),
it appears that several of the proposed Route 125 alignments
currently under study avoid the area shown as "Phase I." With
route adoption expected by mid-summer of 1995, it seems possible
that alignments other than "Proctor Valley West" could be
implemented without displacing any improvements that may be
constructed prior to alignment selection.
~-70
1/ ~/;-:
.
t ,/-
...
Ms. Barbara Reid
February 10, 1993
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document
and we look forward to continued coordination of all efforts to
provide for the transportation needs of this area. If you have
any questions, please call Charles "Muggs" stoll, Project
Manager, at (619) 338-8385.
--.'
"
Sincerely,
JESUS M. GARCIA
Distri~~ ~irector ; 1. ~_
/,if'r. ./0.4.2 - " --
By L-l.~ " ' /
CHARLES "MUGGS" STOLL
Project Manager
Privatization
CMS:
"""\
"""\
/ ~71
4 ,.---
-I....~L/-.J
~ 10/1.-
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
PETE WILSON, Go~mor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
'_NINTH STREET
OX 944209
AMENTO, CA 9.4244-2090
(916) 653-4875
.
.
February 16, 1993
Mr. Robert Leiter, Director
Chula Vista Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Comments on the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan,
Volume 3 Draft Supplement to
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 90-02,
State Clearing House 90010155
We would like to preface our comments on the Rancho San
Miguel GDP - EIR with a reminder that the Natural Communities
Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, in which the City of Chula
Vista, the project proponent (San Miguel Partners), and the
County of San Diego are participating, is intended to provide an
early planning framework for proposed projects within the
planning area in order to avoid, minimize, and compensate for
project impacts to wildlife. In order to accomplish this,
enrolling, landowners agreed not to develop enrolled properties
during the planning period and enrolling jurisdictions agreed not
to approve proposed projects which would compromise the
development and implementation of a viable NCCP. One of the
purposes of this voluntary enrollment was that new plans would
not be proposed by enrolled landowners nor approved by enrolled
jurisdictions in areas that could compromise the developing
NCCPs.
While encompassing a broader range of species and habitats
than the Coastal Sage NCCP, the San Diego MUlti-Species
Conservation Plan (MSCP), which is included in the NCCP program
as an ongoing multi-species program (OMP) is effectively a
regional NCCP effort and is anticipated to result in one or more
NCCPs. The city of Chula vista is an active participant on the
MSCP Working Group. One of the primary commitments of the
voluntary enrollment in the NCCP was the recognition of the
importance of being able to plan on a regional scale in order to
maximize the options.
/ -7;)-
~
@
i
Mr. Robert Leiter
February 16, 1993
Page Two
---'
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has provided comments
on earlier versions of the proposed project [the DFG's
January 29, 1992 comment letter on the Draft EIR; the DFG's
August 10, 1992 letter suggesting criteria appropriate for the
northern parcel and comments on the southern parcel mitigation
plan (PSBS 464, May/July 1992); the DFG's September 29, 1992
comment letter on the south parcel mitigation plan (PSBS
August 9, 1992) and including responses to San Miguel Partner's
(D. Nairne) August 26, 1992 letter to the DFG; the DFG's
October 15, 1992 comment letter on the second addendum
(October 1992 version); the DFG's January 21, 1993 comment letter
on the "revised" second addendum (December 1992 version)].
These comments (copies included for your convenience)
address various aspects of the mitigation program for the project
and are still applicable even though the project has slightly
changed. Most of the issues are still outstanding and should be
addressed in the Final EIR for the Rancho San Miguel General
Development Plan. In addition, the DFG has the following
specific comments on the supplemental general development plan
document and the "new plan" for Rancho San Miguel:
---
3.
1. The DFG did not receive a copy of "Plate 4" with this
or any of the previous documents. This figure is
important to assist us in evaluating the concept open
space preserve plots and the reconfigured development
bubbles both in the north and south parcels of the
project site. Please send a copy to us for our review
and subsequent comment.
2. The Supplement is confusing in its "Southern Mitigation
Plan" on page 3.3-50. This section appears either to
combine both north and south impacts for the coast
barrel cactus,or to identify an increased impact
(1,867 individuals) that is inconsistent with the impact
mentioned on page 3.3-54 (1,647 individuals). Please
clarify this. Inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies must be
corrected in order for the DFG to adequately evaluate the
project and its suggested mitigation.
This supplement, as did the previous EIR, makes a finding of
significance with regards to impacts to biological resources
for the south and the north parcels for the project as
proposed. The new plan modifies some development boundaries
for various reasons; however, these adjustments are not
delineated nor are acreage, resources, or land uses
defined. The supplement does refine some issues, but
other issues of concern to the DFG are yet to be
resolved. Presumably, the SPA plan level will address
these biological issues with the specificity expected
by the DFG. '7 _ ? } ~
---
'.
.
.
.
Mr. Robert Leiter
February 16, 1993
Page Three
These issues include the general inadequacies of the
proposed California Environmental Quality Act required
mitigation stated in Table 3.3-8. The Table lacks details
which need to be included for all impacted species and
habitat types. Additionally, the areas recommended for
redesign and preservation as a mitigation measure should be
delineated on a map to allow meaningful evaluation of the
adequacy of the document-recommended mitigation.
4. Additional open space plots for the preservation of the
additional 12,000 otay tarplants and 1,000 Palmer's
grappling hook plants should be delineated and included
in Plate 4 for our review and comment prior to project
certification.
5.
The DFG believes development proposals on the north as
suggested in the new plan (conference center,
interpretive center, and neighborhood A) are premature.
South proposals should only be considered in the
context of an approved south county NCCP, city of San
Diego's Multi-Species Conservation Plan, and/or related
conservation plan for this area.
The DFG concurs with the analysis of significance as
stated in this supplement, page 3.3-72. The DFG
remains willing to work with the City and project
proponent to resolve the biological issues for the
Rancho San Miguel Project. The DFG is in the process
of scheduling a meeting between landowners and agencies
which have populations of the otay tarplant on their
project sites. There is a need to discuss a regional
plan for the preservation of this species and to
address a regional mitigation strategy. The city and
San Miguel Partners will be asked to participate. j".
Thank you for the
6.
cument.
opportuni ty to co~~nt /~0s
/ ~ J
H-'LJl ~;A~~
. Turner, Chief
onmental Services Division
Attachment
cc: See attached list
~- ?t(
~
Ms. Barbara Reid
October 15, 1992
Page Four
---
cc: Mr. David Nairne
Senior Vice President
San Miguel Partrers
4350 LA Jolla Villiage Drive Suite 950
San Diego, California 92122
bc: Ms. Terri Stewart
Department of Fish and Game
San Diego, California
Mr. Curt Taucher
Mr. Glenn Black
Department of Fish and Game
Long Beach, California
Mr. Larry Eng
Department of Fish and Game
Sacramento, California
---
---,
/~?~
#
.
~
~~~
:- ~-~
~....,;..........
~..................
---
..
ClnOf
CHULA VISTA
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
LAN D seA PER E V I E W S H EE T:
Dear Applicant:
Dote:
. . .., . r1' '" 2..' . . . .
. . ... r . '.~-:)'.' . . .
Project Name
: : :ri.:h. ~~--i.i..;"; : : ~~t : :';'I'~' : '.;.' : : : : : .~. . . ~ : :rt:~: : : : : : :
. . . \~~ . . .~ . . I~ . . . . . ~ . . .~ I~' . . . . . . .
.... ......................... . .-.. ~', \ .- ;':":"!""'.........
...................................."...,,~. .~.;.......
ThiS pro)eC1 has beer"', reviewed for compliance W'I1t'i the Ctty ,1 Chulo VIsta Parks ond Recreo11on Department landscape rtondcrds and
raO...Ji'e"""le"1rs Tne fol,OWing commenrs we~e ge'leroted during 0 review of the plon(s) for 'the above referenced project The Items
jCle'"'~,f1eo ::>e:ow o'e ge'le'o; descriptions of the speCific comments thot are on the red-lined pions 'that ore being returned for corrections
Please fe: oJ''''' 'ttle following w1"'Ier: reSubrill11lng Or!glnal red.~ned plons, revised plans and the review sheet, Ptcn cheCks wtll be scheduled
acco'd:...g TO suo~it101 001e
Comments
.~""'I.~
..)l~..,
. ~ . 11'."2. · ~ · .O~,~~~.;.>,: :;.;; : ~~: : :~....;.: : ~: i[iL-.:-: : : ::
. '~'.\\'#" ;)... . .1.1"'\\....... .~c,..>-.)lJ::l,..). ."-~,,, .....\..... '~ai"~', .\.~.....
. . .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. . .. . .. ..... . , .... .....,.
~~~~~ ~ . . ...................................
"'T:-........,~. ." .."?b:.: :(.~:::~:: NQT: :?~~(~:
1'2.."'0:-.... . ...';'..~..: :1'::;';-;'::: :~:: :,:.;.p;...;.7::::::::.:::::::
.\P".~ . ~. . . \.~. . . .~,,~. . .-=1-=-. . ,~I71 . . . .f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.~.
- ....
E:~'
. . . , . . . .
. . "F;' ............ .......I':'"~... ..... "'-' .......
- ~..~ .~.::.~..~::G1'Wlt\'-::::~~)~LT::~:::::::::
\Jo>o,~-:-r:-- . ~tJ'1: :.;.:.:: :-/' ,;..~ ~.;..: : : : i::i>";A.t~: : :t;.,:....:I~~ : : : : : : : : : : : :
....,....\1'1.1 .~... .-,.... l'Q..."'~...fl~.~.......,......I~ .....-:-........
. .............................................
_ \~PC> ~~ ~~? :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : : : : :: :: : :: :: : :: : ::
. .... ... .... .. .............. ............. .. ......
\'.Ii~: .~~>~r':': :~~::: :~\~~:::: :~\~: :~:: :.,:::::::
_. . ".\ . . . . j . . . . rr.- "l~_ . . . \.T'.~ . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
: · ,,~\\~~ :\A.:.~ . :'\ : :;..,.~ :..l :G.~'/~: : a.:.Z : :.:...;..;..:;.,;.: :~: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: . !'~ . . :-I"\~HOr-' : :"": . :- r: :-;-v\: : : : : ~o!\: : : :I:V::~ : : : : ':: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ..".r,....~1 ~~,.>'":-_. .. .. . . ..... . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .
...... .............L\....l.._......................................
-..: ~~. :p~~>: :~~~~~:~: :fi:~\ti:: :l;~,:i:~:::::::
....................:::::: n:':::::: :.;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
. \\.i~~: :\$. :~~.,.. ~~'.""""""""""""""""""
..~~~.............. ............................................
..........~..............................
p :.:.~. .\~.. ~N .~;- . . ~l;.,~ . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .0:-.. .. ..... ~ . . . ~ . . .I.\~. . '.~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...
. .
J-7r:;
\
\
276 FOUFlTH AVE 'CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA gtQ'.o/(S'9' 6?~.SG-1
..L-~r
'/ U
lOr1dscope Review Sneet
Page 2 c't.
DO'e 'Z .\1. ,? .
-"'.
Comf"1ents
.. .. ... ............(..) ......
. P~~.l~.':;;..:. 0,:..: ~~::::. : :-i,......:: :~~..... ..:.......... !
..:.:.:.....:::.:::.::::::::::::::::::! :::~:::::~:: ~'~:r:~
: : : : : : · : : : : : : : : : : : :; ~~(i::.): : '::':I~l'i.: : : ~~;~ . : T' . ~~ : : : : ~ ~~5': : :\:\w",; ~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ~ .1(..1. . . I . V~ . . . . ~I't ~. . . ~..,.ll.-. . ..", . . .t.. ,-pn...,....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... ... .... ... ..... ...................................................
: · : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : '~l: ~: : : : . . . it: : . 'ut-m~ . :.: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ::
...................~.. :~... .~...oR .'.. .1.1.. '~"""""""""""""
...... . . .. .. . ........ ..................................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ...............................
.. .. " " .... . . . , .. . . ...... ............. ...............................
: .\".'.::: :1:';': ~~::: ;..:~:: :~~~.~:: '~z.:: :'......;..;.";';"O'L~~': :~I,;~:"1o.:
. :') . . .".: \~., .~\\~ . . ~~~~~ . :\,..': :: :~:'~~~:: : y~.....: f:
.... .--\~. .~~..: .~\".~.. .\1.. .6l~~-N:. .~i..:: ij~~.~::.
. . . . . . . .f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
. . . . . . . ~c~~ . ~~~ . .c~ . . 1lh~ . : 'T11h{~~. . : : . : : : : : : : : . : : : : . : .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . " .... . . . .. . .. .. ... ., " . . , . . . .. ..... . ...
. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........................................,...................
:...... .~\(.X~S. ."'~~..:~. .~~':: .~~/:. f~. :~l~..:::.:.
. . . '.u;. '\.L"" ~. . .. . . c"r... . ~ ......."........ "'~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ~\f""\",) . :' . 'I:-{I)ic:..~\ ~..,7 ..: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : .-"
. . .. . . .... . . . .. . . .. " . . . .. . . " . . . . . ..... ..
.J....
., ....
. . 'I"' .
. ..
. . . . . . .. . . . .. .. ... . ... . . . ......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. .. . . . ,. .. . ... ... ,.. .......
\'4~~
. . "':-z .~... :11',~ : : :~~. . . . . . . . ~. . : : . . : : . : . ~:2.
..~..... ,........ ~. ....... .~~. .~.dP. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. ... ... ....... ......
....................... ~
. \~. . ~. . . . c.,tF:S . . . ~~ 0 . " . ',-,a' ~.. . ~.A...,.I .
. . .. .. .\.~. . . . ... ~ . . ~. . .~. .,~. . . l ,~.~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ,. .. . . ... . . .. ..... ... ....... ......
. .. "\\f~
..........\,,~,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . , . ,. " . , ... ........, ... '....
. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... ... . . . . .. .. ... . . ... . . ......... .....
· · \'\I'l.~. : .'i":1i....IS. :1: ~""'i:.~~~.' : : ~-=-: : : ~~~ :~:.
_. . . \ . . . .1. . . . !~. . . . 1":"\-""""1. . \'~~'J' . ...r.-~ .~. . . Q1\!11:\M"~I~. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . , . .. , . ....... .... ...... .... ,......
. . . · ...ta.d.~ : : . t.:$c-~~ ir.'I\ ...:....:,~ : : :~: : t!l.,,,: .~. : :C':' .):;I,)ct......~
. . . . .~. . . ~ 'iI. .1'1 r.\.I~ _. . . . . . . . . . . . n'l' : ."N.l~ . . .~r . . :. .,..,..",. ~
...................................................................... .'
........ .fI~'. :Vl~')@. .~..: .~iv~:: ~i->F~~:: \~~ID.i"ta.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .
. . , . . . . . . .. .......................................................,.,.
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..... .. . ....................... ..................
· · · ....., .. .~. . . ~.~rn~~: : :~~: :: ~~: : :~:: i\1t;: :~:
. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.........~............ .~.....~.....~... ._......._.~......
. . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . ~4--~ : : : : : : ~ : : :r:1~: : : : : ~~~: : : "II??: : )::'~~ i . : :
. .\\J~.. .~.. .~~.: ~~:: .~.:: :~$\:~: :~~.:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -"',
.......... 'i,.)cri~~;:.:::::.:::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:........ .\~. .~I~. .~.:: .~~~..:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::
5-77 ~/ 3F~- '1/
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Sheet
landS cope Review
'fe3
o:mE'~ts
-
'.. .
..
.. .
.. .
.. .
. . . . . . .
... ...
.. .
.. .
.. .
.. .
.. .
... .
.. .
C}-71Y
OF CHULA VISTA
CITY
I
,
, ./ r
, -
)2.-
ICTV
talifor.... Trwtsportlrfion
V......nllK.
1230 C..... Sir"'
SoIt. 640
s.. Diego, ~onia 92101
619-33...385
FAX 619-338-1123
Ioocorpor.'od by
P...... Briocittlloff
Dev......_ Graop, 100
Floor DaoieI
Dev......_Corp.
,.........
I'nIdeotioI ladle
~.. F.....
FebruaIy 12, 1993
--,'
Ms. Barbara Reid
Planning Department
City 01 Chula VISta
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
I..-:K
Dear Ms. Reid:
'T--() .r ~
,-I t., ~
I I ' ....:i.. ~ .
l ~ I .
We have the following comments on the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan,
Volume 3: Draft Supplement to Environmental Impact Report EIR-90.{)2.
We originally proposed an interchange at San Miquel Ranch Road If a Proctor Valley
alignment is retained. However, the SR 125 South environmental document is in the
preliminary stages and, at this time, seven alignments are being considered in the
vicinity of the Rancho San Miguel Development. SR 125 South conceptual plans
indicate an interchange at San Miquel Ranch Road If the Horseshoe Bend or either
Proctor Valley altematives are selected for route adoption by Caltrans. Final interchange
locations will be determined in future Rancho San Miguel and SR 125 South
environmental stages, If interchanges are warranted. Caltrans anticipates circulating the
SR 125 South Draft Altematives Repon by the end 01 June 1993 and the SR 125
Technical Studies beginning in May through October 1993, for local agency review.
-,
As currently planned, the Rancho San Miguel Development initial stages may precede
the SR 125 South route adoption and If the SR 125 South environmental process does
not result in the Proctor Valley West alignment being adopted, community disruption
and a waste of resources could result. Development of Rancho San Miguel should be
phased so SR 125 South route adoption is not constrained, the Rancho San Miguel
Community is best served by SR 125 South and the appropriate interchanges, and
noise and other impacts are minimized.
We appreciate the City of Chula Vista's continued participation in the SR 125 South
EIRlEIS process, led by Caltrans, and believe your involvement will ensure the above
objectives are met.
Sincerely,
CAUFORNIA TRANSPORTATION VENTURES
i~
Roben Garin
Executive Vice President
cc: Caltrans G. Gray
e.Stoll
T. Vasquez
PB/CTV G. Harvilla
A. Koby
-,
4)-- ? 1
~
73
.
CEQA FINDINGS
AND
.
STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
.
'1--~O
.
It
. -
.
.
.
RE: Proposed Rancho San Miguel
General Development Plan
March 17, 1993
CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT
I. INTRODUCTION
These findings relate to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR
90-02") for the proposed Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan ("GDP" or
"project"). Final EIR 90-02 is comprised of: (a) Draft EIR 90-02, including the comments
and responses thereto; (b) technical appendices for EIR 90-02; and (c) Draft Supplement
to EIR 90-02, including the comments and responses thereto. At this time, the discretionary
actions relating to the proposed project include:
. General Development Plan (GDP) approval; and
.
Planned Community (PC) pre-zoning approval.
Subsequent discretionary approvals for the proposed project include, among others,
annexation to the City of Chula Vista, annexation to the South Bay Irrigation District,
detachment from the Otay Water District, annexation to the Sweetwater Authority, a SPA
Plan, a development agreement and tentative subdivision map(s).
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Rancho San Miguel is a proposed single-family detached residential community
located on approximately 2,590 acres of land (1,852-acre northern portion and 738-acre
southern portion) in the northern portion of the Eastern Territories as defined by the City
of Chula Vista General Plan. The project site is currently situated within the jurisdiction of
the County of San Diego; however, the site is also within the City of Chula Vista's adopted
Sphere of Influence. The project includes a General Development Plan ("GDP") for
residential, commercial and open space uses and a prezone to the Planned Community ("P-
C") District Zone.
The property is bounded generally by Proctor Valley Road on the south and west,
the Otay water treatment facility and San Miguel Mountain on the east and the Sweetwater
River and Sweetwater Reservoir on the north and northwest. The northern and southern
portions of the project site are separated by property owned by San Diego Gas & Electric
("SDG&E"), which contains the San Miguel substation complex. Much of the surrounding
area to the south and west is developed, or developing, with single-family "..d multi-family
residences, commercial uses and parkland. The area to the north and east is undeveloped,
. 1 9 ----y( /lY'
consisting of ruggedly steep areas associated with the San Miguel Mountains, lands owned ~
by the Otay Water District, and lands owned by the Sweetwater Authority and containing
the Sweetwater Reservoir. The general character of the area to the south and southwest of
the project site is proposed to be low, low-medium and medium density residential,
according to the Chula Vista General Plan. Mother Miguel Mountain, on the project site,
is designated as open space in the City's General Plan. The project area is connected to the
City's Greenbelt system along Salt Creek, Otay Lakes and Otay River to the south, lInd
Sweetwater Reservoir and Sweetwater River to the west. State Route ("SR") 125 is
proposed to run generally northwest/southwest through the immediate project area, although
the final alignment is not yet known. The Rancho San Miguel GDP assumes that the SR
125 alignment will roughly follow along existing Proctor Valley Road. This alignment is
consistent with the Circulation Element of the Chula Vista General Plan.
The project applicant is San Miguel Partners. The City of Chula Vista is the lead
agency with discretionary approval authority over the proposed project.
The original proposed GDP included a total of 1,654 single-family residences and the
following components: a 14-acre commercial center; an 11.2-acre elementary school site;
a 20.5-acre community park; a 7-acre conference center/retreat and inn; a 6-acre interpretive
center; pedestrian and bicycle trails connecting Rancho San Miguel to the surrounding
community and the Chula Vista Greenbelt; and approximately 1,653 acres of permanent
natural open space.
During preparation of both the original proposed GDP and the Draft EIR, analyses
revealed various environmental impacts of the project. The analyses came from the Draft
EIR, comments received from City staff regarding the original proposed GDP's consistency
with the Chula Vista General Plan, and comments received from various persons and
organizations during the CEQA public review period. In response, the applicant refined the
project to attempt to reduce or otherwise lessen the identified impacts of the proposed GDP
project. These refinements resulted in preparation of a "Mitigation Concept Plan." The
Mitigation Concept Plan was examined in an Addendum to Draft EIR 90-02.
.......
Public hearings were held before both the Chula Vista Planning Commission and the
City Council in September and October of 1992. As a result of comments and testimony
received at those hearings, City staff and the applicant continued to work on proposed
design changes to address unresolved issues with respect to the project. The proposed
project has been further refined to address these unresolved issues. The proposed changes
are now reflected in the "New Plan," which is the subject of the Supplement to EIR 90-02.
The proposed "New Plan," which is fully described and illustrated in Section 2 of the
Supplement, proposes various design changes to the southern portion of the Rancho San
Miguel GDP. The proposed changes were made in response to: (a) public comments
received on Draft EIR 90-02 during the CEQA public review period; (b) City staff concerns
over the original project's consistency with the Chula Vista General Plan; (c) public
testimony received at the hearing before the Planning Commission on September 30, 1992, ~.
and the hearing before the City Council on October 27, 1992; and (d) comments made by
members of both the Planning Commission and City Council at the two public hearings.
~
9 --8' ;L
'-fj j /
.
.
.
The differences between the earlier Mitigation Concept Plan and the "New Plan" are
as follows: (a) additional estate-size lots have been added to the southern portion to obtain
a majority of lots within the Low Residential designated areas as shown on the Chula Vista
General Plan; (b) the "luxury" or midsize lots shown in the Mitigation Concept Plan have
been eliminated; (c) the remaining non-estate lots are designated as "cluster" lots with a
minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet; and (d) the overall density of the southern portion
has been reduced by 35 units due to the applicant's decision to not request a density transfer
from open space on the northern portion to the southern portion.
The "New Plan" does not alter, affect or change the Rancho San Miguel GDP as it
relates to the northern portion of the project. The northern portion remains as it is
proposed in Draft EIR 90-02.
The Supplement to Draft EIR 90-02 was circulated for public and agency review for
a 30-day shortened review period pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the State
Clearinghouse guidelines and criteria. During the public review period, the City received
written comment letters from various persons, organizations and public agencies. On
February 10, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to obtain additional
public comments regarding the Draft Supplement to EIR 90-02. Since that time, City staff
and the environmental consultant have prepared written responses to the comment letters,
and have completed preparation of the Final Supplement to EIR 90-02.
III. PROGRAM EIR AND SUPPLEMENT
A program EIR is an "EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be
characterized as one large project" and are related either: (a) geographically; (b) as logical
parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (c) in connection with the issuance of rules,
regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program;
or (d) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar
ways. (CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaJ.CodeReg. ~15168(a)).
Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages: (a) provide an occasion
for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an
EIR on an individual action; (b) ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be
slighted in a case-by-case analysis; (c) avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy
considerations; (d) allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and
program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility
to deal with basic problems of cumulative impacts; and (e) allow reduction in paperwork.
(CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaJ.CodeReg. ~15268(b)).
"Use of the program EIR also enables the Lead Agency to characterize the overall
program as the project being approved at that time. Following this approach when
individual activities within the program are proposed, the agency would be required to
examine the individual activities to determine whether their effects were fully analyzed in the
program EIR. If the activities would have no effects beyond those analyzed in the program
EIR, the agency could assert that the activities are merely part of the program which had
~
9-25"3
"'F
been approved earlier, and no further CEQA compliance would be required. This approach .......,
offers many possibilities for agencies to reduce their costs of CEQA compliance and still
achieve high levels of environmental protection." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaI.CodeReg.
discussion following ~15168).
Final EIR 90-02 has been determined to be a program EIR by the City of Chula
Vista because the proposed Rancho San Miguel GDP is an initial step in a chain of
contemplated actions and, therefore, qualifies to be analyzed at the program level.
The Lead Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR, rather than a
subsequent EIR, if: (a) any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines ~15162 require
the preparation of a subsequent EIR; and (b) only minor additions or changes are necessary
to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. (CEQA
Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeReg. ~15163). CEQA Guidelines ~15162 states that where an EIR
has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless subsequent changes are
proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous EIR;
substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken which will require important revisions in the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous EIR;
or new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete, becomes available, and the new information shows
that: (I) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the original --.
EIR; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the first EIR; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more of the project's
significant effects; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives that were not previously
considered would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment.
The supplement to an EIR need only contain the information necessary to make the
previous EIR adequate for the project, as revised. (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeReg.
~]5]63(b)). A supplement is given the same kind of notice and public review as is required
for a draft EIR; however, the supplement may be circulated by itself without recirculating
the previous EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, ]4 Cal.CodeRegs. ~15163(c),(d)). The decision-
making body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplement when deciding
whether to approve the project, as revised. (CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaI.CodeRegs.
~15]63(e)).
"
The proposed New Plan is an alternative which reduces General Plan inconsistency
issues and for which only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous
EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. Therefore, the Supplement
to EIR 90-02, which was publicly circulated in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, is an appropriate document.
--.
~
?-~t(
~
.
.
.
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the administrative record of the City
Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall include the following:
. Final Program EIR 90-02, including all appendices and technical
reports;
. The applications for a General Development Plan and a Prezone
request for the project, including the Rancho San Miguel General
Development Plan;
. All reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents
prepared by planning consultants, the environmental consultant, the
project applicant and the City of Chula Vista, which are before the
decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk;
. All documents submitted by members of the public, and public
agencies in connection with the Final EIR on the proposed project;
. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and
public hearings held on the project by the City of Chula Vista (or video
tapes where transcripts are not available or adequate);
.
All documents referenced in Final EIR 90-02;
. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public
meetings and public hearings; and
. Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which it
considers, including but not limited to, the following:
Chula Vista General Plan (Update)-2010
County of San Diego General Plan
Relevant Zoning Code of the City of Chula Vista.
V. TERMINOLOGVrrHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant
environmental effect identified in an EIR, the approving agency must issue a written finding
reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions. The first is that: "[c]hanges or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR."
(Emphasis added). The second potential finding is that: "[s]uch changes or alterations are
/ ~ ---6'3
~
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making
the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion is that: "[s]pecific
economic, social or other considerations made infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the final EIR."
"'"
Regarding the first of three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define
the difference between "avoiding" a significant envirunmental effect and merely "substantially
lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms, therefore, must be gleaned from
other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources Code ~21081, on which CEQA
Guidelines ~15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The
CEQA Guidelines, therefore, equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an
understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code ~21001, which
declares the Legislature's policy of disfavoring the approval of projects with significant
environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could
"avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" shall refer to the ability of one or
more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant
level. In contrast, the term "subslalllially lessen" shall refer to the ability of such measures
to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, bwnot 10 reduce the effect to a level
ofillSignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines ~15091 requires only that approving agencies
specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these
findings, for purposes of clarity, will specify whether the effect in question has been fully
avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has been substantially lessened
(and thus remains significant).
"'"
The purpose of these findings is to systematically restate the significant effects of the
proposed project on the environment identified in the Final Program EIR, and determine
the feasibility of mitigation measures and project alternatives identified in the Final Program
EIR which would avoid or substantially lessen those significant effects. Once the City has
adopted sufficient measures to avoid a significant impact, the City does not need to adopt
every mitigation measure brought to its attention or identified in the Final Program EIR.
The City shall not reduce housing units as a mitigation measure to a project, if the City
determines another specific mitigation measure will provide a comparable level of mitigation.
It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Chula Vista to not approve
a project if there are available feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives which
would substantially lessen that project's significant environmental effects. Only when such
mitigation measures or project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific
economic, social or other conditions set forth in these findings may the City approve a
project in spite of its significant effects.
Another purpose of these findings is td bring focus to project alternatives in the
ultimate decisionmakers' decision whether to approve or disapprove the project. If, after
application of all feasible mitigation measures to the project, significant impacts remain,
project alternatives identified in the FPEIR must be reviewed and determined to be feasible
-,
r- ~-6b
w
.
.
.
or infeasible. The findings set forth the reasons, based on substantial evidence in the record,
that the decisionmakers conclude any such project alternatives are infeasible (see further
discussion in Feasibility of Alternatives Section).
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined
in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City
of Chula Vista ("City" or "decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible
parties, including the applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures.
These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a
binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts a resolution
approving the proposed project.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other measures
are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these
findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Rancho San
Miguel GDP.
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code ~21081.6, the City of Chula Vista, in adopting
these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared by
the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to
ensure that, during project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible parties
comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described
in the document entitled, "Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan Mitigation
Monitoring Program."
VIII. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Final EIR 90-02 identified a number of direct significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that the project will cause, some of which could be fully avoided through the
adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others could not be avoided.
The project will result in the following significant irreversible environmental changes:
Land Use, LandformNisual Quality, Biology, ArchaeologylPaleontology, GeologylSoils,
Hydrology, Water Quality, Transportation/Access, Air Quality, Noise, and Public Services
and Utilities. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in both the
Draft EIR 90-02, at pages 3-1 through 3.16-8, and the Supplement to Draft EIR, at pages
3.1-1 through 3.16-6.
Certain of the above impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided at the
General Development Plan level; but, as described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, the City Council has determined that the impacts are acceptable because of
specific overriding benefits. The following sub-sections describe specific impacts, setting
forth either the reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures
~ 71-S---? ~
adopted to substantially lessen or avoid them, or the reasons why proposed mitigation
measures are infeasible due to specific economic, social or other considerations.
-..
A. LAND USE
Significant Effect: Development of the northern portion of the site is potentially
incompatible with the adjacent Sweetwater Reservoir. Contaminants from urban runoff
could de!;~ade the water quality of the reservoir, which stores drinking wat.::r supplies.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
will be implemented at the SPA plan level. Upon implementation, the following measures
will reduce the significant land use impact to below a level of significance:
.
The project applicant shall submit and obtain approval of stormwater
management plans, including a proposed runoff protection system,
from the Sweetwater Authority. Such plans shall satisfy the Authority's
standards for the preservation of water quality in the Sweetwater
Reservoir prior to approval of a SPA Plan for the northern portion of
the project. For specific mitigation concerning this issue, see the
mitigation measures included in sub-section G of these findings.
-.",
* * * *
Signi(ica/ll E((ect: The location of residential units adjacent to the SDG&E Miguel
substation is considered a significant impact with respect to land-use compatibility. The
utility may expand the facility in the future and potential conflicts could arise with residents
adjacent to the expanded facility.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
the SPA plan level:
.
The applicant shall provide potential buyers considering lots north of
the proposed alignment of San Miguel Road with a white paper
describing future SDG&E expansion plans, to the extent feasible. The
applicant shall also provide buyers of these lots with a Grant Deed
containing a provision describing future SDG&E expansion plans, to
the extent feasible. This requirement will ensure that information
-..
~
~ -8"~
~
.
.
.
regarding SDG&E's future expansion plans are disclosed to all
subsequent home buyers. The Rancho San Miguel CC&Rs shall also
contain information regarding the expansion plans for the SDG&E
substation to provide disclosure to subsequent home buyers.
.
The project shall minimize visual impacts of the SDG&E facility to the
maximum extent feasible through a comprehensive buffer plan at the
SPA PI2.:1 level which includes measures such as landscaping, significant
topography variation (including use of natural topography as well as
berming), and homesite orientation for houses near the SDG&E
property. This plan shall include the following measures:
Establishment of separation of
incorporating landscaped greenbelt
street;
development setback
or residential collector
Achievement of visual separation through landscaping,
topographic variation, homesite orientation, and height and lot
setback restrictions for houses near the substation property;
Utilization of graded materials to construct view screening
landscaped mounds;
Provision for SDG&E to view the final plans so that visual
impacts can be better determined and, at that time, additional
landscaping and screening may be necessary to mitigate visual
impacts.
.
The applicant shall provide grading site plans and other information to
SDG&E to assist them in their efforts to develop future improvements
on their site and corresponding landscape or other screening programs
that will minimize visual impacts to adjacent residential development
to below a level of significance.
.
The applicant shall continue to coordinate with SDG&E throughout
the processing of SPA Plans for this project.
.
The applicant commits to not oppose SDG&E's decision to process its
expansion plans through the City provided that: (i) this project's
processing time is not delayed as a result of SDG&E's processing;
(ii) the City treats the two projects as separate processes, with separate
hearing schedules; and (iii) SDG&E's processing is not conducted at
the applicant's expense.
Implementation of these measures will reduce the land use impacts of this project to
the SDG&E substation facility to below a level of significance at the GDP level; however,
this issue will be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan level to determine the significance of this
~
~~n
~
impact after the applicant has complied with the mitigation measures contained within this
GDP ErR.
-.",
· SDG&E proposed two additional measures to mitigate impacts of the
future expansion of the substation facility:
· Location of commercial center adjacent to the southwest
boupC:ary of the substation.
· Location of Bonita Miguel Road (San Miguel Ranch
Road) adjacent to the southwest boundary of the
substation.
As noted above, however, the land use impacts of this project to the SDG&E
substation facility have already been reduced to below a level of significance,
even without implementing the two additional measures proposed by SDG&E.
Moreover, SDG&E's proposals would require a significant redesign of the
project. Accordingly, the City does not incorporate these two proposed
mitigation measures into the project.
* * * *
Significalll Effect: The project is proposing an affordable housing element; however,
a detailed program to achieve compliance with the City's provisions related to affordable
housing has not been determined at this time.
-.
,
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final ErR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
will be implemented at the SPA Plan level. Upon implementation, the following measures
will reduce the significant land use-related impact to below a level of significance:
.
Consistency with the General Plan's affordable housing provisions shall
be achieved upon satisfying the City's performance criteria at the SPA
Plan level. Ensuring consistency with the Housing Element of the
City's General Plan will require that the project applicant provide, in
an affordable housing program, methods to devote 10 percent of the
dwelling units to low and moderate income housing; provide equivalent
offsite mitigation; or pay fees as determined through the submission of
a proposal as part of the SPA Plan processing. This proposal shall be
responsive to the City policies concerning affordable housing that may
be in effect at the time of the SPA Plan processing. The issue of
-
,
..w--
/-~tJ
-[3'
.
.
.
affordable housing will require subsequent review at the SPA Plan
level.
* * * *
Significant Effect: The project's proposed trail system includes trails that are within
SDG&E power transmission easements. The City Parks & Recreation Department
discourages the placement of trails in these easements. This is a potentially significant
impact.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90.02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
will be implemented at the SPA Plan level. Upon implementation, the following measures
will reduce the significant land use.related impact to below a level of significance:
.
To mitigate the impacts associated with the provision of trails on
SDG&E easements, more specific development plans will be reviewed
at the SPA Plan level to determine if the proposed locations are
consistent with City policies to minimize use of trails within SDG&E
easements.
* * * *
B. LANDFORM/VISUAL QUALITY
SignificGllt Effect: The designated site for the interpretive center, conference center
and inn contain topography with slopes in excess of 25 percent. Landform impacts
associated with the interpretive center and conference center and inn are unknown at this
time, and will be analyzed at the SPA Plan level when grading plans for these facilities are
available.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90.02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
will be implemented at the SPA Plan level:
.
At the SPA Plan level, the applicant shall provide the City planning
department with detailed grading plans for the interpretative center,
conference center/retreat and inn in the northern portion of the
project. Such grading plans shall minimize cut and fill slopes,
7
/$f
7~11
substantially preserve knolls and ridge lines and revegetate graded areas
with native vegetation to the extent consistent with the City's fire safety
standards. Implementation of this measure will reduce the landform
impacts of this project to below a level of significance at the GDP
level; however, this issue will be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan level
to reexamine the significance of this impact after the applicant has
complied with the measures contained in this GDP EIR.
---
* * * *
Significant Effect: Impacts due to extensive grading in the southern portion are
considered to be significant.
Findillg: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effects associated with general grading activities in the southern
portion of the project.
Mitigatioll Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
will be implemented at the SPA Plan level:
.
The SPA Plan shall demonstrate compliance with hillside development
General Plan policies during the SPA Plan review to the satisfaction of
city planning staff. Implementation of this measure will reduce the
landform impacts of this project associated with general grading
activities in the southern portion to below a level of significance at the
GDP level; however, this issue will be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan
level to reexamine the significance of this impact after the applicant
has complied with the measures contained in the GDP EIR.
---
* * * *
Significant Effect: Two topographic features in the southern portion of the site would
be extensively graded (Horseshoe Bend would be significantly changed and Gobbler's Knob
would be entirely removed). This impact has a significant visual component as well, because
these features are highly visible from adjacent public areas and neighborhoods.
Fillding: A major project redesign would be required to avoid the identified
significant landform/visual quality effects associated with the grading of Horseshoe Bend and
Gobbler's Knob. However, a project redesign is not feasible from a planning standpoint for
the following reasons: (i) these two landforms are not noted as significant by the Chula
Vista General Plan and, if preserved, would create a barrier to the cohesion and continuity
of the southern portion of the project; (ii) the southern portion preserves over 25 acres of
Horseshoe Bend, and any further preservation of Horseshoe Bend would disrupt the
continuity of the southern portion, since the landform essentially splits the southern portion;
and (iii) preservation of these two landforms (and their use for housing which meets the
---
~
I ~f.:L
~
" J
v
.
.
.
hillside development General Plan policies) would require movement of San Miguel Ranch
Road from its optimal alignment, and create potential erosion problems due to the
geological nature of these proposed landforms. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are
no feasible measures that would mitigate the landform/visual quality impacts to below a level
of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the
City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
* * * *
Significalll Effect: Large and potentially conspicuous potable water storage tanks are
proposed for provision of drinking water at adequate pressure. The exact locations of the
tanks have not been determined at this time; therefore the impacts are unknown.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
MiTigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
will be implemented at the SPA Plan level.
.
The SPA Plan shall depict the exact location of the water tanks and
shall contain binding landscaping design guidelines to address the
potential visual impacts of the proposed water tanks. Implementation
of this measure will reduce the landform impacts of this project to
below a level of significance at the GDP level; however, this issue will
be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan level to reexamine the significance
of this impact after the applicant has complied with the measures
contained in this GDP EIR.
* * * *
Significalll EffecT: A limited number of lots on the southern portion will be orientated
toward the existing and proposed future SDG&E facilities with potential adverse visual
impacts.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
MiTigaTion Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
the SPA Plan level:
.
The applicant shall provide potential buyers considering lots north of
the proposed alignment of San Miguel Road with a white paper
.....--I3
/--73'
<;f7;
describing future SDG&E expansion plans, to the extent feasible. The
applicant shall also provide buyers of these lots with a Grant Deed
containing a provision describing future SDG&E expansion plans, to
the extent feasible. This requirement will ensure that information
regarding SDG&E's future expansion plans are disclosed to all
subsequent home buyers. The Rancho San Miguel CC&Rs shall also
contain information regarding the expansion plans for the SDG&E
substation to provide disclosure to subsequent home buyers.
"""""
· The project shall minimize visual impacts of the SDG&E facility to the
maximum extent feasible through a comprehensive buffer plan at the
SPA Plan level which includes measures such as landscaping, significant
topography variation (including use of natural topography as well as
berming), and homesite orientation for houses near the SDG&E
property. This plan shall include the following measures:
Establishment of separation of development setback
incorporating landscaped greenbelt or residential collector
street;
Achievement of visual separation through landscaping,
topographic variation, homesite orientation, and height and lot
setback restrictions for houses near the substation property;
~
Utilization of graded materials to construct view screening
landscaped mounds;
Provision for SDG&E to view the final plans so that visual
impacts can be better determined and, at that time, additional
landscaping and screening may be necessary to mitigate visual
impacts.
· The applicant shall provide grading site plans and other information to
SDG&E to assist them in their efforts to develop future improvements
on their site and corresponding landscape or other screening programs
that will minimize visual impacts to adjacent residential development
to below a level of significance.
· The applicant shall continue to coordinate with SDG&E throughout
the processing of SPA Plans for this project.
.
The applicant commits to not oppose SDG&E's decision to process its
expansion plans through the City provided that: (i) this project's
processing time is not delayed as a result of SDG&E's processing;
(ii) the City treats the two projects as separate processes, with separate
hearing schedules; and (iii) SDG&E's processing is not conducted at
the applicant's expense.
"""""
~.
1--71
,f;
.
.
.
Implementation of these measures will reduce the land use impacts of this project to
the SDG&E substation facility to below a level of significance at the GDP level; however,
this issue will be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan level to determine the significance of this
impact after the applicant has complied with the mitigation measures contained within this
GDP EIR.
· SDG&E proposed two additional measures to mitigate impacts of the
future expansion of the substation facility:
. Location of commercial center adjacent to the southwest
boundary of the substation.
. Location of Bonita Miguel Road (San Miguel Ranch
Road) adjacent to the southwest boundary of the
substation.
As noted above, however, the land use impacts of this project to the SDG&E
substation facility have already been reduced to below a level of significance,
even without implementing the two additional measures proposed by SDG&E.
Moreover, SDG&E's proposals would require a significant redesign of the
project. Accordingly, the City does not incorporate these two proposed
mitigation measures into the project.
* * * *
Sigllificalll Effect: Views from a small portion of East H Street, a designated scenic
roadway, would be degraded by grading and development associated with the proposed
project.
Filldillg: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigatioll Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
will be implemented at the SPA Plan level:
. At the SPA Plan level, the applicant's landscaping and development
plans shall be consistent with Chula Vista General Plan guidelines for
scenic roadways. Implementation of this measure will reduce the
landform impacts of this project to below a level of significance at the
GDP level; however, this issue will be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan
level to reexamine the significance of this impact after the applicant
has complied with the measures contained in this GDP EIR.
.J5
c; ---9 5'
fl
c.
BIOLOGY
~
Significallf Effect - Sowhem Portion: Loss of approximately 156 acres of Diegan sage
scrub (93 acres of gnatcatcher occupied habitat and 63 acres of unoccupied habitat) would
occur as a result of the development of the southern parcel.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. At the SPA Plan
level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA "significance" determination as to whether the
southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to Diegan sage scrub to below a level of
significance. It is anticipated that all impacts to biological resources on the southern portion
will be mitigated to below a level of significance, with the exception of impacts to the Otay
Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided all of the following requirements are met:
(a) the criteria set forth in the southern mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at
pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have
occurred to the project or its circumstances since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
Cal.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(1)(2)); and (c) no significant new information has arisen since the
GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
.
The mitigation of Diegan sage scrub is to be accomplished by a
combination of preservation in both the north and south parcels to
total a 2:1 preservation-to-impact ratio for sage scrub habitat. In
addition, habitat is to be identified and preserved in a manner which
replaces sage scrub occupied or suitable for occupation by California
gnatcatchers by habitat that is also occupied by gnatcatchers. Where
habitat is unoccupied then replacement may be suitably accomplished
by preservation of similarly unoccupied habitat identified on-site.
---
· Diegan sage scrub habitat shall be established in the following manner:
IMPACTED RATIO REPLACEMENT ON-SITE NORm
HABITAT AREA FOR PRESERVATION OPEN
PRESERVATION FORSOUm SPACE
93 acres 2:1 186 acres 33 ac. 153 ac.
(occupied) (occupied)
63 acres 2:1 126 acres 113 ac. 13 ac.
(unoccupied) (unoccupied)
156 acres (total) 2:1 312 acres (lolal) 146 ac. 166 ac.
---
/6
7-/&
-zfh1
.
.
.
.
Mitigation areas indicated do not include scrub habitats occurring
within SDG&E easements. In addition to the set aside of this habitat,
mitigation of other biological impacts, including those to cactus wrens
and barrel cactus, will result in the need to perform enhancement
within open space areas. This will occur within the south parcel open
space area and will enhance the quality of this habitat along currently
cleared roadways and fringing grassland habitats. Enhancement efforts
are discussed under each of the appropriate species-specific mitigation
measures. Plate 4, which is included in the "responses to comments"
section of EIR 90-02 (in response to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
letter), indicates areas on a map that have been tentatively identified
as suitable for sage-scrub preservation. This identification is necessarily
tentative; the exact mitigation areas will be identified at the SPA Plan
level, and will conform with the habitat-preservation standards outlined
above.
. The final defined and recorded open space shall include no less than
186 acres of gnatcatcher occupied sage scrub and no less than 126
acres of unoccupied sage scrub habitat (substitution of occupied
acreage is acceptable). A total of 9 pairs of California gnatcatchers
shall be preserved within the recorded mitigation area.
* * * *
Significalll Effect - SoU/hem Portion: Loss of the habitat for 6 pairs of California
gnatcatchers would occur as a result of the proposed development of the southern portion
of the project.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. At the SPA Plan
level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA "significance" determination as to whether the
southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to California gnatcatchers to below a level of
significance. It is anticipated that all impacts to biological resources on the southern portion
will be mitigated to below a level of significance, with the exception of impacts to the Otay
Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided all of the following requirements are met:
(a) the criteria set forth in the southern mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at
pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have
occurred to the project or its circumstances since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
Cal.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(1)(2)); and (c) no significant new information has arisen since the
GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaI.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
.
The 6 pairs of gnatcatchers impacted by the project would be mitigated
by the preservation of 9 pairs of gnatcatchers within identified open
~.
err
~-~?
space areas N2, N4, and S4 (Plate 4, attached). The final configuration
of open spaces shall be adjusted as necessary to ensure the
preservation of appropriate habitat and numbers of birds at the SPA
Plan review level. To ensure long-term survival of these birds, open
space on the southern parcel shall be fenced along the edge facing
development and fuel maintenance shall be restricted to the areas
outside of the open space. The preservation of the 9 pairs will be
totally within open space areas. Mitigation at the SPA Plan level will
be required to include preserve design criteria.
---
* * * *
Significant Effect - Southem Ponion: Loss of an estimated 1,867 Coast barrel cactus
would occur with development of the southern portion of the project.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. At the SPA Plan
level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA "significance" determination as to whether the
southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to Coast barrel cactus to below a level of
significance, It is anticipated that all impacts to biological resources on the southern portion
will be mitigated to below a level of significance, with the exception of impacts to the Otay
Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided all of the following requirements are met:
(a) the criteria set forth in the southern mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at
pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have
occurred to the project or its circumstances since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
Cal.CodeRegs, ~15162(a)(1)(2)); and (c) no significant new information has arisen since the
GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
-.,
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
.
Of the 2,892 barrel cacti occurring in the south parcel, an estimated
1,647 cacti would be impacted by the proposed project. A full 1,380
(74%) of the cactus lost are a'ttributable to the East H Street alignment
as dictated by broader scale planning efforts which cannot be readily
modified. The Draft EIR calls for an in situ preservation of specific
populations of cacti in the northern parcel. However, the California
Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") have given a target of 60%
preservation with a transplant of the remaining cacti into open space
as their threshold for significance. Both objectives may be met on-site
through the establishment of open space in the north and southern
parcels. A total of 1,245 cacti can be preserved on site in the southern
parcel and 1,226 cacti shall be set aside for on-site preservation in the
northern parcel as permanent open space. (Thus, out of 4,118 total
cacti on the southern parcel and the northern parcel barrel cactus
mitigation area, 2,471, or 60%, would be preserved). This total of
---
7
0/
CP-'1Y
.
.
.
2,471 cacti preserved onsite meets the 60% target preservation level of
CDFG. This preservation would occur in open space parcels N2, N3,
N4 and Sl, S3 and S4, as shown in Plate 4 of Volume 1.
.
The estimated 1,647 cacti anticipated to be impacted by the southern
parcel development would be transplanted to roadways, trails and
margins of existing cacti stands in the south parcel S4 open space
(Plate 4). Salvaged plants are to be transplanted into existing areas of
the south open space in a manner which assists in restoring disturbed
roadways currently occurring on the crest of the southern knoll. The
combination of preservation of open space in the south and
transplantation of plants in the south will serve to mitigate impacts to
the species. The transplantation of barrel cactus has been
demonstrated to be successful in a number of areas, most recently the
Otay Business Park on Otay Mesa adjacent to the International Border,
which showed that approximately 90 percent of the plants survived over
the 3 year period since transplanting. In addition, many of these have
new off-spring and the population seems to be in a stable condition.
Mitigation at the SPA Plan level will be required to include preserve
design criteria.
.
The following Coast barrel cactus guidelines shall govern the mitigation
of Coast barrel cactus within the San Miguel open space. These
criteria address open space protection and transplant techniques and
receive site designations. The guidelines also identify requisite
monitoring and success criteria for transplanted materials.
No less than 2,471 cacti shall be preserved ill situ within open
spaces designated as N2, N3, N4, Sl, S3, and S4. (Plate 4,
allached).
Open space Sl, S3, and S4 shall be individually fenced on the
development area side to prevent general access into these
open space areas. (See Plate 4, allached). Fences which define
the owner usable portion of the development envelope shall be
of a wooden or block wall construction type and shall be
installed prior to the sale of any individual lots. Fences along
roadways or along the SDG&E easements shall be set back
from the edge of the roads no less than 25 feet and shall be of
an open nature to allow large mammal crossing.
All fuel management activities shall occur within the pad and
identified limits of owner use areas adjacent to all open spaces.
The limits of grading shall be established by flagging and
erecting a single strand heavily flagged construction fence
around the entire perimeter of all disturbance areas. Prior to
~.
9---'1;
~
the initiation of grading, all identified barrel cactus within
proposed areas of grading shall be marked onthe north side for
orientation and salvaged for transplanting. A mitigation
monitor shall inspect the site following completion of the
salvage operation to ensure that all identified cacti have been
removed for subsequent transplant. Once the city has
determined that all cacti have been removed, grading shall be
allowed to proceed.
---.
Salvaged cacti shall be transplanted into suitable sites along the
ridge line within the S4 mitigation area (Plate 4, attached). Care
is to be take to ensure proper orientation of the cacti to prevent
sunburning of the plants. It is estimated that 0.38 acre of
suitable receiver area shall be required within the open space
in order to plant cacti on an average density of 1 cactus/m2.
This open space supports numerous roadways through ridges
bounded on both sides by cacti. The target restoration areas
would be these roadways.
Restoration sites shall be protected from vehicular traffic by
directional signage and use of barrier posts to block access
through the restoration area. Large cholla cacti are to be used
around the barriers and throughout the roadway to develop
habitat for cactus wren mitigation and will also serve to curb
vehicular traffic. Areas are to be further seeded with an open
sage scrub seed mix to include: deerweed (Lotus scoparius),
white sage (Salvia apialla); and plantain (Plallfago erecta) to
assist in eliminating the appearance of a roadway, while not
resulting in a competitive dominance of tall statured shrubs.
This area does not naturally support dense vegetation, so it is
unlikely that such vegetation will naturally develop over time.
.-.,
Restoration efforts shall be monitored annually in the spring
concurrent with the Adolphia monitoring for a period of 5 years
and shall document the status of the mitigation site. Success
shall be the survival of no fewer than 75 % of the transplanted
cacti and the general trend towards recovery of abandon
roadways in a manner which would suggest long-term recovery
of the site. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted to the
City within one month of each monitoring event.
* * * *
Sigllificallf Effect - SoLttlzem Ponioll: Loss of approximately 345 individuals of
California Adolphia would occur under the GDP development envelope footprint for the .-.,
southern parcel.
/
'7,-/tJO
~
. 7-
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. At the SPA Plan
level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA "significance" determination as to whether the
southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to the adolphia to below a level of significance.
It is anticipated that all impacts to biological resources on the southern portion will be
mitigated to below a level of significance, with the exception of impacts to the Otay Tarweed
and Palmer's G~l1ppling Hook, provided all of the following requirements are met: (a) the
criteria set forth in the southern mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at pages
3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have occurred
to the project or its circumstances since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
CaI.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(I)(2)); and (c) no significant new information has arisen since the
GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaI.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
.
.
.
To compensate for the loss of approximately 345 individual plants of
California Adolphia in the southern portion of the project, 50% of this
species shall be preserved in biological open space. To achieve this
mitigation goal, the proposed project shall include a mitigation area
supporting a population with an estimated total of 350 plants in the
southwestern portion of the northern parcel (Plate 4, attached). In
addition, a population estimated to support approximately 40 plants
shall be incorporated into the open space on the eastern portion of the
southern parcel (Plate 4). The results of this mitigation would be to
set aside a total of 390 plants as south parcel mitigation for impacts to
345 plants (53% preservation). In both instances, the plants would be
preserved away from development (the reconfiguration of the northern
development envelope at this open space, as described below, would
eliminate lots adjacent to the mitigation area) and therefore
management measures beyond open space fencing are not required.
. As further mitigation, populations shall be enhanced by planting young
adolphia see dings in the periphery of the preserved populations.
Special restoration attention shall be paid to disturbed areas including
trails, roadways and weedy clay grassland habitats adjacent to these
populations. This species is also to be used as a buffer plant around
preserve Otay Tarweed populations. The adolphia persists in areas of
similar soils to that of the Otay Tarweed and the thorny growth form
of the adolphia would provide an opportunity to create both valuable
and functional buffer plantings around some of the Tarweed preserve
fields. Mitigation at the SPA level will be required to include preserve
design criteria.
.
The following California Adolphia guidelines shall govern the treatment
of adolphia mitigation areas within the San Miguel Ranch site. Specific
~
7-/0/
err.
mItIgation details shall be developed at the SPA Plan level in
conformance with the following standards:
~
Open space designated as N1 (Plate 4) is to be fenced in a
manner acceptable to the City along all sides of the open space
which face roadways. Fences which define the owner usable
portion of the development envelope shall be of a wooden or
block \-:all construction type and shall be installed prior to the
sale of any individual lots. Fences adjacent to wildlife crossings
shall be set back from the edge of the road no less than 25 feet
and shall be open to allow large mammal crossing.
All fuel management activities shall occur only within the pad
and identified limits of owner use areas adjacent to all open
spaces, but specifically open space N1 and S4 for the purpose
of the adolphia mitigation program (Plate 4).
Not less than 300 seeding adolphia shall be planted around the
periphery of the preserved population occurring in the N1 open
space (Plate 4). Plants shall be of either a liner/plant band or
1 gallon container size. Planting shall occur no later than
December of the first year following initiation of grading within
the southern parcel. All transplanting shall occur during the
winter rainy season to maximize plant establishment and growth
potential.
~
Transplanted adolphia shall be monitored annually in the spring
for a period of 5 years to ensure successful establishment and
continued growth. Success shall be determined by the survival
and growth over the 5 year period of no less than 30% of the
plants. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted to the
City within one month of each monitoring event.
Fencing shall be maintained on a long-term basis.
. * * *
Sigl/ifiCGIlI Effect - SOltthem Poniol/: Loss of the habitat for one pair of coastal cactus
wren would occur as a result of the development of the southern portion of the project.
Fil/dil/g: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final ErR 90-02. At the SPA Plan
level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA "significance" determination as to whether the
southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to coastal cactus wren to below a level of """"\
significance. It is anticipated that all impacts to biological resources on the southern portion
will be mitigated to below a level of significance, with the exception of impacts to the Otay
~
'7 -Itl~
~
Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided all of the following requirements are met:
(a) the criteria set forth in the southern mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at
pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have
occurred to the project or its circumstances since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
CaJ.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(I)(2)); and (c) no significant new information has arisen since the
GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaJ.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
.
Mitigation Measures: The followi,]g mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
.
.
.
The one pair of coastal cactus wren which would be impacted will be
mitigated by the preservation of 3 pairs of cactus wrens located in the
southern open space parcel (S4). In addition, cholla stands which are
to be impacted by the project will be transplanted to expand and
enhance the cactus wren populations in the south parcel S4 open
space. Transplanted cactus habitat shall be created in disturbed areas
of the south parcel open space over an area equal to or exceeding the
use area of the cactus wren pair to be displaced prior to elimination of
the existing occupied habitat on-site. To determine the appropriate
mitigation area, the activity patterns of the impacted cactus wren and
the 3 territories within the S4 open space shall be monitored to
determine boundaries of the home ranges and to characterize the
important elements of home range usage. In addition, vegetation will
be characterized within the home range using standard vegetation
transect methodology to determine plant cover, height, and frequency
distribution of various elements.
. Enhancement for coastal cactus wrens by transplantation of large
cholla cactus has shown promise in the Poggi Canyon cactus transplant,
in which cactus moved in 1990 were occupied by one nesting pair of
coastal cactus wrens in 1992. The nest supported eggs and young early
in the season, however neither the adults or young could be located in
July. For this reason, it is unknown whether this pair successfully
fledged young this year. Mitigation at the SPA level will be required
to include preserve design criteria.
. The following coastal cactus wren mitigation program guidelines shall
form the basis for studies to be conducted on the on-site coastal cactus
wrens and shall form the basis for the final cactus wren mitigation
program development. In that a study to document characteristics of
wren habitat is to precede the determination of the ultimate
appropriate restoration measures for this target species, the guidelines
below should be considered a working framework with minimal
milestones to be finalized at the subsequent specific plan stage.
Three pairs of coastal cactus wrens are to be protected within
the S4 open space identified in Plate 4. This open space is to
~
~
9r/oJ
be fenced along the development sides to prevent general
access.
A monitoring program shall be implemented to characterize
habitat requirements of coastal cactus wrens. The study shall
include an analysis of the three cactus wren pairs in open space
S4 as well as the one pair to be impacted in the southern
development area. The moniLoring program shall run for a
period of one year. An interim report shall be prepared to
detail the results of the first 6 months of monitoring. This
report shall be completed and shall be submitted to the City,
USFWS, and CDFG. The results of this report shall be used to
establish mitigation criteria for SPA approvals. A final report
is to be completed and shall form the basis for final mitigation
designs and grading permit issuance in the development area
supporting the cactus wren pair. The program shall include the
following:
Weekly monitoring and home-range use studies of each
of the 4 territories shall be conducted for a period of no
less than 2 hours/territory/interval. Monitoring periods
are to be staggered to ensure all diurnal periods are
covered for each pair. Studies are to include a
documentation of activity budgets (ie, foraging,
displaying, defending, roosting, breeding, etc.), an
identification of time spent on each primary plant taxa
occurring within the territory, and an identification of
home-range size, shape and location over the course of
the year using OCcurrence frequency data.
Vegetation characterization of each home-range is to be
completed during the pre-breeding spring months of
1993. This work shall include a documentation of
percent composition of various elements, frequency
distribution of elements, height structure, and similarity
between territories. Work is to be completed along 50
meter line intercept transects distributed randomly within
home-ranges. The number of transects to be used in
each territory shall be determined based on territory size
and homogeneity.
An analysis of existing territory sizes and composItIOn
and recommendations for restoration of a territory within
open space S4 as a compensation territory. This
recommendation shall be based on observed activities
and conditions within occupied territories and shall
include a consideration of "favored" habitat elements and
?'
"7 -; t/ il
.-.,
.-.,
.--.
~
-----.----------
.
.
.
territorial boundary interactions. The report shall also
consider existing restoration technology and shall make
recommendations as to the most appropriate restoration
techniques to maximize success. This report shall
include a habitat restoration plan which provides specific
guidance on creating a suitable habitat for cactus wrens
and appropriate maintenance, monitoring and success
milestones.
* * * *
Significant Effect - Sowhem Portion: The Joss of .5 acres of wetland habitat in the
southern portion is considered a significant impact by the California Department ofFish and
Game.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(]) of the CEQA Guide]ines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Fina] EIR 90-02. At the SPA Plan
level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA "significance" determination as to whether the
southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to wetland habitat to below a leve] of significance.
It is anticipated that all impacts to biological resources on the southern portion will be
mitigated to below a level of significance, with the exception ofimpacts to the Dtay Tarweed
and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided all of the following requirements are met: (a) the
criteria set forth in the southern mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at pages
3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the SPA Plan ]evel; (b) no substantial changes have occurred
to the project or its circumstances since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
Cal.CodeRegs. ~]5]62(a)(])(2)); and (c) no significant new information has arisen since the
GDP level (CEQA Guide]ines, ]4 Cal.CodeRegs ~]5]62(a)(3)).
MiTigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
. Mitigation of wetland impacts shall be accomplished primarily by
avoidance measures. It is estimated that 0.5 acre of dry alkaline marsh
occurs within the southern parcel in an area which cannot be avoided
by the project work. In order to compensate for this impacted habitat,
additional wetlands of a similar type will be increased within an area
designated as open space in the southwestern portion of the north
parcel (Figure 1). This area totals approximately 10 acres and supports
a very narrow channel bounded by non-native grassland upstream of
an existing pond. This mitigation site would involve the reconfiguration
of the northern development envelope at this location to eliminate
encroachment by 5 lots.
.
A small detention basin shall be constructed on this channel to create
a seasonal impoundment pond. The basin will be revegetated by
Mu]efat, San Diego Marsh Elder, and Southwestern Spiny Rush.
AS
1-/05
p
Similar habitat occurs elsewhere on this channel and as such, it is
expected that such mitigation may be readily accomplished in this
location. Mitigation is to be completed on a 1:1 area and value basis
as recommended by the Supplement.
"""'"
. * * *
Significant Effect - SoU/hem Portion: Loss of approximately 30 individuals of San
Diego Marsh Elder would occur within the southern portion of the project. Because of its
location within wetlands, the impact is considered to be significant.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. At the SPA Plan
level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA "significance" determination as to whether the
southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to San Diego Marsh Elder to below a level of
significance. It is anticipated that all impacts to biological resources on the southern portion
will be mitigated to below a level of significance, with the exception of impacts to the Otay
Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided all of the following requirements are met:
(a) the criteria set forth in the southern mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at
pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have
occurred to the project or its circumstances since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
Cal.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(])(2)); and (c) no significant new information has arisen since the
GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
"""'"
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
· San Diego Marsh Elder shall be used as a primary component in the
creation of a 0.5 acre wetland mitigation site within open space area
Nl. (Plate 4). This species has been used very successfully in
restoration programs and has been planted by seed as well as by
container units, although seeding appears to work best. The mitigation
program shall ensure that a minimum of 1: 1 numerical replacement of
plants impacted shall occur within the created wetland area. The
mitigation area shall use site collected seed in the restoration program.
Successful completion of this mitigation measure shall be the
establishment and survival of not less than 15 individuals of this species
at the restoration site over a 5 year period. Annual monitoring shall
be conducted for a period of 5 years during the spring with reports
being submitted within one month of each monitoring to the City. This
mitigation measure meets the identified objectives of the EIR
mitigation requirements. Mitigation at the SPA level will be required
to include preserve design criteria.
* * * *
"""'"
~.
c; -JoE
~
.
Significall/ Effect - Southem Portion: Loss of approximately 15 individuals of
Southwestern Spiny Rush would occur within the southern portion of the project. Because
of its location within wetlands, the impact is considered to be significant.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. At the SPA Plan
level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA "significance" determination as to whether the
southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to Southwestern Spiny Rush to below a level of
significance. It is anticipated that all impacts to biological resources on the southern portion
will be mitigated to below a level of significance, with the exception of impacts to the Otay
Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided all of the following requirements are met:
(a) the criteria set forth in the southern mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at
pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have
occurred to the project or its circumstances since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
Cal.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(1)(2)); and (c) no significant new information has arisen since the
GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
.
.
Southwestern Spiny Rush shall be used as a primary component in the
creation of a 0.5 acre wetland mitigation site within open space area
N1 (Plate 4). This species has been used very successfully in
restoration programs and has been planted by seed as well as by
container units, although seeding appears to work best. The mitigation
program shall ensure that a minimum of 1:1 numerical replacement of
plants impacted shall occur within the created wetland area. The
mitigation area shall make use of site collected seed in the restoration
program. Successful completion of this mitigation measure shall be the
establishment and survival of not less than 15 individuals of this species
at the restoration site over a 5 year period. Annual monitoring shall
be conducted for a period of 5 years during the spring with reports
being submitted within one month of each monitoring to the City. This
mitigation measure meets the identified objectives of the EIR
mitigation requirements. Mitigation at the SPA level will be required
to include preserve design criteria.
* * * *
Significall/ Effect - Southem Portion: The western and central thirds of the southern
portion each contain a dense population of Otay Tarweed. The State has listed Otay
Tarweed as an endangered species. Approximately 144,000 individual Otay Tarweed plants
would be lost in the southern portion of the project.
.
Finding: Although the mitigation measures noted below would minimize the project's
impacts to Otay Tarweed, for purposes of GDP review, these impacts cannot be avoided and
,4//
~--/tJ?
7h:
would remain significant. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there .-.,
are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance.
As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are been found to be feasible
and are required as conditions of approval:
· Impacts to Otay Tarweed are significant and unmitigable under the
proposed plan and given the population sizes, distribution, and
abundance of Otay Tarweed populations on the southern development
area, only a substantial project redesign would result in the mitigation
thresholds identified for reducing impacts to a less-than-significant
level. The Supplement calls for an 80% preservation or a minimum of
65% preservation combined with a subsequent transplant program.
.
Mitigation measures for this species have attempted to incorporate
concerns for long-term defensibility and viability of the proposed
preservation areas. As mitigation, a reduction in the development
envelope is proposed in the southwestern portion of the site and a
designation of open space is proposed to include tarweed populations
(see Plate 4, open spaces Sl, S2, and a small portion of S3). The
primary Otay Tarweed mitigation site shall be created by the expansion
of open space within the south along the SDG&E right-of-way as both
the right-of-way and the adjacent area to be preserved support large
dense stands of Otay Tarweed. Approximately 10 acres of proposed
residential development will be set aside and 5 acres of open space
proposed as a development opportunity will be left as open space for
a total of 15 acres, in addition to the existing SDG&E right-of-way of
approximately 8 acres (not counted toward project mitigation) (open
space S2). This open space expansion will provide mitigation for this
species and is anticipated to be viable for the long-term as the area will
be fenced to prevent encroachment by adjacent residents or by off road
vehicle traffic and will be managed for the enhancement of the species.
Although this species is an annual and numbers fluctuate significantly
from year to year, the proposed mitigation area would include
approximately 42,000 (29%) of the 144,000 plants occurring within the
southern parcel. An additional 11,000 plants occur outside of the
development area and within the SDG&E easement corridors. The
mitigation program has specifically targeted the most extensive and
robust population of tarweed for preservation and management.
Rejuvenation and management of the preserved tarweed populations
is to be a focus of the mitigation program. Additionally, two major
groupings of Otay Tarweed on the Northern Parcel, 1) an area of
approximately 10,000 plants located in the southeastern portion of the
development area on the Northern Parcel (See Figure 3.3-3), and 2) an
area of approximately 2,000 plants also located in the southeastern
.-.,
-,
~.
'J ~I tJ fr
./-, r.
'&
;L--
.
.
.
portion of the development area on the Northern Parcel (See Figure
3.3-3) shall be placed in permanent open space. Mitigation at the SPA
level will be required to include preserve design criteria for both the
southern and northern populations. The mitigation program proposed
for this species is outlined below; however, the impact to this resource
cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance even with
implementation of this mitigation program.
.
The Otay Tarweed mitigation program guidelines shall require on-going
funded efforts in order to ensure the long-term viability of the
preserved tarweed populations. This program fails to meet the CEQA
specified mitigation objectives and, as such, impacts to the Otay
Tarweed remain significant. Nonetheless, the following measures
reduce the significance of the impact:
Mitigation area S2 shall be protected by a fence as deemed
appropriate by the City's biologist (Plate 4). The fence shall be
gated by keyed access to allow for SDG&E to their existing
utility easement. The easement area shall be fenced with
barbed wire fence to restrict general access by SDG&E into the
tarweed reserve areas. The periphery of the site shall be posted
to notify the public of the presence of rare species.
The northern mitigation areas will be precisely delineated at the
SPA level. Fencing of these areas will be required if any
development of the north occurs in close proximity.
Fuel management activities shall be conducted solely outside of
the mitigation area.
Plant materials to be used in the adjacent areas are to be of a
non-invasive nature and shall be subject to review by a qualified
biologist prior to approval of a specific plan. All species shall
be confirmed to be compatible with the surrounding area.
Native species are favored for this purpose.
Interior to the restoration area fence, a direct management
program is to be undertaken to remove aggressive competitive
exotic species including thistle and to replace these plants with
compatible native elements typical of clay field environments.
Weedy species are to be removed prior to their going to seed
in the late spring. A seed mix of Purple Needlegrass, Blue
Dicks, and Otay Tarweed is to be dispersed on the site during
the month of November. Bulbous species should also be
planted if available. Around the periphery, planting shall
include Adolphia shrubs to further restrict access and general
use of the site.
~
'1 ~/o 9
/~
The surrounding areas shall be drained away from the site using
brow ditches and irrigation systems should be designed to
prohibit any overcasting into the site.
'"'"'"
Intermittent sheep grazing may be used as a part of the
management program for the site. Grazing shall be managed
by a trained biologist tn ensure that seed has been dripped prior
to allowing grazing to occur. This grazing may occur for a
period of up to two to four weeks per year.
An annual monitoring and maintenance program shall be
implemented to ensure that exotic weeds are kept under control
and the fencing is maintained. This program shall be funded as
a part of the maintenance assessment district. Work is to be
undertaken only by a qualified biologist with experience in
managing rare plant populations.
A Section 208] agreement shall be entered into by CDFG and
the developer relative to management of the species within the
preservation areas at the SPA Plan level of CEQA review, and
consistent with the foregoing conditions.
* * * *
'"'"'"
Significalll Effect - SoU/hem Ponion: All
Palmer's Grapp]ing Hook onsite would be lost.
of the estimated 10,000 individuals of
Finding: A]though the mitigation measures noted below would minimize the project's
impacts to Palmer's Grappling Hook, these impacts cannot be avoided and would remain
significant for purposes of GDP review. Pursuant to Section 1509](a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level
of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the
City has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
.
While impacts to Palmer's Grapp]ing Hook cannot be mitigated to
below a ]evel of significance on the southern parcel, mitigation for
impacts to this sensitive species is still provided. The applicant shall
dedicate the area in the southeastern corner of the development area
on the northern parcel which contains approximately 1,000 plants (see
Figure 3.3-2) as permanent open space. If any development on the
northern parcel occurs in close proximity, a minimum 50 foot buffer
shall be provided, and fencing shall be placed around the entire
preserve area. Plant materials used in adjacent areas for landscaping
'"'"'"
/
1--/ltJ
~
.
shall be subject to review by a qualified biologist prior to approval of
a specific plan. Interior to the restoration area fence, a direct
management program will be implemented to remove aggressive
competitive exotic species. The surrounding areas shall be drained
away from the site using brow ditches.
* * * *
Significant Effect. Nonhem Ponion: Development of the northern portion of the
project would significantly disrupt the rich biodiversity of this site. The northern
development could result in the loss of approximately 311 acres of Diegan coastal sage
scrub, which is designated as a sensitive habitat. This is considered a significant impact due
to the overall loss of this habitat in southern California and because many of the sensitive
plant and animal species found on site are concentrated in this habitat, including the
California gnatcatcher and Coast barrel cactus. The gnatcatcher population on the site is
part of a larger core population for the entire species and the project would cause direct
impacts to 40 of the existing 69 pairs onsite.
Additional impacts in the north would occur to the cactus wren, Otay Tarweed,
Palmer's Grappling Hook, and wetland habitat. Other significant impacts to wildlife include
fragmentation of habitat, constricted movement corridors, and impacts from pets, lighting,
noise and wild fires.
.
The biological significance of the northern portion of the project from a regional
standpoint is acknowledged. As previously stated in the Supplement to EIR 90-02:
"The Rancho San Miguel site supports one of the richest and most diverse
assemblages of unique and sensitive biological resources in Southern
California. Thirteen sensitive plant species and twenty sensitive animal species
are known to occur on the project site. Additionally, the site is potentially the
single largest concentration of California gnatcatchers in southern California,
and may support the largest known population of Otay tarweed in San Diego
County. Regionally, significant populations of coast barrel cactus and San
Diego cactus wren are also present onsite. Individually, many of the 33
sensitive species found on the site would be considered significant resources.
The high diversity and large population sizes of these resources compounds
the significance of the site for biological resources.
.
The location of the site is also important in that it lies within a larger block
of contiguous open space to the north, east and south, and is adjacent to one
of the largest populations of the federally endangered least Bell's vireo, which
occurs along the upper reaches of the Sweetwater Reservoir. The northern
portion of the project is contiguous with an existing gnatcatcher population
occurring throughout the Sweetwater River Valley to just above Singing Hills
Golf Course that likely exceeds 150 pair. This could represent as much as 10
percent of the U.S. population of gnatcatchers. The northern portion of the
>>
9~/( /
-ff~/:43
I- r{/
~.
site serves as a major movement corridor between the Otay Mesa area to the
south and the Sweetwater Reservoir."
"'"'\
Because the proposed project is at the GDP level of review, a "worst case" approach
was used to identify impacts to biological resources to the entire project. This approach
assumed that each entire lot within the large lot development areas in the north would be
fully impacted by development.
Under CEQA, the measures which could minimize identified impacts to bio]ogical
resources in the northern parcel include the adoption of alternatives to the proposed project,
or the adoption of a mitigation plan incorporating a redesign of the northern parcel. Two
of the project alternatives identified in the Draft ErR, the biologically sensitive alternative
and the south only development alternative, would eliminate all proposed development on
the northern parcel. Under each of those alternatives, the entire 1,852-acre northern parcel
would be part of an open space area encompassing Mother Migue] Mountain. See, Draft
ErR, Section 5. These two alternatives would eliminate impacts to sensitive species and
bio]ogical corridors in the northern parcel.
Aside from the identified project alternatives, a reduction in the identified impacts
could take place through adoption of a mitigation plan incorporating a redesign of the
northern parcel.
The mitigation plan for the northern parcel is intended to be developed further at "'"'\
the SPA Plan level, which is the next phase of the environmental review process for the
project. At the initial GDP level of review, however, it is important to establish the
mitigation criteria and planning framework to ensure that a programmatic mitigation plan
is provided. In this way, the planning context is in place for completion of the mitigation
plan at the SPA Plan level. The final mitigation plan will be open to subsequent review and
environmental analysis by the City of Chula Vista, federal and state reviewing agencies and
all other interested persons.
Finding: Although the mitigation measures noted below would minimize the project's
biological impacts to the northern portion of the project site, these impacts cannot be
avoided and would remain significant, at least at the GDP review level. Pursuant to Section
15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate
the impacts below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because of
specific overriding considerations.
The City notes further, however, that biological impacts to the northern portion of
the project will undergo further review at the SPA Plan leve], at which time the City shall
make a further "significance" determination concerning whether the redesign of the northern
portion of the project would mitigate impacts to biological resources to below a level of
significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
-...
;r-
~ --//~
ff5
.
.
.
Commitmelll to Prepare Mitigation Plan: The project applicant shall prepare a SPA
Plan-level mitigation plan that incorporates a redesign of the proposed development in the
northern parcel, emphasizing a resource preserve design. Coordination with personnel from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), the California Department of Fish and Game
("CDFG"), the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego shall take place during
preparation of this mitigation plan. The SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall be prepared,
analyzed and included in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the
applicant's SPA Plan. The City of Chula Vista, as the lead agency, shall retain final
discretionary review and approval authority with respect to the mitigation plan and
Supplemental EIR for the SPA Plan.
The SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall not be approved prior to May 1, 1994, the
date by which the South County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) is
anticipated to be adopted by the City of Chula Vista and approved by the CDFG and
USFWS. In the event that the South County NCCP is not adopted and approved by the
City of Chula Vista, the CDFG and the USFWS on or before May 1, 1994, the project
applicant and the City have agreed to pursue completion and approval of the South County
NCCP beyond this expiration date; however, after the expiration date, the applicant may
make a request to the Chula Vista City Council to consider allowing the applicant to
proceed with a SPA-level mitigation plan. The City acknowledges that the foregoing time
period relating to the SPA-level mitigation plan does not apply to or restrict the applicant's
processing of a SPA Plan for the southern portion.
The City further acknowledges that:
(i) In the event the northern portion of the project is subsequently dedicated as
permanent natural open space or included in a mitigation bank, the SPA Plan-
level mitigation plan and the South County Natural Community Conservation
Plan are not necessary or required for the northern portion or any other
subsequent discretionary project approval.
(ii) The SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall be considered prior to annexation of
the northern portion into the Chula Vista corporate boundary.
(iii) Preparation of the SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall be a condition of
approval of the San Miguel Ranch GDP, consistent with the criteria set forth
below.
Criteria 10 be Used in Evaluating the Mitigation Plan: The South County NCCP, if
completed and approved, may preclude development of the northern parcel, or may provide
for different criteria and standards for the preservation and enhancement of on-site
biological resources. If it does not, the criteria set forth below shall be used in creating the
SPA Plan-level mitigation plan.
In preparing the SPA Plan-level mitigation plan, the project applicant shall use the
guidelines set forth below as the applicable criteria for mitigating impacts to the identified
biological resources in the northern parcel. The following criteria shall constitute the
~
9 ~/I}
~
.
minimum level of preservation required for the designated species in preparing the SPA
Plan-level mitigation plan. The applicant also specifically acknowledges that the actual level
of mitigation could be as much as 100 percent preservation for some species in order to
achieve a finding that the impacts fall below a level of significance under CEQA and that
the City may require this level of mitigation. This significance determination shall be made
a part of the Supplemental EIR for the applicant's SPA Plan. The City of Chula Vista
acknowledges that the CDFG may not find the criteria stated below to be acceptable at the
SPA level.
(i)
(ii)
Diegan coastal sage scrub Impacts to onsite coastal sage scrub cannot be
mitigated with the project as proposed. Sensitive
species that are a part of this habitat onsite
include important populations of coast barrel
cactus, Munz's sage, California gnatcatcher and
cactus wren. These species are concentrated in
the coastal sage scrub habitat designated for
development under the project, as proposed.
Any loss of coastal sage scrub shall require
mitigation onsite through the creation of open
space preserves at a mitigation ratio of 4: I, and
subject to a long term maintenance and
management program. Of the northern parcel,
no more than 15% of the on site coastal sage
scrub shall be impacted by development and at
least 85% shall be used for provision of on site
mitigation or for mitigation purposes by others.
This measure will reduce, but not completely
avoid, significant and unmitigable impacts.
Reduction to insignificance can only be attained
. through on-site preservation of all coastal sage
scrub on the northern parcel. While the range of
potential on-site and off-site mitigation measures
is greater than that proposed for the southern
parcel, it is justified by the greater bio-diversity
on the northern parcel, which makes this area a
much more important regional location for
Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. Mitigation at
the SPA level will be required to include preserve
design criteria.
Wetlands Impacts to wetlands cannot be mitigated with the
project as proposed. The wetlands occur within
the site drainages of the north parcel. At the
GDP review level, the worst case scenario for
impacts was assumed within large lot
development areas in the northern parcel which
included the assumption that each entire lot
y
;1---//1
/rJ
.
-...
.-,
-...
.
.
(iii) Non-native grassland
(iv) California gnatcatcher
.
would be impacted by development. The Draft
EIR specifically notes that impacts in the
northern parcel can be reduced significantly, and
that impacts must be avoided to the extent
practicable. The reduction of impacts would
occur during the SPA Plan review level, and any
impacts may require a 1603 agreement and
possibly a 404 permit. Mitigation at the SPA
level will be required to include preserve design
criteria. Until these minimization measures are
resolved at the SPA level, a specific revegetation
plan cannot yet be developed.
The recommended mitigation replacement ratio
is a minimum of 1:1. This ratio is based upon the
generally low to moderate quality of wetland
habitats being impacted, and is not inconsistent
with acceptable mitigation measures for impacts
to similar quality wetlands in southern California.
The ratio is considered the minimum to meet the
"no net loss" criteria for both federal and state
reviewing agencies.
See below for mitigation criteria relating to
Palmer's Grappling Hook and Otay Tarweed.
Impacts to the California gnatcatcher cannot be
mitigated with the project as proposed.
Mitigation for losses of the California gnatcatcher
can be accomplished only through dedication of
important tracts of the species' habitat into
natural open space. These tracts must be linked
in a network to allow for the birds' dispersal,
maintenance of populations sufficiently large to
be self-sustaining, and population recovery after
the fires which inevitably sweep through native
scrub. Because Rancho San Miguel is a major
part of a core habitat, reductions to below a level
of significance can be accomplished only through
a project redesign that leaves a significant
majority of the pairs and their habitat in natural
open space. Any losses of existing pairs, occupied
gnatcatcher habitat, or unoccupied potential
breeding gnatcatcher habitat shall require
mitigation onsite through the creation of
permanent open space preserves at a
preservation ratio of 2:1, and subject to a long
~
t--/8
/~
term maintenance and management program. Of
the northern parcel, no more than 20% of the
existing pairs, 20% of the occupied gnatcatcher
habitat, and 50% of the unoccupied potential
breeding gnatcatcher habitat shall be impacted by
development. At least 80% of the existing pairs,
80% of the occupied gnatcatcher habitat, and
50% of the unoccupied potential breeding
gnatcatcher habitat shall be used for the provision
of onsite mitigation or for mitigation purposes by
others. Mitigation at the SPA level will be
required to include preserve design criteria. This
measure will reduce, but not completely avoid,
significant and unmitigable biological impacts.
Reduction to insignificance can only be attained
through on-site preservation of all existing pairs,
occupied gnat catcher habitat, and unoccupied
potential breeding gnatcatcher habitat on the
northern parcel. While this mitigation ratio of 2:1
is greater than that proposed for the southern
parcel, it is justified by the greater bio-diversity
on the northern parcel, which makes this area a
much more important regional location for
California gnatcatchers.
(v)
Cactus wren
Impacts to the cactus wren cannot be mitigated
with the project as proposed. To reduce, but not
completely avoid significant and unmitigable
impacts, the project must be redesigned to impact
no more than one pair of cactus wren. All
remaining occupied cactus thickets containing six
pairs of cactus wrens shall be placed within
contiguous biological open space. In addition,
cactus stands which are to be impacted by the
project will be transplanted to expand and
enhance the cactus wren populations in areas
adjacent to existing populations in the north. To
determine the appropriate mitigation area, a
qualified biologist shall monitor the activity
patterns of the impacted cactus wren and in the
remaining territories in the north to determine
boundaries of the home ranges and to
characterize the important elements of home
range usage. Subsequent to the restoration, the
mitigation area shall be monitored for a period of
5 years to ensure successful establishment of the
habitat. Existing occupied thickets lie in the west
?f
/-/It
p-y-'
-...
.-.
.-.
.
central and north portions of the north section.
Mitigation at the SPA level will be required to
include preserve design criteria.
(vi) Otay Tarweed
Loss of such a large population of Otay Tarweed
cannot be mitigated with the project as proposed.
Therefore, if a significant adverse impact is to be
avoided, a minimum of 80 percent of this plant
species should be retained in open space,
including the areas supporting the largest number
of Otay Tarweed. For impacts which go beyond
the 20 percent recommended above, a
revegetation/restoration program could be
implemented which would examine the potential
for re-introducing this species into disturbed areas
within proposed open space for the project. Any
restoration efforts would require working closely
with the CDFG. A minimum of 65 percent of the
Otay Tarweed shall be retained ill situ in open
space, even if a restoration program is
implemented. Such a redesign would reduce
impacts to this species to below a level of
significance. No revegetation or restoration of
the Otay Tarweed should be considered as a
mitigation option until it can be demonstrated
that such measures will produce long term
populations. Mitigation at the SPA level will be
required to include preserve design criteria.
.
.
Regardless of the final preserve design for the
Otay Tarweed, the two populations of 10,000 and
2,000 plants required to be preserved as part of
the Southern Mitigation Plan shall remain within
the preserve area for the Northern Mitigation
Plan and will be included within the plant count
in order to ensure a minimum of 65% of the
Otay Tarweed is retained ill situ in open space.
An additional 15% shall be retained either ill situ
or as part of an Otay Tarweed restoration plan.
This will result in onsite preservation of at least
80% of the Otay Tarweed for the northern
portion. Assuming a 24,000 plant count in the
north, a preservation level of 65% would require
15,600 plants to be preserved in situ, and after
allowing for the 12,000 plants previously
committed, an additional 3,600 plants would need
~
9-/ / 7
;;-e-
(vii) Coast barrel cactus
to be preserved ill situ as part of the northern -"
mitigation plan.
Loss of such large populations of barrel cacti
cannot be mitigated with the project as proposed.
Therefore, if a significant adverse impact is to be
avoided, the areas supporting the largest numbers
of barrel cacti should be excluded from the
development area. These areas are in the west-
central and northwest parts of the north section.
Project redesign to avoid these areas would
reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
A minimum preservation level of 60% in situ and
transplantation of the remaining cacti to proposed
open space areas on-site shall be required.
Analysis of whether impacts are reduced to below
a level of significance shall be undertaken prior to
SPA review. Mitigation at the SPA level will be
required to include preserve design criteria.
(viii) Palmer's Grappling Hook Due to the preservation of virtually all Palmer's
Grappling Hook on the northern parcel as partial
mitigation for impacts to this species on the -.
southern parcel, no further mitigation is necessary
related to the northern parcel.
(ix) California Adolphia
(x) Marsh Elder
(xi) Spiny Rush
Significant impacts to this plant cannot be
mitigated with the project as proposed. The loss
of significant populations of this plant can be
reduced only by excluding the important plant
patches from the development area. The project
should be redesigned to protect at least 50
perce nt in biological open space. Such redesign
would reduce impacts to below a level of
signifjcance. Mitigation at the SPA level will be
required to include preserve design criteria.
Wetlands onsite should be avoided to the extent
practicable. Mitigation at the SPA level will be
required to include preserve design criteria.
Unavoidable impacts could be mitigated through
a revegetation program.
Wetlands onsite should be avoided to the extent
practicable. Unavoidable impacts to spiny rush
could be mitigated through enhancement of
wetland areas to include revegetation of Spiny
-.
;a-
~--/Jff
Jt7
.
.
.
Rush. Mitigation at the SPA level will be
required to include preserve design criteria.
Additional Mitigation Measures; In addition, the mitigation plan shall incorporate the
following general mitigation measures to further reduce impacts to the identified biological
resources upon implementation of a redesign of the northern parcel.
The potential loss or degradation of wetland habitat is considered significant
by CDFG. Any filling of wetlands would require a 1603 agreement between
the project applicant and CDFG. A pre-discharge Notification would have to
be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) if statutory thresholds
are exceeded, and a 404 permit may be required.
A no net loss of wetland habitat is required by CDFG and ACOE. Impacts
to wetlands must be avoided to the extent practicable. Impacts within the
project can be reduced by placement of wetlands occurring within proposed
residential lots in open space easements and providing adequate buffers.
Where impacts cannot be avoided, every effort should be made to minimize
these impacts. All unavoidable impacts shall be mitigated by onsite creation
of wetland habitat. Drainages that receive run-off from housing may be
considered for the location of created wetlands. Minimization of impacts
could be accomplished with a comprehensive program to replace and enhance
wetland habitat under a wetland revegetation plan created by a wetland
revegetation specialist and approved by CDFG and ACOE, if necessary, and
the City of Chula Vista. Total created wetland would have to be at a
replacement ratio of a minimum of 1:1.
Graded areas along roadways shall be hydroseeded with native plant species
consistent with surrounding natural vegetation. This would help to minimize
erosion and runoff, as well as improve the area aesthetically by making it
visually compatible with adjacent natural areas. As part of this effort, a
revegetation plan shall be developed with the help of a revegetation specialist
with experience in coastal sage scrub and similar habitats. The Revegetation
Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and a qualified biologist.
The use of non-invasive plants in landscaping areas adjacent to open space will be
required for all areas outside of actual lot boundaries. Additionally, homeowners will be
encouraged to use non-invasive species in their landscaping adjacent to open space.
Iceplant (Carpobrotus aequilateralus or C. edulis) shall not be used in lieu of
fire-resistant native vegetation due to the slope failures associated with it.
Importation of this plant introduces fire ants, which are known to reduce
native harvester ant population through competition and displacement. In
addition, fire ants are unpalatable to the San Diego horned lizard and their
introduction would reduce horned lizard populations.
7 9~/(1
~
Grading activities within 100 feet of areas of identified California gnatcatcher
pairs, or their associated coastal sage scrub habitat, shall not be conducted
during the breeding or nesting season (mid-March through July annually).
Grading activities shall be supervised by a biologist.
-,
Site preparation activities, especially staging area operations and maintenance
rows for heavy machinery, shall be restricted to areas not being placed in open
space. Carelessness on the part of equipment operators can result in the
destruction of areas that have been designated for preservation. Areas
adjacent to open space shall be fenced. A debris fence shall be installed prior
to excavation in areas where grading is up-slope of sensitive biological
habitats. These recommendations should be incorporated into a construction
monitoring program approved by the City of Chula Vista.
Compliance with state regulations (California AB 3180) requiring monitoring
programs for development projects would require satisfaction of the following
two objectives:
The final site plan must be reviewed by a qualified biologist for
the City of Chula Vista and by CDFG for compliance with these
mitigation measures and must also be approved by the City
Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, in
conjunction with the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan.
-,
Each phase of project implementation must be reviewed by a
qualified biologist for compliance with the mitigation measures
required for that phase, and a report must be filed prior to
notice of completion.
NCCP Requiremell/: The mitigation plan shall be consistent with the sub-regional
Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program (NCCP) for coastal sage scrub in
southern San Diego County, otherwise known as the South County NCCP, unless the
applicant is granted permission by the City Council to proceed with the SPA-level mitigation
plan pursuant to the procedure established in Sections 1 above (after May 1, 1994).
The project applicant, the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego have
each entered into "Enrollment Agreements" with the CDFG for the South County NCCP
Plan. This Plan, which is authorized by state law (Fish and Game Code ~~2800 et seq.), is
sponsored by the California Resources Agency and the CDFG and will be implemented in
cooperation with the USFWS. Close cooperation between the three agencies in the NCCP
process is ensured through a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the
agencies on December 4, 1991.
The South County NCCP Plan is intended to identity and provide for the sub-regional
protection and perpetuation of coastal sage scrub habitat and designated "target" species -,
supported by that habitat while, at the same time, allowing compatible and appropriate
development and growth, as set forth in Section 2805 of the Fish and Game Code. The
~.
/--/;20
I~
.
purpose for enrolling in this plan is to: (a) complete the field surveys, research and planning
necessary to prepare a long-term habitat management plan within the designated preserve
area; and (b) protect enrolled coastal sage scrub habitat during the 18-month planning
period for the plan, which began on May 1, 1992.
The South County NCCP Plan is also intended to be consistent with the findings and
declarations contained in the enabling legislation. These findings declare that the NCCP
process will achieve a number of significant public benefits, including: (a) promoting
coordination and cooperation among public agencies, landowners and other private interests;
(b) providing a mechanism for landowners and development proponents to effectively
participate in the resource conservation planning process; (c) providing regional planning
focus which can effectively address cumulative impact concerns, minimize wildlife habitat
fragmentation and promote multiple species management and conservation; (d) providing
an option for identifying and ensuring appropriate mitigation for impacts on fish and wildlife;
(e) promoting the conservation of broad based natural communities and species diversity;
and (f) providing for efficient use and protection of natural and economic resources while
promoting greater public awareness of important elements of the state's critical resources.
.
To implement these legislative findings, the planning process will focus on preparation
and approval of the South County NCCP Plan to ensure the long-term protection and
perpetuation of a sufficient amount of coastal sage scrub habitat within a designated
preserve area to ensure the long-term survival of designated "target" species associated with
that babitat. The target species for coastal sage scrub include the California gnatcatcher,
cactus wren and orange-throated whiptail.
The applicant has already completed biological field surveys and is continuing to study
the northern parcel as required by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), which was formed in
connection with the recently enacted NCCP legislation. Any additional biological field
surveying will be consistent with those guidelines to be applied to the property and approved
by the SRP.
The South County NCCP Plan will include the following components: (a) a sub-
regional habitat description and analysis (with clearly mapped boundaries); (b) a defined
preserve area; (c) long-term conservation and management strategies; and (d) techniques
for implementation of coastal sage scrub habitat protection measures, including a mitigation
monitoring program that complies with CEQA.
The City of Chula Vista shall review the South County NCCP Plan as it applies to
the applicant's northern parcel concurrent with its approval of the SPA Plan for the
Northern Parcel. During that review process, the City will consult with the County of San
Diego, California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to the extent that the approved NCCP provides for such review. The City Council
shall make the final determination that the proposed SPA plan for the Northern Parcel is
inconsistent with the approved South County NCCP.
. The review and final approval process for the South County NCCP Plan is anticipated
to take place within a 24-month NCCP planning period, which commenced on May 1, 1992
~
') --- /~/
~
.:
and expires on May I, 1994. After the expiration date, the applicant may make a request
to the Chula Vista City Council to consider allowing the applicant to proceed with the SPA-
level mitigation plan.
"""'"
D. ARCHAEOLOGY
.
Sigllificant EffecT; The archaeology study on the San Miguel Ranch site determined
that eight important sites will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Another eight
sites will be indirectly impacted resulting from residential use of project open space areas.
The impacts to these 16 sites are significant.
Findillg: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
MiTigmioll Measures: The significant impacts to archaeological resources can be
reduced to below a level of significance by implementation of the following mitigation
measures. These mitigation measures are found to be feasible and are required as
conditions of approval:
.
The grading and brushing of the project and any related off-site
utility improvements shall be monitored by a qualified
archaeologist to ensure that any significant deposits or artifacts
which were not identified during the evaluation phase may be
analyzed prior to the destruction of the sites.
.........
· Any sites which were masked or buried and were not previously
discovered shall require evaluation. In the event that any new
or previously undetected portions of a site are encountered
during the grading of the project or related improvements, the
grading shall be halted by the monitoring archaeologist, and the
site shall be evaluated for importance. If the site is found to be
important, and the impacts will be significant, those impacts
must be mitigated to a level of insignificance through either a
data recovery program or preservation.
· Any testing programs and mitigation measures initiated during
mitigation monitoring must be cleared through the City of Chula
Vista.
.
Prior to the initiation of any future projects stemming from this
EIR for Rancho San Miguel, the testing programs which were
either abbreviated or suspended during the EIR process, as
discussed under Impacts in this section, must be completed in
accordance with the guidelines of the City of Chula Vista (refer
to the technical r";Jort to ascertain which programs must be
"""'"
..--4-2
/ - /;2;L
~
.
.
completed). The completion of the testing is not itself a
condition of mitigation, and therefore, the timing on this task is
not dictated by CEQA.
.
The impact summary provided in Table 3.4-2 of Draft EIR 90-02
indicates that 35 sites will be directly impacted and 8 sites will be
indirectly impacted. Of these, eight sites will require mitigation
measures to reduce the significant direct impacts and eight sites will
require measures to reduce the significant indirect impacts. The 16
sites which will require mitigation measures are:
SDi-4524 *
SDi-4526*
SDi-4S30*
SDi-86S8*
SDi-12,OS4
SDi-12,061
SDi-12,064*
SDi-12,084H*
SDi-452S*
SDi-4S29*
SDi-69S7*
SDi-12,049
SDi-12,OS8
SDi-12,063*
SDi-12,066*
SDi-12,08SH
.
Of the 16 sites listed above which have been evaluated as important
resources, those noted with an asterisk have the additional attribute of
being located within the Bonita-Miguel Archaeological District. This
district was formed on the basis of several archaeological surveys
undertaken for the Miguel Substation and related transmission line
projects, and was proposed by the Bureau of Land Management. The
district was determined to be eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, although the district has not been formally accepted by
the Keeper of the Register. While the status of the area as an
archaeological district does not imply that a different set of evaluation
criteria are used to determine the importance of the sites within the
district, it does emphasize the unique pattern of sites within the district
area. Impact analysis and mitigation measures should consider the
relationship of the sites within the district; however, unless federal
funds are involved in the project, CEQA and local city guidelines do
not require special treatment of sites found to be eligible for
nomination to the National Register.
. The sites which will be directly impacted must be subjected to a data
recovery program to achieve the mitigation of impacts. Those sites
which will require data recovery programs due to direct impacts include
the following:
SDi-4S29 SDi-12,OS8 SDi-4S30 SDi-12,066
SDi-69S7 SDi-12,084H SDi-12,OS4 SDi-12,085H
.
--- '1--/:2-3 f/?
43
.
The data recovery programs shall consist of the following:
-.,
· A detailed collection of information from the surface and
subsurface artifact deposits within the framework of an
approved research design. This design shall include individual
sections for each site, as the sites do not necessarily include
identical or directly associated resources. Educational uses for
data recovered shall be considered in the design of the data
recovery program.
· The research design shall address the determination of cultural
affiliation and site function(s), feature analysis, tool typology
analysis, and regional research issues regarding subsistence
patterns, lithic manufacture and maintenance patterns, trade,
and intrasite/intersite development.
· The historic sites shall require documentation of the line of
ownership and periods of occupation, as well as data recovery
to collect artifacts which define the range of historic activities.
Where standing structures are present, an architectural
assessment will be needed.
.
The information from each site shall be gathered by conducting
a statistical sampling program based on a sample size of two to
five percent of the site area. As an alternative, a stratified
random sample could be conducted to focus greater attention
on elements of the resources which contain greater potential to
address the questions presented in the research design.
.-...
· The data collected as part of the implementation of the
research design shall be presented in a technical report, with
appropriate interpretations and analyses, and submitted for
review by the City.
.
The eight sites which will be indirectly impacted and require mitigation
are those which include elements that could be removed or damaged
by site visitation. For instance, at Site SDi-4524, the presence of lithic
production loci which are relatively undisturbed and which contain
elements of the entire prehistoric lithic manufacturing process is very
rare in this region. Even casual pedestrian visitation through such a
locus could disturb the pattern of available data, and the removal of
even one tool would seriously impact such a valuable surface
expression. The increased presence of residents drawn by the new
development would eventually facilitate the degradation of significant
elements of the surface aspects of these sites. The sites which would
be indirectly impacted through pressures associated with increased
pedestrian or equestrian traffic are:
~,
~
/ ~ /cJ..1
trI
.
.
.
SDi-4524
SDi-4526
SDi-12,049
SDi-12,063
SDi-4525
SDi-8658
SDi-12,061
SDi-12,064
· Mitigation measures for these sites shall include:
· A preservation plan shall be developed in sufficient detail to
ensure that all sensitive aspects of the sites are considered. The
completion of the testing program for many of these sites prior
to the development of the preservation program will be valuable
to the understanding of the sites and the sensitive elements
included in each.
. The dedication of open space easements to protect these sites
from encroachment associated with the development or related
actions in the near future, as well as any actions in the future
which would include land alteration.
.
The configuration of the easements shall be designed and
dedicated prior to any future development processing following
this EIR. The proposed open space areas designated for the
project cover an area which encompasses the easements for
these sites.
. Each easement shall include a 100-foot buffer area and must be
permanently fenced with six-foot-high, chain link fence. The
permanency of the fences shall be assured through the
placement of the bases of the fence poles in concrete, and the
fencing shall be vinyl coated. This will essentially preclude any
development within 100 feet of the sites, while the fence will
deter most passersby from encroaching into the sites. The
fencing installation shall be conducted under the supervision of
an archaeologist to ensure that the resources are not damaged.
. The easements shall be granted prior to any further land
development projects, such as SPAs, and fences must be placed
around all of the sites identified above before any construction
can begin anywhere within the project boundaries.
E. PALEONTOLOGY
SigllifiCGIlI Effecl: Impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork
activities cut into geologic formations and destroy the buried fossil remains. The project
area is underlain by a variety of formations,some which are known to contain fossils in the
surrounding area (Proctor ValleylEastlakelBonita). Based on a review of the concept plan,
it appears that extensive development would occur in those areas underlain by formations
~
9 /1;2--;:-
;;-r-
which have a moderate to high potential to contain paleontological resources, including the ........
Otay and Sweetwater formations. Mass excavations in these formations would result
insignificant impacts to paleontologic resources.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures; To mitigate potential impacts to paleontological resources to
below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are
required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented during project grading:
· Prior to issuance of development permits, the project applicant shall
present a letter to the City of Chula Vista indicating that a qualified
paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation
program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an
M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with
paleontological procedures and techniques.)
.
A qualified paleontologist shall be at.any pre-grade meetings to consult
with grading and excavation contractors. At this time the units
(mudstone and gritstone) of the Sweetwater formation should be
located for use by the paleontologist.
........
· A paleontological monitor shall be on site at all times during the
original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive
formations (i.e. Otay and Sweetwater-mudstone portion only) to inspect
cuts for contained fossils.
A paleontological monitor shall be on site on at least a half-time basis
during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of
moderately sensitive formations (i.e. debris flow. deposits and
Sweetwater-gritstone portion only) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
A paleontological monitor shall be onsite on at least a quarter-time
basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of
low sensitivity formations (i.e. Santiago Peak volcanics-meta-
sedimentary portion only) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
A paleontological monitor shall periodically inspect original cuts in
deposits with an unknown resource sensitivity (i.e. stream/quaternary
de posits).
In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low or moderately
sensitive formations it may be necessary to increase that per day field
monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found then the
monitoring should be reduced.
........,
~.
9--- J~t
~
.
.
.
A paleontological monitor is not needed during grading of rocks with
no resource sensitivity (i.e. Santiago Peak Volcanics-meta-volcanic
portion ).
A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil material. The
paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist.
. When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological
monitor) shall recover them. In most cases this fossil salvage can be
completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens
(such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended
salvage time. In these instances the paleontologist (or monitor) shall
be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow
recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential
for the recovery of small fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth,
it may be necessary, in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing
operation at the site.
. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of
the mitigation program shall he cleaned, repaired, sorted and
cataloged.
.
Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos,
and maps shall then be deposited (with the owners' permission) in a
scientific institution with paleontological collections such as the San
Diego Natural History Museum.
. A final summary report shall be completed which outlines the results
of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussion of the
methods used, stratigraphic section exposed, fossils collected and
significance of recovered fossils.
. Selected roadcuts or large finished slopes in areas of interesting
geology (e.g. Highway 125) shall be left unlandscaped if they would not
be subject to erosion so they can serve as important educational and
scientific reference exposures for future generations.
F. GEOLOGY/SOILS
Sigllificallf Effect: The project site could be subject to a seismic event with maximum
credible magnitude of 6.7 on the potentially active La Nacion fault, located approximately
four miles away. Such an event could result in significant impacts as the result of ground
acceleration, liquefaction (in the event saturated alluvial materials are present), or slope
instability due to reactivating existing landslides or the presence of weak shared clay seams
and bentonite layers within the Sweetwater and Otay formations.
~.
~ .//-27
7/7;
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or -,.
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with seismicity to below
a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are
required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
· All proposed structures and pertinent facilities shall comply with
guidelines of the Uniform Building Code and any applicable state or
local construction standards, as well as future geotechnical studies.
· Appropriate grading and construction measures related to seismic
loading shall be used.
· Appropriate fill and structural design shall be used.
· Surficial materials including alluvium, fill and topsoils shall be
excavated to firm natural ground and either replaced with approved fill
or recompacted, depending on direction from the geotechnical
consultant.
.
The suitability of debris flow deposits to support structures, and the
likelihood of future failures in the head areas of debris flows shall be
investigated by a qualified geotechnical consultant as soon as grading
plans are available.
-,
· Slope stabilization methods recommended by a qualified geotechnical
consultant shall be used.
· All slope designs, cuts and fills, erosion control, surface and subsurface
drainage, and foundation and retaining wall design shall conform to the
recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. Specifically, this
would include the use of maximum 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) ratio cut
and fill slopes. Cut and fill slopes in the Sweetwater Formation shall
not exceed 30 feet in height; those in the Otay Formation shall not
exceed 50 feet for fill slopes. These measures shall be implemented in
accordance with the City's requirements for landform grading.
· Settlement monuments shall be established throughout areas underlain
by compressible materials, especially where construction will take place
over debris flows. The monuments shall be monitored for vertical
movements until significant movement has ceased.
.
A geotechnical investigation supplementing the 1986 preliminary soils
and geotechnical investigation shall be prepared prior to approval of
the project Tentative Map. Supplemental geotechnical studies shall be
-,
~
<} --/d-Y
/;). .-
/. I
.
.
.
conducted both prior to and during grading activities, and shall analyze
such issues as the site-specific placement of structures and sub-surface
drainage facilities. The report shall consider seismic impacts on these
facilities and shall made recommendations pertaining to seismic
impacts. These recommendations shall be incorporated into final
project design.
. * * *
Sigllificalll Effect: Expansive soils are present at the site. These soils could
potentially result in significant impacts to structures, building foundations, underground
utilities and roads.
Filldillg: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final ErR 90-02.
Mitigatioll Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with the presence of
expansive soils to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to
be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
.
Clayey subsoils shall be excavated and, if used in fills, be placed at least
three feet below the proposed finish pad grade and at least 12 inches
below street subgrade.
. Foundation for single- or two-story structures located entirely in very
low to low expansion natural ground, or entirely in fill soils that do not
vary more than 20 feet in depth at any point beneath the structure
shall be at least 12 inches in width and extend at least 12 inches below
lowest adjacent pad grade. Recommendations for foundations
constructed in fill soils having a differential thickness greater than 20
feet shall be evaluated separately for each structure.
. If complete removal of expansive soils is impractical, measures
recommended by a qualified geotechnical consultant to control such
soils shall be used. Such measures may include moisture control or
addition of chemical stabilizers.
. Structural design that incorporates deep footings and reinforced floor
slabs shall be used.
.
The supplemental geotechnical investigation shall consider expansive-
soil impacts and shall make recommendations pertaining to such
impacts. These recommendations shall be incorporated into final
project design.
* * * *
~.
c;~)2C;
OldJ
Significant Effect: Grading activitiesl vegetation removal and generating cut-and-fiII .........
slopes would increase the potential for erosion at the project site. Potentia] erosion impacts
include damage to cut-and-fill slopes, exposure of underground facilities or foundations, and
increased siltation downstream from stormwater runoff.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with erosion to below
a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are
required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
· Clayey subsoils shall be excavated and, if used in fills, be placed at least 3 feet
below the proposed finish pad grade and at least 12 inches below street
subgrade.
.
Foundations for single- or two-story structures shall be located entirely in very
low to low expansive natural ground or entirely in fill soils that do not vary
more than 20 feet in depth at any point beneath the structure should be at
least ]2 inches in width and extend at lest ]2 inches below lowest adjacent pad
grade. Recommendations for foundations constructed in fill soils having a
differential thickness greater than 20 feet shall be evaluated separately for
each structure. (Geocon)
-.,
· Applicant shall use measures recommended by a qualified geotechnical
consultant to control expansive soils where complete removal would be
impractical. Such measures would include moisture control or addition of
chemical stabilizers.
· Applicant shall incorporate structural designs that include deep footings and
reinforced tloor slabs.
· All grading and site preparation shall be performed in accordance with the
"Recommended Grading Specifications" contained in Appendix C of the
Geocon Report (1986) and the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance.
(Geocon)
· It is recommended that a preconstruction conference be held at the site with
the owner or developer, contractor, civil engineer, and soil engineer in
attendance, to discuss special soil handling and/or grading plans. (Geocon)
.
It is recommended that the outer zone of fill slopes equal to at least 15 feet
or the height of the slope, whichever is less, be composed of well compacted
granular material. All fill slopes should be backrolled at maximum 4-foot fill
height intervals during construction and each fill slope should be track-walked
upon completion. (Geocon)
.........
~
/ ~/JO
/ /" ..-~-
'7 ~~
.
.
.
.
Applicant shall use erosion-controlling and slope stabilization measures
both during and after completion of construction activities. These may
include methods such as revegetation, detention structures, retaining
walls, temporary slopes or buttressing, brow ditches, and work
restrictions during inclement weather.
· Applicant shall designate material disposal methods, locations and haul routes,
and coordinate with and obtain approval by appropriate regulatory agencIes.
. Applicant shall treat compacted areas (e.g., scarification) to facilitate
revegetation and reduce erosion potential.
. Proposed project design, grading, and construction activities shall conform to
all pertinent standards of the County of San Diego General Plan, Grading
Ordinance, and all other applicable guidelines.
. The supplemental geotechnical investigation shall consider erosion
impacts and shall make recommendations pertaining to such impacts.
These recommendations shall be incorporated into final project design.
* * * *
Sigllificalll Effect: The project results in potentially significant impacts regarding
compaction and settlement of soil.
Filldillg: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigatioll Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with compaction and
settlement of soil to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found
to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. Alluvial/colluvial soils shall be entirely removed and recompacted in all
areas where structural fill is proposed. It is estimated that
approximately 10 feet of removal and recompaction of debris flow
deposits will be necessary. Unsuitable topsoils shall also be removed
and properly recompacted during grading (Geocon).
. The geotechnical consultant shall observe grading operations and test
all structural fills for relative compaction (Geocon).
. The geotechnical consultant shall observe all cut slopes during grading
to ensure conformity with anticipated subsurface conditions.
.
The geotechnical consultant shall direct inspections and testing of all
grading materials and procedures.
~.
~ ~/ 31
pr
.
All fill materials used for proposed grading and construction activities
shall meet the specifications of the geotechnical consultant in terms of
composition, size, distribution, moisture content, compaction, depth,
and application methodology.
--.
· Cut and fill transition zones associated with overlying structures shall
be designed pursuant to direction by the geotechnical consultant.
Specifically, cut areas beneath structures should be undercut to a
minimum depth of one foot below the deepest utility or three feet
total, whichever is greater.
· Site preparation will begin with removal of all deleterious matter and
vegetation. The depth of removal shall be such that material to be
used in fills is free of organic matter. Material generated during
stripping operations and/or site demolition shall be exported from the
site (Geocon).
.
The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with
structural fill compacted layers. In general, native soils are suitable for
reuse as fill if free from vegetation, debris, and other deleterious
matter. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate
bonding and compaction. All fill (including backfill and scarified
ground surfaces) should be compacted to at least 90 percent of
maximum dry density at optimum moisture content or above, as
determined in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D1557-70,
Method A or C (Geocon).
--.
· An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be used for foundations
constructed as recommended above. The allowable bearing capacity
is for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for
transient loads due to wind or seismic forces (Geocon).
· Concrete slabs located entirely on natural ground or on compacted fill
which does not exceed 20 feet in thickness should have a nominal
thickness of 4 inches and be underlain by at least 2 inches of clean
sand. Reinforcement should consist of 6 x 6 - 6/6 welded wire mesh
throughout. In areas of deeper fills, where fill depths exceed 20 feet,
the slab reinforcement should be designed by the project structural
engineer or architect. It is recommended that, as a minimum, No.3
bars placed ]8 inches on center in both directions be utilized (Geocon).
· Foundation excavations and prepared subgrades shall be wetted as
necessary to maintain compaction moisture contents (Geocon).
.
Retaining wall foundations bearing in undisturbed formation soils may
be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf at a
depth of ]2 inches below lowest adjacent finish grades. Foundations
-"
~.
'1~JY~
~.
.
.
.
placed in properly compacted fill soils may be designed for a soil
bearing pressure of 2,000 psf at a depth of 12 inches below lowest
adjacent finish grades. Reinforcement of such foundations should
follow the recommendations of the project structural engineer and
should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer for compliance with
the intent of recommendations for structures on fill presented above.
Where the retaining wall will be restrained from lateral movement at
the top, a uniform pressure of 7H psf (where H = height of wall in
feet) should be added to the above active soil pressures. The above
recommendations assume a drained backfill condition with no
surcharge loading (Geocon).
.
Lateral loads may be resisted by "passive" earth pressure. The passive
earth pressure against shallow spread-type footings and/or walls poured
near undisturbed natural soils or in contact with properly compacted
backfill. may be considered equal to the forces exerted by a fluid of
300 pcf unit weight. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used
between the bases of footings and slabs of soil for computing resistance
to sliding (Geocon).
* * * *
Significant Effect: The project results in potentially significant impacts regarding
reactive soils.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with reactive soils to
below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are
required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. Overexcavate unsuitable base materials and replace with approved and
properly compacted structural fill.
. Use corrosion resistant steel and cement in areas where complete
removal is impractical.
* * * *
Significant Effect: The project results in potentially significant impacts regarding
shallow bedrock.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
~.
";9 J_
~:... C'
tj-j;J3
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with shallow bedrock --..
to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
· The applicant shall utilize standard ripping and excavation techniques
for shallow bedrock subsurfaces.
· The applicant shall use and/or dispose of oversize rock materials in
accordance with direction by the geotechnical consultant. Generally,
this would entail methods such as offsite disposal, replacement in
deeper on site fills, crushing, or use in landscaping efforts of all rock
exceeding whatever is determined by the geotechnical consultant.
· If explosives are necessary for excavation activities, the applicant shall
use them in accordance with all appropriate state and local guidelines.
These would include measures to safeguard explosives in approved
storage facilities, ensure safe operation and handling by trained
personnel, and protect sensitive receptors (if any) from potential noise
and vibration effects.
* * * *
Significant Effect: The project results in potentially significant impacts regarding --..
groundwater seepage.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with groundwater
seepage to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be
feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
· Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, the applicant
shall utilize an impervious membrane vapor barrier and a 2-inch layer
of clean sand placed between the base of the slab and the membrane
to reduce shrinkage cracking and allow proper curing of the concrete.
Crack control and construction joints shall be provided for large
concrete slabs, in accordance with the recommendations of the project
architect (Geocon).
· The applicant shall coordinate with the appropriate Regional Water
quality Control Board office when disposing of any groundwater from
any necessary dewatering operations.
-.,
~
9 - /3 {
.~
.
The applicant shall ensure that surface drainage is diverted into control
structures to reduce seepage impacts.
e
* * * *
G. HYDROLOGY
Signiflcillll Effect: Development of the project site would create large impervious
surfaces such as roads, walkways, buildings, and parking lots. Runoff would occur more
rapidly, and the peak runoff discharge from the site would be higher for a given rainfall
event than under the present undeveloped conditions.
Basin headwater areas tend to possess slope and channel gradients steeper than those
in downgradient areas, and therefore, increases in overall impervious cover results in larger,
more frequent, and higher velocity discharges into downstream channels. Detrimental
consequences could include increased peak discharges, possible flooding, and possible scour
. of the minor and major drainage ways downstream of the development.
The northern half of the northern portion of the project is in a watershed that drains
into Sweetwater Reservoir. The project may affect the quantity and quality of stormwater
runoff into the reservoir. Because Sweetwater Reservoir is a storage facility for drinking
water supplies, the project raises particular concerns in that it may affect water quality within
the reservoir.
. Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigarion Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the hydrology impacts to below a level of significance:
. A detailed drainage report and plan shall be prepared for the entire
project prior to SPA Plan approval. In the event that a SPA Plan for
the southern portion only is being considered, such plan for the
northern portion of the project will not be required.
. The detailed drainage report and plan shall contain the following
design components and hydrological data:
. The project's urban stormwater runoff system shall be
designed to convey runoff away from developed areas.
.
The design shall route runoff from the contributing sub.
basins in such a way as to avoid compounding peak
discharges.
.
~ ~~I ;I5
cI; X
.
The design shall ensure that any increase in stormwater
flow velocity will not result in channel scour in natural or
earthen channels (e.g., by routing runoff to man-made
retention ponds located within major drainage ways and
then, following the storm event, releasing the retained
water at a controlled rate).
........
. The design shall provide for sediment control, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
· The detailed drainage report and plan shall be subject to the approval
of the City Engineer.
· All stormwater runoff facilities shall be designed in accordance with the
criteria set forth in the Subdivision Manual or as determined by the
City Engineer.
· The project shall comply with all applicable regulations promulgated
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as set forth in the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements for urban runoff and stormwater discharge, along with
any applicable regulations adopted by the City.
· The developer shall obtain an NPDES construction permit from the
California State Water Resources Control Board and to submit
pollutant control and monitoring plans to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board for approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.
~
H. WATER QUALITY
Signi{icalll Effect: The project would generate substantial increases in surface runoff
due to increases in impervious surfaces, and could cause significant flooding and scouring
downstream. Water quality in the Sweetwater Reservoir may be compromised by urban
runoff from the project site.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final ErR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the water quality impacts to below a level of significance:
.
The project is subject to review and approval by the California
Environmental Protection Agency (formerly State Department of
Health Services). The project shall implement mitigation measures as
set by Cal-EPA.
-....
~
C; --/3/J
--;--
.~~.'/
.
Prior to or concurrent with SPA Plan approval, the applicant shall
obtain approval from the Sweetwater Authority and the Ca).EPA for
a diversion ditch plan, or other acceptable plan, to handle drainage
that might impact the Sweetwater Reservoir. Said plan shall satisfy the
Authority's standards for preservarion of water quality in the
Sweetwater Reservoir.
.
· The project applicant shall submit to the City an erosion control plan
prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with City of
Chula Vista design standards. The City Engineer shall approve the
plan prior to issuance of grading permits. The plan shall include
placement of sandbags, temporary sediment basins and an erosion
control maintenance plan.
. The Board of Directors of the Sweetwater Authority shall approve and
implement the stormwater protection plan which is now in the planning
process before that agency. Approval of these plans for these facilities,
including erosion control facilities, shall occur prior to issuance of a
grading permit. The runoff protection system shall be in: place and
fully operational before construction for Rancho San Miguel within the
Sweetwater Reservoir watershed commences.
.
.
.
A maintenance district shall be formed a,nd financed by the Sweetwater
Authority to ensure perpetual maintenance of the runoff protection
facilities whether within the City of Chula Vista or within th~ County
(Reynolds 1991).
. As part of the applicant's SPA Plan, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a water quality report addressing drainage from the northern
and southern portions of the development and from diverted drainage
from the runoff protection system in the north. The report shall
address proposed plans to reduce potential water quality degradation
of downstream tributaries. This issue shall be evaluated further at the
SPA Plan level.
I. TRAFFIC
Significant Effect: The proposed project does not identify the functional classifications
of roads that are to be constructed to serve the project. Since these roads are not included
in the final General Plan Circulation Element, their functional classification has not been
determined, which is considered to be a significant impact.
.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which are within the
jurisdiction of the County of San Diego and will, if implemented, avoid the identified
significant environmental effect and the County of San Diego can and should adopt these
changes as identified in Final ElR 90-02.
~
/--/J?
73T
.
.
.
Mitigation Measures: To reduce traffic impacts to below a level of significance, the
following mitigation measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions
of approval, shall be implemented:
· The proposed San Miguel Ranch Road shall be designated as a Four-
Lane Major Street between East H Street and SR 125 and a Four-
Lane Class I between SR 125 and Bonita Road.
· The proposed north entry road leading to the northern portion of the
site from San Miguel Ranch road shall be designated as a Two-Lane
Class II collector.
J. AIR QUALIlY
Significant Effect: Short-term pollutant emissions will occur during the construction
phase of the project. The air quality impacts are considered significant short-term impacts.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 1509r(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To reduce short-term pollutant emissions to below a level of
significance, the following mitigation measures, which are found to be feasible and are
required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented during the construction phase of
the project:
. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel
injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading
and construction.
. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as
soon as possible and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
. Trucks hauling fill material shall be covered.
. A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces.
.
To control dust raised by grading activities, the graded area shall be
watered twice a day, unless the county's current state of limited water
supplies still exists at the time of construction. In this case other
mitigation measures shall be considered and implemented upon City
approval. Such measures may include minimizing grading by designing
development to follow natural topography, phasing grading so relatively
smaller areas are exposed, and revegetating graded areas as rapidly as
possible.
* * * *
~/
<j--/J,r
/C3/
.
.
.
Sigllificalll Effect: Residential fireplace emissions from the project will emit criteria
air pollutants.
Filldillg: San Diego County currently exceeds ambient air quality standards for a
number of criteria air pollutants. Residential fireplace emissions from the project will
exacerbate the violation of these standards. This is true because development of the project
area was not factored into the air quality projections contained in the 1982 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) or thc 1991 Draft Regional Air Quality Standard (RAQS), and
neither the SIP nor the RAQS demonstrate attainment with air quality standards. The
mitigation measures described below will not reduce residential fireplace emissions to the
point where there is no net increase in ambient air pollutant concentrations. Although the
mitigation measures noted below would minimize the impacts on air quality, these impacts
would remain significant. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there
are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance.
As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigatioll Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with fireplace
emissions, but not to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found
to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
.
Fireplaces or other wood-burning appliances shall adhere to emissions
standards adopted by the County, the State, the San Diego APCD, and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
* * * *
Sigllificalll Effect: Residential water-heater and furnace emissions from the project
will emit criteria air pollutants.
Filldillg: San Diego County currently exceeds ambient air quality standards for a
number of criteria air pollutants. Emissions from residential water heaters and furnaces
within the project will exacerbate the violation of these standards. This is true because
development of the project area was not factored into the air quality projections contained
in the 1982 SIP or the 1991 Draft RAQS, and neither the SIP nor the RAQS demonstrate
attainment with air quality standards. The mitigation measures described below will not
reduce residential water-heater and furnace emissions to the point where there is no net
increase in ambient air pollutant concentrations. Although the mitigation measures noted
below would minimize the impacts on air quality, these impacts would remain significant.
Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures
that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that this impact
is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigatioll Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with residential water-
heater and furnace emissions, but not to below a level of significance, the following
~ 9--/31
)/3,;
measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall .-.
be implemented:
. The following methods shall be incorporated into development design
to reduce ROG, NOx and PM10 emissions:
. AJI residential units shall use solar energy with back-up low
NOx water heaters.
· Low-NOx commercial-size water heaters shall be installed in all
the larger onsite facilities.
· Residential and larger facility gas-fired furnaces shall be
outfitted with heat transfer modules providing a 70 percent
reduction in NOx emissions.
. The landscape design shall incorporate low natural hydrocarbon
(NHC) producing plant species (also requiring little water), such
as cape myrtle and Chinese elm.
.
To reduce air pollutant emissions from the proposed Rancho San
Miguel development, natural gas water heaters installed at residential
units could be equipped with solar collectors such as flat plate solar
panels.
.-.,.
· Solar systems normally can provide sufficient water heating capacity
during the sunny seasons. Natural gas-fired water heaters would
continue to be used to supplement the solar component. On a yearly
basis, solar energy could provide abut 52 percent of the energy needed
for a given water heating system (SCAQMD 1989) and thus effectively
reduce total annual pollutant emissions from water heaters by 52
percent.
· There are four basic tactics for the mitigation of air quality presented
as part of San Diego's attainment plans (APCD 1986): traffic flow
improvements, ridesharing, bicycling, and mass transit. Of the four, the
project, as proposed, incorporates bicycling and traffic flow
improvements as detailed in the City of Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan (TPP). The following additional mitigation measures shall
be implemented to reduce vehicular emissions impacts:
· A ridesharing program shall be implemented within the project.
.
Funding shall be provided by the project to subsidize increased
bus service in the vicinity of the proposed project.
.-.
~
J -/t(tJ
/53
.
.
.
.
Bicycle paths shalJ be included along roads as means of
alternate transportation.
· In accordance with the Growth Management Program adopted by the
City of Chula Vista on April 23, 1991 (Resolution No. 16101), an Air
Quality Improvement Plan shalJ be prepared by the project applicant
at the SPA Plan level.
. . * *
Significall1 Effect: Vehicular emissions associated with the Project will represent
approximately one-half percent of the total vehicular air polJutant emissions burden in the
San Diego Air Basin.
Finding: San Diego County currently exceeds ambient air quality standards for a
number of criteria air polJutants. Vehicular emissions generated by the project will
exacerbate the violation of these standards. This is true because development of the project
area was not factored into the air quality projections contained in the 1982 SEP or the 1991
Draft RAQS, and neither the SIP nor the RAQS demonstrate attainment with air quality
standards. The mitigation measures described below will not reduce vehicular emissions to
the point where there is no net increase in ambient air polJutant concentrations. Although
the mitigation measures noted below would minimize the impacts on air quality, these
impacts would remain significant. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a )(3) of the CEQA Guidelines,
there are no feasihle measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of
,
significance. As descrihed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
has determined that this impact is acceptahle because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with vehicular
emissions, but not to below a level of significance, the folJowing measures, which are found
to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shalJ be implemented:
· The project applicant shalJ prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan
(AQIP) that:
. provides an analysis of air pollution impacts that would result
from the project,
. demonstrates the best available design to reduce vehicle trips, maintain
or improve traffic flow, reduce vehicle miles travelled,
. includes implementation of appropriate traffic control measures
and other direct or indirect means of reducing emissions, and
. establishes a monitoring program.
~
9 -It! I
~
.
The AQIP shall be subject to:
-"
. review and comment by the Resource Conservation
Commission,
. review and comment by the Planning Commission,
. . approval by the City Engineer, and
. approval and adoption by the City Council.
The applicant shall obtain these approvals prior to approval of the
SPA Plan.
· A ride sharing program shall be implemented within the project.
· The applicant shall provide funding to subsidize increased bus service
in the vicinity of the project.
· The project shall incorporate bicycle lanes along designated roads
within the project.
.
The project shall incorporate all feasible, relevant and appropriate
mitigation measures developed in the RAQS.
~
K. NOISE
Sigllificalll Effect: Significant impacts would occur since noise levels in many areas
in the southern portion of the development, as designed, would exceed 65 dBA Ldn standard
due to traffic noise along future State Route 125 and several major roads proposed within
the development.
Filldillg: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigatioll Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the noise related impacts to below a level of significance:
· The applicant shall construct, or cause to be constructed, noise walls
or wall/berm combinations on the top of slopes adjacent to East H
Street, San Miguel Ranch Road and proposed State Route 125.
-
~ j-/'/d
e:J.
.
.
.
.
The noise walls shall be of solid masonry construction with a material
weight of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and which would not
allow any air space along their entire length.
. Each noise wall or wall/berm combination shall be placed on the
building pads at the top of the slope between the residences and the
adjacent impacting roadway. The required wall or wall/berm
combination height ranges from 8-10 feet for residences adjacent 10
Route 125 or East H Street; and from 5 to 6 feet for residences
adjacent to San Miguel Ranch Road. Because City regulations do not
permit walls over 6 feet in height, only the wall/berm combination
would be acceptable unless a project redesign is implemented.
. The visual impacts of the walls/berm combination to reduce noise
effects will be evaluated at the SPA Plan level, when actual dimensions
and design plans for the wall/berms will be available, as related to
impacts on San Miguel Ranch Road and East H Street. Impacts on
the development due to proposed SR 125 will be studied as part of the
EIR for whichever is built later in time, the Rancho San Miguel project
or the proposed SR 125.
L. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
1.
WATER
Significalll Effecr: The location of water facilities required to serve the project has
not yet been determined.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mirigarion Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the water-related impacts to below a level of significance:
.
Prior to SPA Plan approval, a Water Master Plan shall be prepared
and approved by the City Engineer. This plan shall delineate, at a
more detailed level, the recommendations of the Nolte and Associates
1990 Preliminary Water Concept Plan for Rancho San Miguel. The
Water Master Plan shall identify the location and sizing of specific
facilities and implementation/phasing of the plan. The impacts related
to the final placement of the water facilities shall be evaluated at the
SPA level, including impacts to biological resources, archaeological
resources and visual quality.
~.
9--;1;1
r36
· Prior to SPA Plan approval, the applicant shall obtain agreement from
the Sweetwater Authority to annex and then obtain agreement from
Otay Water District to deannex.
-.
* * * *
Significant Effect: Water consumption within the development will require
implementation of water conservation strategies.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the water-related impacts to below a level of significance:
.
In accordance with Ordinance No. 2448, the project applicant shall
prepare a Water Conservation Plan to be submitted with the SPA Plan
for approval by the City. This plan shall provide an analysis of water
usage requirements of the proposed project, as well as a detailed plan
of proposed measures for water conservation, use of reclaimed water,
other means of reducing per capita water consumption from the
proposed project, and define a program to monitor compliance. This
plan shall be reviewed by the Resource Conservation Commission and
Planning Commission, prior to final review and adoption by the City
Council (Growth Management Program) City of Chula Vista, April 23,
1991, Resolution No. 16101.
-.,
· Reclaimed water shall be used wherever feasible, as planned. The
project applicant shall begin negotiations with the Otay Water District
to ensure distribution of reclaimed water to the site.
· Water- conservation measures for on site landscaping and roadside
maintenance shall include, but not be limited to planting of drought
tolerant vegetation and the use of irrigation systems which minimize
runoff and evaporation loss.
· Low-flush toilets and low-flow showers and faucets shall be installed.
· Hot water lines in water recirculating systems shall be insulated
(California Energy Commission).
-.,
6V
~~/Y'-/
~.
.
.
.
2. SEWAGE
Sigllificallt Effect: There is a physical limitation to the offsite transport of Rancho San
Miguel's wastewater. The Frisbie Street trunk sewer between Corral Canyon Road and
Bonita Road may not have the capacity to handle the additional Rancho San Miguel sewage
flow. Otay Water District ("OWD") staff have met with San Diego County and Chula Vista
staff to discus capacity in the Frisbie Street trunk sewer and concepts to free capacity for
development while maintaining OWD's ability to discharge 1.2 mgd. OWD has
acknowledged Rancho San Miguel's right to 1.5 mgd capacity in the Frisbie Street trunk line
based on existing agreements. Impacts associated with offsite transport of Rancho San
Miguel wastewater are considered to be significant.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the sewage impacts to below a level of significance:
.
Prior to SPA Plan approval, a Wastewater Master Plan ("WMP") shall
be prepared subject to approval by the City Engineer. The WMP shall
accomplish the standards set forth in the Nolte and Associates 1990
Preliminary Sewer Concept Plan for Rancho San Miguel. The WMP
shall identify the location and sizing of onsite and offsite sewage
facilities, implementation/phasing, and funding. The WMP shall discuss
potential impacts to the Sweetwater Reservoir in the event of a break
in the sewerline or sewage spill in the portion of the project within the
Sweetwater drainage basin. The impacts related to the final placement
of the sewerage facilities shall be evaluated at the SPA level including
impacts to biological resources, archaeological resources, visual quality,
and water quality. This should include final locations of both onsite
and offsite facilities. Sewer system design shall be approved by the
City's Engineering Department at SPA level.
. An actual sewer flow measurement or a study to accurately estimate
existing wastewater flows in the Frisbie Street trunk sewer shall be
conducted before project flows can enter the system. Metering of the
Frisbie Street trunk sewer shall be performed by the applicant.
.
The project shall be subject to payment of wastewater development
fees (to fund trunk sewer and other upgrades) or equivalent
proportionate facility financing mechanism necessary to provide service
to this project as identified by the City, when adopted. Payment shall
occur prior to issuance of building permits or earlier.
~
9---/t/~
~
3.
POLICE PROTECTION
.........
Significant Effect: The project would require the addition of three new officers and
five additional support staff to the police force.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the public service-related impacts to below a level of significance:
· The project applicant shall be responsible for fronting the necessary
funds to enable the City to purchase the requisite equipment for the
new police officers. and support staff. If required to finance this
equipment, the project applicant will be entitled to credit against all or
a portion of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees for Police
Se rvi ce s.
4. FIRE PROTECTION
Significalll Effect: The Chula Vista Fire Department ("CVFD") and the .........
Bonita/Sunnyside Fire Protection District ("BSF") would be responsible for fire protection
and inspection services in the project area. Development of the project in an area that is
presently almost entirely undeveloped would place new service demands on the CYFD and
the BSF. The CVFD is currently considering establishing a permanent fire station that
would serve the project. Several scenarios for the location of the station are proposed and
analyzed. Fire service response times would be inadequate for the northern portion of the
site under several scenarios. Constraints to fire protection in the northern portion include
the negative impacts associated with the provision of only one access road to serve the entire
1,852-acre northern portion, limited maneuverability for fire trucks once in the northern
portion, slowing down to access gated communities and steep roads. In addition, fire
protection for the proposed conference and interpretive centers cannot be determined
without more detailed information on these facilities.
The danger of brush fires represents potentially significant fire hazard impacts to
dwellings that are located near hillsides.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations bave been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce .........
the public service-related impacts to below a level of significance:
y
C;~)tJ-b
~
.
.
.
.
Impacts related to the proposed conference and interpretive centers
cannot be mitigated without more detailed information regarding usage
and sizing of the facilities. These impacts shall be fully analyzed at the
SPA Plan review level.
· The project applicant shall provide a second access road to the
northern portion if the new fire station is located in EastLake I (Chase
1991) unless the Chula Vista Fire Department determines that the
second access road is not required for provision of adequate fire and
emergency medical service.
· Fire sprinklers shall be installed in all buildings and residences in the
northern portion of the site (Gove 1991).
· A control system shall be installed that utilizes a special light on the
fire truck to open gates for the gated communities electronically
(Y okley 1991).
.
The applicant shall be required to provide a brush rig for the Chula
Vista fire department, in accordance with the Public Facilities DIF -
Fire Suppression System. The brush rig should be on-hand prior to
any building permit being issued by the City for the northern portion
of the project. For providing the brush rig, the developer shall be
entitled to a credit against all or a portion of their share of the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee related to the fire suppression
system and/or a repayment from future DIF fees collected by the City
(Chase 1991).
. The project shall implement an acceptable brush management plan, as
proposed by the applicant. Impacts of the plan shall be evaluated at
the SPA level.
5. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) PROTECTION
Significalll Effect: EMS response times would be greater than city standards in the
northern portion of the site.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the public service-reiated impacts to below a level of significance:
~~---/t/?
flu
.
Provide a second access road to the northern portion that enables
emergency medical technicians to reach the required number of units
within 10 minutes.
"""
6. SCHOOLS
Significallt Effect: The project would bring approximately 496 additional elementary
school students to the district. An elementary school is proposed by the project; however,
financing for this facility has not been determined. Although a high school serving the
project will be sited at Otay Ranch, funding has not been arranged.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the public service-related impact to below a level of significance:
.
As required by state law, the developer must pay school fees of $1.58
per square foot of habitable space for residential development and
$0.26 per square foot of commercial development (Heydt 1990).
Payment of development fees would not be adequate to fully mitigate
the impacts to elementary and high schools in the area.
"""
· Prior to SPA Plan approval, the project applicant shall provide
documentation from the Chula Vista City School District ("CYCSD")
that the proposed elementary school site location is acceptable to the
district. Funding for the school shall be in compliance with CYCSD
procedures and shall involve the Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District financing method or other financing mechanisms acceptable to
CYCSD.
· Prior to SPA Plan approval, the project applicant shall provide
documentation to the City confirming satisfaction of SUHSD facility
funding requirements to offset student generation impacts. Funding
would be satisfied through the Mello Roos Community Facilities
District financing method or other means acceptable to the Sweetwater
Union High School District ("SUHSD").
· Prior to issuance of any building permits for Rancho San Miguel, the
project applicant shall obtain written verification from CYCSD and
SUHSD that adequate school facilities and associated financing will be
provided for students generated from the project.
.-,
~
'j-J'-Iff
jJ/--r
.
.
.
L.
PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE
Significalll Effect: The project proposes an integrated hiking and equestrian trail
system that connects to the County's regional system. The system would provide access into
areas designated as open space that contain sensitive biological resources, creating significant
biological impacts.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the impacts to below a level of significance:
· The trail system layout and site specific designs shall be prepared in
coordination with the City's Park and Recreation Department and the
Environmental Coordinator. The location of trails within power
transmission easements is discouraged by the City's Parks and
Recreation Department. This issue will be further analyzed at the SPA
Plan level at which time the potential impacts will be re-evaluated.
.
The trail system shall be managed and policed in a manner that will be
consistent with the objective of protecting the habitat and associated
plant and animal species from harm.
. A list of rules regarding proper trail use shall be posted at the
interpretative center and also at strategic locations along the trail
system.
· Dog-owners shall not be allowed to bring their pets onto any trails
within the trail system that occur in open space areas, on or off leash.
. Use of the open space area shall be limited to designated trails.
. Collecting or molesting natural resources (e.g. Horned lizards, cactus,
flowers) shall be prohibited.
. Open fires, smoking, and weapons shall not be allowed in the open
space areas and trail system.
.
Mountain bikes shall be prohibited, due to the extreme sensitivity and
regional value of the biological resources in the areas traversed by the
trail, and because mountain biking often generates off trail impacts.
~.
7~/'ii
71:;'-
.
Certain portions of the trail system that traverse sensitive habitat shall
be subject to periodic closure to help protect wildlife and allow
recovery of the habitat.
~.
· The portion of the trail system that crosses the most eastern areas of
the SDG&E property shall be rerouted as far east as is feasible
(possibly utilizing an existing jeep trail) to avoid a Golden Eagle
perching site located in the area.
· Areas the trails access shall be periodically to ascertain damage from
overuse. If it is determined that an area is being degraded the
associated trail shall be closed periodically to allow for recovery from
use.
· All trails shall be constructed to prevent the channeling of urban runoff
into the surrounding open space and Sweetwater Reservoir, to the
extent feasible.
* * * *
Significalll EffecT: Portions of the trail system are in SDG&E power transmission
easements, which has limited acceptability to the City's Parks and Recreation Department.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
---
MiTigaTion Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the impacts to below a level of significance:
· The trail system should be located outside of power transmission line
easements, to the extent feasible, and in no event will any active uses
be allowed within the transmission line easements. However, the issue
shall be further analyzed at the SPA Plan level, when more specific
development plans can be reviewed.
. * * *
Significalll EffecT: The location of staging areas for hiking and equestrian activities
have not been finalized.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no
feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance until more
specific development plans are prepared and analyzed at the SPA Plan level. As described
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that this
impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
---
~
'1-/~O
~
* * * *
. Significalll Effect: Development of the unpaved portion of the trail system could
result in soil erosion and resulting water quality impacts.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no
feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance until more
specific development plans are prepared and analyzed at the SPA Plan level. As described
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that this
impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the impacts to below a level of significance:
. The trail system should be located outside of power transmission line
easements, to the extent feasible, and in no event will any active uses
be allowed within the transmission line easements. However, the issue
shall be further analyzed at the SPA Plan level, when more specific
development plans can be reviewed.
* * * *
.
IX.
SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects." (Public Resources Code ~21082.2b). Several development proposals have
been submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by the City of Chula Vista
in proximity to Rancho San Miguel. These "current or probable future" development
proposals would affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as
Rancho San Miguel. Several potentially significant cumulative impacts are associated with
development of Rancho San Miguel in conjunction with these surrounding development
projects.
The proposed project along with the other related projects will result in the following
irreversible environmental changes: Land Use/Conversion of Open Space, LandformNisual
Quality, Biology, Archaeology, Air Quality and Nonrenewable Energy Resources. These
significant cumulative impacts are discussed in the Supplement to Draft EIR 90-02, at pages
10-1 through 10-14.
.
Certain of the above cumulative impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided.
As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has
determined that these cumulative impacts have been reduced to an acceptable level when
balanced against specific overriding considerations. The sub-sections, below, define each of
the above-described cumulative impact issues, setting forth either the reasons why they are
significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures adopted to substantially lessen or avoid
..--:rr.
f--- /f/
;-tjv'
them, or the reasons why proposed mitigation measures are infeasible due to specific,
economic, social or other considerations.
----.
A. LAND USE/CONVERSION OF OPEN SPACE
Significalll Effect: Development of the project as revised would contribute to an
incremental increase in the area's conversion of open space to urban land uses. The City's
General Plan designates the proposed project as a developable area. . Incorporation of
permanent natural open space into the project design would offset some of the impacts
related to conversion of open space to urban uses. Despite these general mitigation
measures, the project would contribute to a significant, unmitigated cumulative land use
impact.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would
mitigate this cumulative impact to below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
B. LANDFORMNISUAL QUALITY
Significant Effect: The development, in combination with various development
projects in the area, would unavoidably contribute to a significant cumulative effect on the
existing natural landform and the area's visual quality.
----
Finding: Although the mitigation measures noted below would minimize cumulative
impacts to landforms, these impacts would remain cumulatively significant. Pursuant to
Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would
mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are
acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: General mitigation measures being incorporated into this project
and other development projects in the area would serve to offset some of the identified
landform/visual quality impacts. These mitigation measures include a review of grading plans
by a licensed civil engineer, adherence to city grading ordinances and hillside development
guidelines, contour grading, slope revegetation and restrictive grading to the building pad.
C. BIOLOGY
Significalll Effect: The development would contribute to a significant incremental
cumulative loss of quality biology habitat in the region.
Finding: Despite mitigation measures taken to preserve biological resources in this
project and in other related development projects, the impact of this project and other
development projects on sensitive species and habitat is cumulative and significant. Pursuant ____
to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no other feasible measures that
would mitigate this cumulative impact to below a level of significance. As described in the
/ 7--/~~
/~
.
.
.
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: Revegetation efforts, onsite and offsite re-creation of habitats
and offsite habitat preservation programs partially mitigate the identified cumulative impact
to biological resources.
D. ARCHAEOLOGY
Significant Effect: The development, in combination with the various development
projects in the area, would unavoidably contribute to a significant cumulative adverse effect
on existing cultural resources through grading, excavation and construction activities, and
expose unprotected sites in open space areas to degradation due to increased human
recreational activity.
Finding: Despite implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, this project,
together with other approved or probable projects, will have a significant cumulative effect
upon cultural resources. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there
are no other feasible measures that would mitigate this cumulative impact to below a level
of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the
City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures adopted for this and other projects include
monitoring grading activities by qualified archaeologists and paleontologists, protective
easements around areas of regional archaeological/historical importance and/or data recovery
programs at sites which will be affected by development-related construction or recreation
activities.
E. WATER SUPPLY
Significant Effect: The development would contribute to an incremental significant
cumulative impact on the region's limited water supply, as would any development on the
site. Development along the Sweetwater River could also cumulatively impact recreational
uses of the waterway and have an adverse affect on native plants that are part of the
sensitive estuary system at the mouth of the river.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. Impacts to water
supplies will, however, remain cumulatively significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate these impacts to
below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific
overriding considerations.
~
~--- /~3
/f/6
MiTigaTion Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts to water supplies, but ""'"
not to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible
and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
· The project-specific mitigation measures related to water supply shall
be implemented.
F. AIR QUALIIT
SignificallT EffecT: The development would contribute to an unmitigated cumulative
air quality impact on regional air quality because the proposed development was not
considered when the regional air quality attainment plans were formulated for the 1982 SIP
revisions for San Diego region. This conclusion also applies to any of the project
alternatives (other than the no project alternative). The updated SIP will include the
proposed project.
Project emissions in NOx, reactive organic gases (ROG) and PMlO from vehicular
and stationary sources (including fireplaces and water heaters) will add to existing
exceedances of state and federal ambient air quality standards. Because San Diego currently
exceeds air quality standards for several pollutants, any additional emissions will contribute
to San Diego's inability to meet these standards. Therefore, these air quality impacts are
considered to be cumulatively significant.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. Impacts to air
quality will, however, remain cumulatively significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate these impacts to below a
level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however,
the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
""'"
MiTigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts to air quality, but not
to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
· The following methods shall be incorporated into development design
to reduce ROG, NOx and PMlO emissions:
· All residential units shall use solar energy with back-up low
NOx water heaters.
· Low-NOx commercial-size water heaters and solar panels shall
be installed in all the larger onsite facilities.
""'"
x
~ - IS-if
~
.
.
.
.
Residential and larger facility gas-fired furnaces shall be
outfitted with heat transfer modules providing a 70 percent
reduction in NOx emissions.
· The landscape design shall incorporate in the landscape design
low natural hydrocarbon (NHC) producing plant species (also
requiring little water), such as cape myrtle and Chinese elm.
· To reduce air pollutant emissions from the proposed Rancho San
Miguel development, natural gas water heaters installed at residential
units shall be equipped with solar collectors such as flat plate solar
panels.
. Solar systems normally can provide sufficient water heating capacity
during the sunny seasons. Natural gas-fired water heaters would
continue to be used to supplement the solar component. On a yearly
basis, solar energy could provide abut 52 percent of the energy needed
for a given water heating system (SCAQMD 1989) and thus effectively
reduce total annual pollutant emissions from water heaters by 52
percent.
.
There are four basic tactics for the mitigation of air quality presented
as part of San Diego's attainment plans (APCD 1986): traffic flow
improvements, ridesharing, bicycling, and mass transit. Of the four, the
project, as proposed, incorporates bicycling and traffic flow
improvements as detailed in the City of Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan (TPP). The following additional mitigation measures shall
be implemented to reduce vehicular emissions impacts:
. A ride sharing program shall be implemented within the project.
. Funding shall be provided by the project to subsidize increased
bus service in the vicinity of the proposed project.
. Bicycle paths shall be included along roads as means of
alternate transportation.
. In accordance with the Growth Management Program adopted by the
City of Chula Vista on April 23, 1991 (Resolution No. 16101), an Air
Quality Improvement Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant
at the SPA Plan level.
G. NONRENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
Sigllificalll Effect: The development would contribute to a significant cumulative
increase in the demand for nonrenewable energy resources.
~
~'-/33
~
7 ~/-1
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would ..........
mitigate this cumulative impact to below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
H. HYDROLOGY
Significant Effect: The project, together with other planned or approved projects In
the area, will replace undeveloped land with impervious surfaces, thereby increasing the
quantity and velocity of runoff and raising the risk of flooding and erosion. It will
cumulatively reduce the rate of groundwater recharge. Finally, it will have cumulative effects
on the quality of stormwater runoff.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with
hydrology to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be
feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
.
A hydrologic analysis of the project shall be performed and a plan shall
be prepared, as detailed above in connection with project-specific
hydrological impacts.
..........
· Erosion control plans, diversion ditch plans and storm drain plans shall
be developed for the project.
· All project plans pertaining to hydrology shall be reviewed and
approved by a licensed civil engineer.
· The project shall be subject to and comply with. all applicable
requirements set forth in a Sweetwater Authority Urban Runoff
Protection System.
* * * *
I. WATER QUALITY
Sigllificallt Effect: Stormwater runoff from the project will be diverted to the
Sweetwater River below the Sweetwater Reservoir. This runoff, together with runoff from
other planned or approved projects in the area, could cumulatively degrade the quality of
river water, which could in turn affect aquatic life.
Filldillg: Pursuant to Section 1509](a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or '-\
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
~ t~!fZ
I-ft'l
.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with water
quality to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be
feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
· The project-specific mitigation measures related to water quality shall
be implemented, together with the measures relating to water quality
for other approved or probable projects.
. * * *
J. TRANSPORTATION
Significalll Effect: The project, together with other planned or approved projects in
the area, will result in an overall increase in traffic volumes in the City. Certain elements
of the circulation system are projected to operate below acceptable levels due to this
cumulative increase in traffic.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with
transportation to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to
. be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. The project-specific mitigation measures related to transportation shall
be implemented, together with the measures relating to transportation
for other approved or probable projects.
. The issue of transportation will be considered further at the SPA Plan
level, when more specific development plans are available for review.
* * * *
K. NOISE
Significant Effect: The project, together with other planned or approved projects in
the area, will result in an overall increase in noise, primarily due to cumulative increases in
vehicular traffic.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with noise
to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and
. are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
~
;J~/S7
leI?'
.
The project-specific mltJgation measures related to noise shall be
implemented, together with the measures relating to noise for other
approved or probable projects.
.-.,
. The noise-related issues will be considered further at the SPA Plan
level, when more specific development plans are available for review.
* * * *
L. OPEN SPACE
Sigllificalll Effect: The project, together with other planned or approved projects in
the area, will contribute to a cumulatively significant conversion of existing open space to
urban uses.
Filldillg: Pursuant to Section 1509](a)(]) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. Impacts to open space will,
however, remain cumulatively significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3),
there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of
significance. As described in the State of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigatioll Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with
conversion of open space to urban uses, but not to below a level of significance, the
following measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions of
approval, shall be implemented:
"""'.
· Natural open space shall be incorporated into project design.
· The applicant shall dedicate open-space easements to the City or
county for those portions of the project designated for open space.
* * * *
X. FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR include a description of a
reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could
feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. The EIR must also include an evaluation
of the "no project" alternative. The discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives
"capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a
level of insignificance." CEQA Guidelines, ]4 Cal.CodeRegs. ~]5]26(d)(3). In addition, the
CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR describe reasonable and feasible mitigation measures
which could minimize significant adverse impacts. CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaLCodeRegs. .--.
~ ]5126( c).
~
'1-- /fY'
~
.
.
.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings a lead agency need not necessarily
address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives
when contemplating the approval of a proposed project with significant unmitigated impacts.
Where a significant impact can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by
the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation
to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts
would be less severe than those of the proposed project as mitigated. Laurel Heights
Improvement Association v. Regellfs of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376;
Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515; see also,
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692. Accordingly, for
this project, in adopting the findings concerning project alternatives, the City considers only
those environmental impacts that, for the proposed project, are significant and cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.
Where, as in this project, significant environmental effects remain even after
application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final Program EIR, the
decision makers must evaluate the project alternatives identified in the Final Program EIR.
Under these circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives.
"Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable
time, taking economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors into account
(Guidelines ~ 15364).
If no project alternatives are feasible, the decisionmakers will' have to determine
whether to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the project. If
there is a feasible project alternative, the decisionmakers must decide whether it is
environmentally superior to the project. (All project alternatives considered must be ones
which "could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project" [Guidelines ~15126(d)]).
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to
demonstrate that the selection of the project as revised, while still resulting in significant
environmental impacts, has superior environmental and other benefits.
In rejecting certain alternatives, the decision makers have examined the project
objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The
decisionmakers believe that the project as revised best meets the project objectives with the
least environmental impact. The objectives considered by the decisionmakers are:
1. Creation of a high-quality residential development consistent with the
General Plan designation of Low Residential (0-3 du/ac)
2. Provision of a commercial center, community park and elementary
school to serve the needs of Rancho San Miguel.
3. Implementation of significant elements of the City's General Plan as
follows:
~ '1--/>1
~
.
Preservation of open space corridors and extension of the
greenbelt system proposed for the periphery of the city through
the provision of approximately 1,648 acres of permanent open
space as depicted in the General Plan;
~
· Preservation of Mother Miguel Mountain which is designated as
a significant landform by the City's General Plan;
· Implement regional and local circulation needs by providing for
the extension of future Highway 125 and surface street
connection from East H Street to Bonita Road;
· Provide necessary public utilities and services to the area
including drainage, water, sewage, schools, police, fire, parks,
open space and recreation;
· Provide linkage to schools, parks and shopping centers through
the use of bicycle and pedestrian trails as an alternative to the
automobile.
4. Provision of a resort facility to serve the surrounding community and
visitors to the area.
-.
A. ALTERNATIVES
1. No Project Alternative
The no project alternative assumes that no development would occur on the project
site. In other words, the project site would remain in its current undeveloped condition.
Because the project site would remain undeveloped under the no project alternative, all of
the unmitigated impacts of the project as revised would be avoided. However, the no
project alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons:
a. Incomislelll Wilh Ciry's General Plan
The Chula Vista General Plan designates the project site primarily as
"Residential Low (0-3 dwelling units/gross acre)," which includes commercial, school, park
and open space uses. The project as revised provides for such development and uses, and
therefore is consistent with the City's General Plan designation. However, the no project
alternative, which contemplates no development at the project site, is not consistent with the
City's General Plan designation for the project site.
In addition, the Eastern Territories Element of the City's General Plan
contains objectives which call for the creation of a balanced community of residential,
commercial, industrial and open space uses. The project as revised provides for. a balanced
community. The no project alternative, however, does not provide this benefit, as it does
-.
~
tj-It.o
~
.
.
.
not contemplate development of the project site for urban development, including
residential, school, park, commercial and open space uses.
b. Eliminates Fiscal Benefits to City
As vacant, undeveloped property, the project site generates no revenue for the
City of Chula Vista; however, the City incurs very few costs from the site in its vacant
condition. This fiscal situation would continue under the no project alternative. However,
the project as revised anticipates a positive fiscal impact on the City of Chula Vista. (Draft
EIR, p. 3.14-1). Operating revenues are expected to exceed operating costs over a ten year
period (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-1, 3.14-2). Once buildout is completed, the project is projected
to result in a positive fiscal benefit to the City of $530,897 per year in current dollars. (Draft
EIR, pp. 3.14-3, 3.14-4). This positive fiscal benefit would not be realized under the no
project alternative.
c. Illconsistellt With Project Objectives
The no project alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project. For
example, the objectives considered by the City, which would not be realized under the no
project alternative, include: (i) creation of high-quality residential development consistent
with the "Low Residential (0-3 du/ac)" General Plan designation; (ii) provision of a
commercial center, community park and elementary school to serve the needs of the project
site; (iii)implementation of regional and local circulation needs by providing for the extension
of future State Route ("SR ]25") and surface street connection from East H Street to Bonita
Road; (iv) the implementation of necessary public utilities and services to the area including
drainage, water, sewage, schools, police, fire, parks, open space and recreation; and (v) a
linkage to schools, parks and shopping centers through the use of bicycle and pedestrian
trails as an alternative to the automobile.
2. Horseshoe Bend Alternative
This alternative preserves Horseshoe Bend, a U-shaped landform located in the
western half of the southern portion of the project. Under this alternative, the number of
dwelling units in the Residential Low areas of the southern portion would be 1,261 units as
compared to 1,166 units under the revised project (i.e., the New Plan). By preserving
Horseshoe Bend, this alternative would reduce the landform and visual quality impacts
associated with the project as revised. The alternative would also preserve approximately
35 to 40 acres more open space than the project as revised. In addition, the alternative
would reduce some biological impacts as compared to the project.
Because this alternative affects only the southern portion of the project, the northern
portion would remain the same as in the project as revised.
Despite reductions in impacts to landform/visual quality and biology, the Horseshoe
Bend Alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons:
~
c;/'/6/
T.J Y
a. Sigllificam Impacts Remaill
~
Impacts which would remain significant with this alternative include: air quality,
biology and landform/visual. Impacts which would remain significant but mitigable are:
cultural resources, geology, soils, hydrology, noise, transportation/access, public services and
utilities, parks, recreation and open space. Under the Horseshoe Bend Alternative and the
project as revised, Gobbler's Knob, also a topographic feature in the project area, would be
eliminated by proposed grading, creating significant grading impacts. Mass grading of other
areas in the southern portion would also remain a significant impact. The staff report
prepared in connection with the Final EIR indicates that these two landforms are not
significant under applicable Chula Vista General Plan provisions; these two landforms would
create a barrier to the continuity of the project as revised; preservation of the landforms
wou; require realignment of San Miguel Ranch Road from its optimal alignment; and if left
int: these landforms would present erosion hazards. Finally, biological and air quality
1mf ., would remain significant and unmitigable.
b. Incollsistem With Objectives
A stated objective for the project is the creation of a high-quality residential
de\ .lpment consistent with the "Low Residential" General Plan designation. Under the
Hon,eshoe Bend Alternative, the desired quality level for the development would be difficult
to achieve. This is because Horseshoe Bend, as preserved, would ~ssentially split the _,
southern portion, creating a barrier to the cohesion and continuity of the project. In
addition, if Horseshoe Bend were preserved, San Miguel Ranch Road would have to be
moved from its optimal alignment; such a realignment would be inconsistent with the
project's circulation objectives and would adversely impact the proposed preserve for the
Otay Tarweed.
3. The Coon Canyon Alternative
This alternative preserves Coon Canyon, a major drainage course located in the
northern portion of the project that flows into Sweetwater Reservoir. This alternative would
accommodate a total of 1,606 units as opposed to the project's 1,619 units. The northern
portion would conta'in approximately 276 dwelling units, rather than 357 units under the
project as revised. The southern would contain approximately 1,330 units (approximately
164 more dwelling units than the project as revised).
The purpose of the Coon Canyon Alternative is to reduce biological impacts
associated with the northern portion of the project. Despite biological benefits to the
northern portion of the project, this alternative is considered infeasible for the following
reasons:
a. 'Significam Impacts Remain
This alternative would create significant land use impacts, as it contemplates
development of areas on the eastern side of the southern portion which are currently
designated as open space. This alternative reduces visual impacts to the northern portion,
-.,
~
<j --/6;2-
~
.
.
.
but creates additional visual impacts to the southern portion. Impacts to two sensitive
habitats, Diegan Coastal sage scrub and wetlands, would be reduced under this alternative;
but impacts to non-native grassland (a non-sensitive habitat) would increase. The Coon
Canyon Alternative would al~o increase direct impacts to five important archaeological sites
in the southern portion of the project. The alternative also would reduce the amount of
impervious surface from the project and therefore reduce runoff impacts. Development
would be removed from an area that drains directly into the Sweetwater Reservoir.
However, a detailed drainage report and plan would still be required to reduce significant
hydrological impacts. Less urban runoff toward the Sweetwater Reservoir would be
generated by this alternative compared to the proposed project since urban development
would be substantially reduced in the northern portion. However, the proposed runoff
protection system would still be required to mitigate impacts to the Sweetwater Reservoir.
b. IlIcOllsistelll With Objectives
The project's objectives include provision of resort and recreational facilities
to serve the surrounding community and visitors to the area. To satisfy these objectives, the
project contemplates the development of a conference center, inn and interpretive center.
Under the Coon Canyon Alternative, these facilities would not be built, reducing the quality
of the overall development. City revenues to be generated by the conference center and inn
also would not be realized.
4. Biologically Sensitive Alternative
Under the Biologically Sensitive Alternative, the northern portion of the project
would not be developed. In addition, the number of acres developed in the southern portion
of the project would be reduced. Development would be restricted to 461 acres located on
the western and central portions of the southern portion of the project. The number of
units slated for the Residential Low areas of the southern portion would increase from 1,166
units to 1,600 units. However, this increase would be accomplished by means of a more
compact and dense design.
This alternative would reduce significant impacts to landform/visual (northern portion
only), biology, cultural, geology, hydrology, water quality, transportation, air quality, public
services and open space. For example, impacts to biological and archaeological impacts
would be substantially reduced. The alternative also would substantially lessen the amount
of runoff projected for the site as compared to the project as revised. As a result, the
Sweetwater Reservoir would not be impacted by urban runoff. In addition, this alternative
would lighten the demand on public services in the area, since development would be
concentrated in a smaller area, thus reducing the distance required to extend utilities.
Although the Biologically Sensitive Alternative, in many cases, would substantially
reduce biological impacts, it is nevertheless considered infeasible for the following reasons:
~ ;"'/6]'
~
a.
Sigllificant Impacts Remaill
-"
As noted, severa] impacts would be reduced by this alternative; however, some
impacts would remain significant. These impacts include ]andform/visual quality (significant
because Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob would be extensively graded), biological
resources (still significant due to the presence of large concentrations of Otay Tarweed, a
state endangered plant), cultural resources, geo]ogy/soils, hydrology and public services and
utilities. AI] other impacts would be similar to those of the revised project. Therefore, this
alternative, while environmentally superior to the other design alternatives (except the No
Project Alternative), does not eliminate the majority of the impacts that would occur with
development on this site.
b. Incollsistent With City's General Plall
The Biologically Sensitive Alternative contemplates an increase in housing
densities in the southern portion (from 1,]66 to ],600 units), which would result in an overall
density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Such a density ratio is inconsistent with the
City's Genera] Plan, which designates the project site as Low Residential (0-3 du/ac). Thus,
a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") would be required before this alternative could be
adopted. Although a GPA is not itself considered infeasible, it is not part of the project at
this time.
c.
Illcollsistellf With Objectives
-.,
The project objectives include the creation of a high quality residential
development that conforms to the General Plan's Low Residential designation. The project
as revised satisfies this important objective; however, the Biologically Sensitive Alternative
would result in densities greater than 3 du/ac in the southern portion and, therefore, is
inconsistent with the project objectives. The 357 proposed Jots on the northern portion of
the project provide opportunity for a "showcase" of sensitively-designed development, with
mass grading eschewed in favor of individual, custom lot design using minima] grading and
construction techniques such as stemwall foundations, post and beam construction, and
multip]e level structures to insure responsiveness to natura] topography. The proposed
conference center and inn, which would provide a unique facility in the South Bay, would
not be part of the northern portion of the project. The proposed interpretive center, which
would provide a second "anchor" to the City's greenbelt (a]ong with the Bayfront Nature
Interpretive Center), would not be part of the project as revised. For these reasons, the City
rejects this alternative.
5. South Only Development Alternative
The South Only Development Alternative limits development of the project site to
the southern portion only. Development in the southern portion would be the same as for
the proposed project, although the number of dwelling units would increase. The alternative
would eliminate all development in the northern portion, and the associated impacts in that -"
area would not occur. The primary benefits of this alternative are that: (i) impacts to water
quality would be eliminated since the northern portion would not be developed, thereby
~.
9--/~r{
rP/
.
.
.
removing the potentia] for contamination of Sweetwater Reservoir; (ii) impacts to biological
resources in the northern portion would be eliminated; and (iii) impacts to archaeological
resources in the northern portion would be avoided. This alternative also would reduce
impacts to geology and hydrology.
Despite these benefits, this alternative exacerbates certain impacts to the southern
portion and is considered infeasible. This alternative is inconsistent with some of the
project's objectives and is considered infeasible for that reason as well.
a. Significant Impacts Remain
The landform and visual quality impacts for the southern portion would not
be avoided under this alternative and would be the same as those of the project as revised.
In particular, Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob would still be removed by mass grading,
which is a significant unmitigable impact. Visual impacts would still occur along the
northern ridge]ine of the southern portion for a limited number of lots, as these lots would
face SDG&E facilities after SDG&E expands the existing substation. Views along a small
portion of East H Street would still be degraded by development along this scenic highway.
These impacts are considered significant. All biological impacts for the southern portion
would still occur. Significant impacts to cultural resources, geology/soils, air quality, and
other identified impacts would be reduced but not to below a level of significance.
b. Inconsistent With Objectives
The South Only Alternative is also inconsistent with the project objectives and
significant benefits associated with the project as revised. For example, the 357 proposed
lots on the northern portion of the project provide opportunity for a "showcase" of
sensitively-designed development, with mass grading eschewed in favor of individual, custom
lot design using minimal grading and construction techniques such as stemwall foundations,
post and beam construction, and multip]e level structures to insure responsiveness to natural
topography. The proposed conference center and inn, which would provide a unique facility
in the South Bay, would not be part of the northern portion of the project. The proposed
interpretive center, which would provide a second "anchor" to the City's greenbelt (along
with the Bayfront Nature Interpretive Center), would not be part of the project as revised.
For these reasons, the City rejects this alternative.
6. SR 125 Alternative W5
The SR 125 Alternative W5 examines the proposed project based on an alternative
alignment of future SR 125. Instead of forming the western boundary of the proposed
project's southern portion, SR 125 would traverse the eastern half of the southern portion
in a north/south alignment. With this alignment, SR 125 would travel through the SDG&E
property north of the substation and immediately adjacent to the south-western corner of
the northern portion of the project site. The purpose of this alternative is to propose a
residential development design which would accommodate this alternative freeway alignment.
This alternative would alter the configurations of the eastern half of the southern portion
~ 9~/~3
~
and the southwestern corner of the northern portion of the project site. All other aspects
of the project would remain as proposed.
.-,
This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons:
a. Significall1 Impacts Remain
. If the project is constructed prior to resolution of the freeway alignment issue,
the SR 125 W5 alternative would create significant negative impacts on the project. The
eastern edge of the project would be separated from the rest of the project by SR 125,
disrupting the continuity of the neighborhood which should be avoided from a land use
planning standpoint. The SR 125 W5 alternative positions the freeway so that it runs
between residential neighborhoods, creating noise impacts on both sides of the road. The
homesites located immediately adjacent to the freeway would experience noise levels in
excess of 65 dBa Ld" By contrast, the alignment of SR 125 in the project as revised places
the freeway alongside the southwestern portion of the project rather than between
residential neighborhoods (see New Plan, Figure 5-5); therefore, the number of homesites
impacted by road noise is reduced. Significant impacts also would remain due to
]andform/visual, quality, biology, air quality and noise factors.
b. Incollsistelll Will! Objeclives
Two of the project's objectives are: (i) provision of a commercial center; and
(ii) satisfaction of regional and local circulation needs. The SR 125 W5 Alternative does not
serve these objectives as well as the project as revised. Specifically, if the SR 125 W5
alternative were adopted, market incentives would encourage businesses to locate near the
freeway. This would change the nature of commercia] services from neighborhood
commercia] to freeway commercial. The W5 alternative alignment of SR 125 would also
attract through-traffic from Chula Vista, which would then be directed through (rather than
around) residential neighborhoods. In addition, the W5 alternative alignment is not
consistent with the conceptual alignment shown in the Circulation Element of the City's
Genera] Plan.
.........
7. SR 125 Alternative W6
The SR 125 Alternative W6 would align SR 125 so that it traveled through the
western half of the southern portion of the project, instead of along the border of the
western boundary, as is the case in the project as revised. This alternative would affect only
the southern portion of the project site, and would not significantly impact the number of
dwelling units at the project or the mix of land uses.
This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons:
a Sigllificalll Impacls Remain
Land use compatibility issues would increase. Under this alternative, SR 125
would bisect the western neighborhood and thereby increase the number of dwelling units
.........
86
/ --/??
!j~9
.
.
.
affected by their proximity to the freeway. Measures would have to be implemented to
reduce noise, visual, and other impacts related to freeway incompatibility. In addition, the
following significant impacts would still exist under this alternative: landformMsual quality,
biology and air quality. All other impacts identified in the EIR would remain the same.
b. Illcollsistelll With Objectives
Project objectives include: (i) provision of a community park and elementary
school; (ii) linkage to schools, parks and shopping centers through the use of bicycle and
pedestrian trails; and (iii) provision of necessary public services such as parks, schools and
recreational areas. The project design, as revised, serves these objectives by, among other
things, locating an elementary school immediately adjacent to a park. (See New Plan, Figure
2.5). Under the SR 125 W6 Alternative, however, SR 125 would travel through the middle
of the proposed school/park area, requiring them to be separated and relocated. (See
Figure 5-6, EIR). In addition, this alternative alignment is not consistent with the conceptual
alignment shown in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan.
8. OlTsite Alternatives
In addition to the onsite alternatives, Final EIR 90-02 analyzed a range of offsite
alternatives. The following offsite alternatives are rejected for the reasons described.
In order to evaluate offsite alternatives to Rancho San Miguel, a 2,500-acre site within
the South Bay area is needed to accommodate the project. Other sites in the area would
offer environmental advantages over the project site with regard to biological and cultural
constraints since the project site is so biologically diverse and archaeologically rich.
Developing an alternative site would eliminate the direct impacts to the biological, cultural
resources and landforms on the project site. However, this situation would be temporary
because the project site is designated for future development under the Chula Vista General
Plan. Relocating the proposed project offsite would transfer impacts elsewhere, but would
leave the subject site available for future development. Therefore, requiring the proposed
development to relocate offsite would not protect the project site from future significant
unmitigable impacts.
In addition, it is difficult to find a suitable alternative site. Alternative sites within the
City's adopted Sphere of Influence have already been committed to residential or mixed-use
development, consistent with the land uses designated in the Chula Vista General Plan.
These sites include Bonita Long Canyon, EI Rancho del Rey, EastLake and Sunbow. Salt
Creek Ranch, a 1,200-acre development to the south of the project, is currently being
planned as a residential development by the Baldwin Company. Together, these projects
total over 7,300 acres and limit the area available in the project vicinity for development of
a project that would be a feasible alternative to Rancho San Miguel in light of the size,
scope, character and stated project objectives.
The availability of alternative sites on unincorporated County land in the project
vicinity is also restricted either due to ongoing or planned projects, topographic constraints
or incompatibility with existing community character. Most available land has been
~'} ,,-/~7
/
'Ie; [/
incorporated into planned or approved projects such as Rancho San Diego, Lorna Del Sol, .....\
Las Montanas, Hidden Valley, Singing Hills, The Pointe and Honey Springs Ranch.
Unincorporated County land east of the planned and approved projects described above is
generally restricted by steep topography and the absence of urban services.
Over 23,000 acres of undeveloped land is located within Otay Ranch to the south and
east of the Rancho San Miguel property. The entire Otay Ranch, owned by the Baldwin
Company, is currently undergoing a General Plan Amendment for future development.
Land topographically suitable for residential development is located on the Otay Mesa south
of the project site. This land has been designated for industrial development by both the
County and City of San Diego and is being developed with industrial land uses at the present
time. These industrial land uses would not be compatible with a residential planned
community such as Rancho San Miguel. In light of the commitment of land and
development within the project vicinity, alternative sites for purchase to accommodate the
proposed project are limited and thus are not considered to be a feasible option. In
addition, the project does applicant does not own land elsewhere.
In regard to an alternative sites analysis, the court in the Goleta Valley decision
rejected the argument that a project EIR should be a broad-based regional planning effort
and stated that a General Plan and not a project EIR is the appropriate place for such
consideration. CitizellS of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553. The
Chula Vista General Plan was recently updated by the City after a general study of city
resources and extensive public participation. The General Plan process considers regional --..
planning concerns to identify optimum locations for development and it is not appropriate
for an EIR to find alternative locations for a project that is consistent with the General Plan
designation.
The Chula Vista General Plan Update EIR (1989) identified significant, unmitigable
impacts of buildout of the proposed General Plan Update. These impacts were: biological
resources, noise, conversion of agricultural lands, landform/aesthetics, landuses/General
Plan/zoning, open space, transportation/access and air quality. The General Plan was
adopted with an alternative showing residential development on the Rancho San Miguel site,
and the City was required to prepare CEQA findings to document the reasons why the plan
was adopted given. the significant unmitigable impacts. The City's CEQA findings
considered: (a) changes and other measures that would, upon implementation, reduce the
significant impacts; and (b) justifications for non-implementation of impact-minimizing
mitigation measures due to their infeasibility based on social and economic considerations.
The "social and economic" considerations referred to above included:
· The City of Chula Vista would be deprived of the surplus
revenue projected from build out of the entire plan.
.
The citizens of Chula Vista and the region would be deprived
of the housing, employment, and recreational opportunities
inherent in the proposed plan jf it were not adopted.
-,
~
~-/615
/iil
.
.
.
.
The preservation of the Eastern Territories in its current state
would preclude the various property owners from achieving the
goals of eventually developing their land.
In summary, developing the Rancho San Miguel project on an alternative site cannot
be feasibly accomplished because the property owner would have to purchase other land in
the vicinity (which it does not own), and surrounding land is already committed for future
projects. Even if otner lands were available in the Chula Vista area, the impacts would be
similar throughout the area. Furthermore, implementation of the project on an alternative
site would not reduce impacts to the proposed site since it would remain vulnerable to
impacts associated with its future development status under the Chula Vista General Plan.
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines
provide:
"(a) CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve
the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
'acceptable.'
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially
mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action
based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may
be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a) (2) or (a) (3).
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
in the Notice of Determination." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaI.CodeRegs. ~15093).
THE STATEMENT
The City Council finds that the mitigation measures found in the CEQA findings,
when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant effects identified in
Final EIR 90-02 for Rancho San Miguel. Nonetheless, certain significant effects of the
Rancho San Miguel project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible
mitigation measures. These unavoidable significant effects include: landform/visual quality,
air quality, biology and cumulative impacts to land use/conversion of open space,
landform/visual quality, biology, archaeology, water supply, air quality and nonrenewable
energy resources. In approving this project, the City has balanced the benefits of the Rancho
San Miguel project against these unavoidable environmental effects. In this regard, the City
~9-/?1
IdJ-
finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA findings, have been or will
. be implemented with the project, and any significant remaining unavoidable effects are
acceptable due to the following specific social, economic or other considerations, all of which
are based upon the facts set forth in the CEQA findings, Final EIR 90-02, and the record
of the proceedings for this project.
.-...
1. The project as proposed will provide a significant number (772) or
large estate and rural-type lots ranging in size from 15,000 square feet
to one acre in size. Such high quality, upper-end housing products are
currently limited in the South Bay area.
2. The 357 proposed lots on the northern portion of the project provide
opportunity for a "showcase" of sensitively-designed development, with
mass grading eschewed in favor of individual, custom lot design using
minimal grading and construction techniques such as stemwall
foundations, post and beam construction, and multiple level structures
to ensure responsiveness to natural topography.
3. The proposed conference center retreat and inn would provide a
unique facility in the South Bay, consisting of a quiet rustic leisure time
and recreational oriented development in a natural environment.
4.
The proposed interpretive center would provide a second such "anchor"
to the City's Greenbelt (along with the Bayfront Nature Interpretive
Center), allowing for an educational and recreational opportunity to
citizens of Chula Vista and all of San Diego County.
~
5. The project proposes a superior level of planning and design on the
southern portion of the project which would not be feasible if
Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob were preserved. Specifically, the
project is united into a cohesive whole with the location of a
community park and elementary school in the center of the. Southern
portion.
6. Elimination of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob allows for the
optimal alignment of San Miguel Ranch road through the project site,
where it provides easy access east and west for project residents and
provides a suitable parallel surface street alternative to the future
Route 125.
7.
The proposed Otay Tarweed preserve on the southern parcel provides
protection for approximately 44,000 plants of this State-listed
endangered plant species. Such a preserve would not be feasible
without the elimination of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob.
---.
~
'} --/70
1fT
.
.
.
8.
The project preserves, through dedication, approximately 1,648 acres
of permanent natural open space constituting approximately 64% of
the project site.
For these reasons, on balance, the City Council finds that there are social, economic
and other considerations resulting from this project that serve to override and outweigh the
project's unavoidable significant environmental effects and, thus, the adverse environmental
effects are considered acceptable. .
r
~--/7/
~/
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO. .2.5J/g/
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE
PREZONING TO P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY (PCZ 93-H) FOR THE SAN
MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, San Miguel Partners, hereafter referred to as "applicant", submitted an application
for a General Development Plan (Case # PCM 90-19) to be approved on approximately 2,590
acres, divided into two parcels of 1,852 acres ("Northern Portion") and 738 acres ("Southern
Portion"), and generally located south and east of Sweetwater Reservoir, north of Proctor Valley
Road, west of Mount San Miguel, east of the Sweetwater Valley, and including Mother Miguel
Mountain within its boundaries ("Project Site") as depicted on the map,attached hereto as
Attachment A; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also submitted an application for a Pre-zoning of the Project Site to
the P-C (planned Community) District (Case # PCZ 90-M, collectively, with the GDP, the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant's proposed General Development Plan is contained within a document
entitled "San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan," dated December 16, 1991 on file in
the City Planning Department, and proposes the construction of 1,654 dwelling units and related
commercial, parks, schools, on the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR 90-02), dated
December 1991 on file in the City Planning Department, was prepared for the proposed Project;
and
WHEREAS, the Draft PEIR indicated that the following environmental aspects were significant
and not mitigable for the proposed Project: (I)Land Use; (2)LandformlVisua1; (3)Biology; (4)Air
Quality; and
WHEREAS, the Draft PEIR was transmitted by the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all
concerned parties for review and comment on December 7, 1991; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft PEIR was given on December 18, 1991 as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the draft Environmental Impact Report were
accepted from December 7, 1991 to February 5, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony
on the Draft PEIR on February 5, 1992; and
WHEREAS, based upon a dispute between the applicant and staff over the Land Use Section of
I
9-1
the Draft PEIR relating to General Plan Consistency, the Planning Commission held a publicly
noticed workshop on April 1, 1992 to further study the issue of this Project's consistency with
the General Plan; and
......,
WHEREAS, at the April 1, 1992 Planning Commission workshop, the applicant introduced two
new modified plan alternatives, labeled the "Modified Concept Plan" and the "Preservation
Plan;" and
WHEREAS, an Addendum was prepared to the Draft PEIR which analy
Concept Plan" and the "Preservation Plan;" and
WHEREAS, subsequent to this meeting, the applicant refined the "Modified Concep lan,"
, renamed it the "Mitigation Concept Plan," and submitted it as a new Project alternativ esigned
to respond to the public comments on the Draft PEIR; and
WHEREAS, a second addendum was prepared to the Draft PElR whO also analyzed the
"Modified Concept Plan" and included an alternative finding for the ssue of General Plan
Consistency and included alternative mitigation measures for imp ts to biology (which,
however, did not change the finding of significance within the Draf EIR); and
WHEREAS, agency and public comments and staff responses theIi 0 are addressed in the Draft
Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft FPElR 90- ) for tl1e San Miguel Ranch
Project, dated September 1992; and '
-....
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearin n the General Development Plan
and Pre-Zone and considered the Draft FPEIR on Septem r 30, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued the pub hearing to October 19, 1992 in order
for staff and the applicant to work on a mitigation pI or biological impacts on the Northern
Portion of the Project Site; and
ntinued public hearing on the General
Draft FPEIR on October 19, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a
Development Plan and Pre-Zone and considered
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did not
1 opposed, and I abstaining) and recommend
1 opposed, and 1 abstaining); and
o fy the Draft FPEIR (by a vote of 4 in favor,
denial of the Project (by a vote of 4 in favor,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a pub hearing on the Project and considered the Draft
FPEIR on October 27, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the City Council remanded the Project to the Planning Commission for further
analysis and review (by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed); and
2
......,
~ /6~ ,,,,2.
9A ,.1'/
,
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /1r 1'A
Meeting Date"3/nJ9J 4!J3/f3
ITEM TITLE:
Report: Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan, EIR-90"{)2 (SCH
#90010155)
If..ublic Hearin~:\ PCM 93-14, PCZ 93-H; Application by San Miguel
Partners tor approval of a General Development Plan and Planned
Community Pre-Zone for San Miguel Ranch, located southeast of
Sweetwater Reservoir, west and south of Mother Miguel Mountain, and
northeast of Proctor Valley Road - San Miguel Partners, applicant
Resolution I 'ol/t:j ApprovingtheGeneral Development Plan for
San Miguel Ranch
~ \i~v\
-::,\ d- ~ \ ct:5
.
.
IJ.
19. ~~~1ilQ~ ,;},; '1Y'
G ~~Oii3ne
x..~O\\~ /7 /
~t.~lhED BY: Director of Planning lll(
REVIEWED BY: City Managerf?
Establishing the Planned Community Pre-
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_No.x.>
BACKGROUND:
1. The applicant, San Miguel Partners, has submitted a General Development Plan for
consideration, as well as a request to pre-zone a 2,590 acre property to the Planned
Community (P-C) District Zone.
2.
The appl ication for a General Development Plan and pre-zon ing was submitted in 1990,
subsequent to adoption of the updated Chula Vista General Plan in 1989. The project's
environmental impact report was circulated for public review in early 1992. However,
sign ificant issues were identified and the applicant and staff worked toward resolving
these issues for the next several months. In September, 1992, the project returned to the
Planning Commission for a final recommendation with significant differences remaining
between staff and the applicant. The Commission voted to not certify the Final EIR, and
recommended denial of the project to the City Council. In October, 1992, the City
Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission with direction to resolve
the remaining issues. Subsequent to this hearing, the applicant withdrew the proposed
project and resubmitted a revised project, known as the "New Plan," which was intended
to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the City Council with the
proposed project. A Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
circulated for a 30-day public review period, culminating in a Planning Commission
public hearing on February 10, 1993.
I~ '
,.-, {
qA-1
~
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 3/23/93
---
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Certify that the fmal EIR-90-2 for San Miguel Ranch has been prepared in compliance with
CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of
Chula Vista;
2. Adopt the attached Recommending Resolution by which you recommend that the City
Council:
a. Approve the General Development Plan based upon the fmdings and conditions listed;
b. Adopt an ordinance establishing the Planned Community Pre-Zone
c. Approve the CEQA fmdings for EIR-9O-2, San Miguel Ranch.
d. Approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR-90-2, San Miguel Ranch;
e. Approve the Statement of Overriding Considerations for EIR-90-2, San Miguel
Ranch.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On March 3, 1993, the Planning Comntission held a public hearing on the proposed project and
voted to recommend approval. The vote counts for the different sub-items were as follows (one
member abstained):
~
1. CERTIFY FINAL EIR 5 FOR 1 AGAINST
2. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6 FOR o AGAINST
3. P-C PRE-ZONE 6 FOR o AGAINST
4. CEQA FINDINGS 4 FOR 2 AGAINST
5. MITIGATION MONITORING PGM. 6 FOR o AGAINST
6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDES 4 FOR 2 AGAINST
While all six voting comntissioners were in favor of the proposed project, one commissioner was not
satisfied with the environmental documentation, and another commissioner was not satisfied with the
CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and their justification for the elimination
of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
On February 10, 1992, the Resource Conservation Commission considered the original Rancho San
Miguel Draft EIR, and recommended to the Planning Commission that they deny the project based
upon the environmental impacts addressed in the Draft EIR.
On February I, 1993 and February 8, 1993, the Resource Conservation Commission considered the
Draft Supplement to the Rancho San Miguel EIR. The Resource Conservation Comntission
recommended that the Draft Supplemental EIR 90-02 not be accepted due to the number of
. -
--
"\
Ib J-..
9111)..,
.
e
e
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 3/23/93
unmitigable impacts, specifically: (1) the unknown future of SR-125; (2) impact of the run-off
waters polluting the reservoir with development of the northern portion; (3) potential health
hazard in the southern portion near SDG&E power lines; (4) inadequate funding of schools; (5)
unavailability of water and sewage capacity; and (6) impact on plant life and endangered
species. (4 in favor, 1 opposed, 1 absent).
DISCUSSION:
The San Miguel Ranch project site consists of approximately 2,590 acres, located south and east
of the Sweetwater Reservoir and adjacent to the northeastern border of the City of Chula Vista.
The San Miguel Ranch project site is composed primarily of steeply sloping hillsides, valleys,
and Mother Miguel Mountain. The area is dominated by coastal sage scrub, mixed chaparral,
and non-native grasses. The entire Rancho San Miguel project site is currently unincorporated
and within the City of Chula Vista's adopted sphere of influence. The property is bounded
generally by Proctor Valley Road on the west and south, the Otay water treatment facility and
San Miguel Mountain on the east, and the Sweetwater River and Reservoir on the north and
northwest. A caretaker's house and associated buildings with horse facilities are located in the
western corner of the northern portion of the property. The north and south portions of the
project site are separated by property owned by San Diego Gas and Electric, which contains the
Miguel Substation complex and associated transmission lines. Several utility easements traverse
the project site. Much of the 2,590 acres of land that make up the .project site have been
utilized during the past 80 to 100 years as grazing land.
San Miguel Partners proposes to develop up to 1,619 dwelling units, with 357 units on the
northern portion and 1,262 units on the southern portion. All of the proposed units, with the
exception of a potential low and moderate income housing project located south of East "H"
Street/Proctor Valley Road in the southernmost portion of the property, are proposed to be
single-family dwelling units in the Low Density (0-3 du/ac) land use classification. Other
proposed uses included with the project are Commercial, Community Recreation, and Open
Space.
When this item was heard by the Planning Commission in September and October, 1992, the
staff report addressed significant concerns with the proposed project in a number of areas. The
applicant's "New Plan" re-submission attempts to respond to these issues either through re-
design, or proposed mitigation measures.
Significant major issues with the proposed project are discussed below:
Prooosed Lot Sizes
Almost all of the developable acreage within the San Migoel Ranch project is designated as Low
Residential on the General Plan Land Use Diagram. The relevant language in the General Plan
related to this issue is. Section 4.1 of the Land Use Element, which defines "Residential Low (0-3
dwelling units per acre)" as follows:
This category includes single-family detached dwellings on large rural, and estate-
type lots. Th is is the predominant character of existing residential neighborhoods
within and adjacent to Sweetwater Valley. This is also the appropriate residential
-U~-!J -<{,Ad
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 3/23/93
----
land use for areas with variable terrain of relatively steep slopes and the areas
adjacent to the proposed Greenbelt. In addition, under the concept of cluster
development, single family detached dwellings on minimum 7,000 square foot
lots may be permitted.
Based upon this language the applicant has agreed to provide a majority of lots within the
project areas designated Low Residential at a "rural or estate-type" size. Thus the 357 lots
proposed for the northern portion are to be an average of one acre in size and a minimum of
3/4 acre, while 415 lots on the southern portion are to be an average of 20,000 square feet in
size and a minimum of 15,000 square feet (these are the lot size standards contained within the
R-E Residential Estates Zone of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance). The combined total of 772
rural and estate lots constitutes a majority of the total number of lots in the Low-Residential
designated areas within the entire project. The remaining 751 lots are proposed as clustered
development with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet.
In addition, the applicant has agreed that, if development on the northern portion is reduced or
eliminated, the overall number of rural and estate-type lots will remain greater than the number
of cluster lots in the Low Residential-designated areas. This would be achieved either by a
re-designation of all or part of Planning Areas 4 and 7, located in the west<entral part of the
southern parcel, from cluster residential to estate residential, or by the applicant proposing a
general plan amendment to redesignate certain areas within the southern parcel to Low-Medium
Density Residential ,(3 to 6 dwelling units per acre). The latter course of action would be at the
complete discretion of the City to approve or deny and would be considered in conjunction with
the dedication of the Northern Portion as permanent open space.
~,
Comoatibilitv with Adiacent Develooed Areas
The San Miguel Ranch project is located to the east of the Bonita community. Development
areas on the northern portion and on the western half of the southern parcel are adjacent to
existing rural and estate-lot development in the Bonita unincorporated area. At issue is the
project's compatibility with this existing development.
Relevant language in the General Plan relating to the issue (within Section 6.2 of the land Use
Element-Establishing Residential Densities within the Range) which states that the City will
, evaluate the appropriate residential density of a property by using the following criterion (among
others): "Compatibility within existing and proposed surrounding land use patterns, both urban
and rural, natural and man made, in order to achieve an overall reduction in land use friction."
The applicant's proposal includes provision for 3/4 acre minimum lots on the northern portion,
with an average lot size of one acre. On the southern portion, the applicant has modified the
proposed project to include a "buffer" of estate-size lots on the western boundaries of the
proposed project (20,000 sq. ft. average, 15,000 sq. ft. minimum). Additional buffering
measures, such as larger lots on the actual boundary of the proposed project, will be considered
at the Sectional Plan Area (SPA) plan level of review. While these lots would be somewhat '"""
smaller than the existing lot sizes at the eastern end of Bonita, adjacent to the project (generally
one to five acres), they would be significantly larger than the more standard single-family
residential lots prevalent in other parts of Chula Vista's Eastern Territories.
~\ii;lti
.
.
.
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 3/23/93
San Diego Gas & Electric
The San Miguel Ranch projed is split into northern and southern portions by San Diego Gas &
Eledric's San Miguel Substation facility and associated transmission lines. This transmission
facility is of regional importance within SDG&E's service territory, providing a consistent power
supply to the area with the necessary facilities for regional high voltage interconnedions to
power sources in Imperial Valley, Arizona, and Mexico. Future development plans for the
SDG&E property include expansion of the substation and transmission line facilities to
accommodate service area growth and system-wide operational needs. SDG&E has no timetable
for this expansion, which is generally not expeded to occur within the next 10 years.
The proposed projed includes significant numbers of lots, located on the southern area of the
northern portion and the northern area of the southern portion, which have views onto the
SDG&E property. While the EIR identifies only 14 lots which have significant views to the
existing facilities (and buffering techniques can ameliorate the impad of these views), any
expansion of the existing substation may cause additional proposed residences within San
Miguel Ranch to view the industrially-appearing substation facilities or the additional associated
towers. SDG&E is concerned that, should such homes be built prior to their proposal to
construct the substation expansion, future residents would strongly objed to their projed, and
cause significant disruptions to SDG&E's overall systems if their opposition led to the redesign
or relocation of the substation facility.
In response to this concern, staff proposes that the San Miguel Ranch SPA plan be conditioned
on the approval of a comprehensive buffer plan which includes measures such as landscaping,
significant topography variation (including use of natural topography as well as berming), and
homesite orientation for houses near the SDG&E property. Staff anticipates that this buffering
plan will substantially mitigate the concerns of SDG&E regarding views to the SDG&E property
from the project site. Additionally, the City would encourage SDG&E to begin processing of
their proposed expansion plans so that they might be considered prior to or concurrently with
construction of homes within the San Miguel Ranch projed.
SDG&E, in their correspondence to the city regarding this projed, has suggested additional
changes to the land use plan for San Miguel Ranch which would move the proposed commercial
center adjacent to the SDG&E property and which would also place no residential development
to the north of San Miguel Ranch Road on the southern portion. However, staff believes that
these proposed changes would not significantly improve the mitigation of the visual and land
use compatibility impads of the SDG&E facility, and would result in significant negative impads
upon the overall project design. Therefore, staff recommends that SDG&E's proposed changes
to the land use plan not be adopted.
Elimination of Horseshoe Bend & Gobbler's Knob
Horseshoe Bend is a horseshoe-shaped landform which rises steeply up to 200 feet above the
surrounding terrain. Gobbler's Knob is a steep hill to the southwest of Horseshoe Bend which
rises approximately 150 feet above the surrounding terrain.
I~A~
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 3/23/93
~
The applicant believes that Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob cannot feasibly and reasonably
be preserved as part of a development plan, and thus may be removed without conflict with the
General Plan. The primary reasons for the applicant's recommendation can be summarized as
follows:
a. Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob are not significant enough landforms to be
identified by the General Plan and preserved.
b. Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob split the property in two segments
preventing presentation of a unified development concept unless they are
removed.
c. Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob lie within the pathway of the best alignment
for San Miguel Ranch Road, a four-lane collector on the Circulation Element.
d. Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob consist of soils which are easily erodible
and thus prevent a danger to development around them or on top of them.
The key question relating to General Plan consistency lies in whether these landforms should
be considered "significant." If so, then they must be preserved, either as open space, or as sites
for hillside housing pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Section 6.5 of the land Use Element
to the General Plan. If not, then they may be removed. During City Council and Planning ~
Commission discussion of the project, there seemed to be a general consensus that these
landforms were not significant from a General Plan perspective.
However, removal of these two landforms is still identified in the Final EIR as constituting a
significant landform/visual impact and is not mitigable from a CEQA perspective with the project
as proposed. Therefore, if the Council approves the proposed project, staff recommends
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations which would allow the project to go
forward (see Statement of Overriding Considerations at the conclusion of the CEQA Findings).
The rationale for adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is discussed above in
Sub-paragraphs b. through d.
Biological Imoacts
As is stated in the Final Environmental Impact Report, the San Miguel Ranch property contains
a wealth of native plants and animals, some of which are becoming increasingly scarce. In
particular, the habitat known as coastal sage scrub, and many of the animal species residing in
it, has been greatly impacted by the on-going development of the San Diego Metropolitan Area.
While some coastal sage scrub is located on the Southern Portion, the Northern Portion contains
a large diverse amount of this habitat which is part of a major concentration around the
Sweetwater Reservoir and Mount San Miguel. As documented in the Final Environmental Impact
Report, development as proposed on the northern parcel would have significant negative impacts
upon coastal sage scrub habitat as well as several threatened species, including the California
Gnatcatcher (currently a candidate for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act).
~
The City of Chula Vista has enrolled into the State Natural Communities Conservation Program
(NCCP) with several major property owners, including San Miguel Partners, and the County of
r
110- (0, I'll ,J:,
.
e
e
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date 3/23/93
San Diego in a subregional planning effort which is called the South County NCCP. The
program is designed to allow the state, local government, property owners, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to agree to the creation of permanent, large, contiguous natural areas which
will preserve enough of the natural habitat so as to allow development projects, both public and
private, to go forward. While the plan will not be completed until 1994, preliminary analysis
indicates that the entire Northern Portion, along with surrounding areas, is a candidate area for
natural preservation.
City Staff and the applicant have worked together to prepare a method for resolving the adverse
impacts to biological resources. Staff recommends that the mitigation measures identified in the
Draft Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report (see discussion under Environmental
Impact Report) provide the best solution at this time to this issue. In summary, this plan would
subject any development entitlements on the Northern Portion to a decision on the South
County NCCP Plan as to whether any development is allowable on the Northern Portion. If the
NCCP does allow some development on the Northern Portion, or the NCCP program fails and
none of the species located within Coastal Sage Scrub habitat are listed on the State or Federal
Endangered Species Lists, the mitigation plan sets forth criteria upon which a SPA-level plan for
the Northern Portion would be judged. No SPA plan for the Northern Portion would be
processed until at least May, 1994, in order to allow for the completion of the NCCP program.
A supplemental EIR for the SPA plan would also be required.
While staff and the applicant believe that the proposed method for resolving the Northern
Portion biology issue is adequate, commentators on the Draft Supplementto the Environmental
Impact Report have expressed reservations about the adequacy of this method in protecting the
rare native habitat on the Northern Portion. An alternative to the staff recommendation on this
issue would be the preservation of the entire Northern Portion as open space at this time, with
a recommendation to staff to study potential transfers of residential density from the Northern
Portion to the Southern Portion.
State Route 125
The routing of SR-125 has not been defined at this time by CalTrans, pending the completion
of an Environmental Impact Report. Considerable controversy exists over several of the
alternative alignments at the eastern end of the Sweetwater Valley, and alignments which run
both west and east of Sweetwater Reservoir are under consideration. The appliCant has shown
an alignment for SR-125 along the western edge of the Southern Parcel which, at this time, may
be one of the more plausible routings. However, processing of the applicant's Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) plans may be impacted if the uncertainty regarding the alignment of SR-125
is not eliminated or lessened by the time of SPA processing. In any case, no subdivision maPIII'
would be approved for San Miguel Ranch for any portion of the project affected by one of thef'
alternative alignments until a final alignment for SR-125 has been adopted.
Offsite Roadwavs into Bonita
The applicant's original proposed project included a new proposed "bypass" road to the west
of the project site, running southerly of the existing San Miguel Road and eventually joining that
existing roadway prior to its terminus at Bonita Road. While this proposed roadway is in
conformance with the Chula Vista Circulation Element, it is not in conformance with the San
.....Il.> - 7
9A-7
Page 8, Item
Meeting Date 3/23/93
.......,
Diego County General Plan Circulation Element. Since the area to the west of the project is
unincorporated, the "bypass" road will require a County General Plan Circulation Element
amendment.
The alternative to the bypass road, widening of existing Proctor Valley Road and San Miguel
Road to four lanes to serve project traffic will also require a County General Plan Circulation
Element Amendment.
The County has requested that the applicant apply for and receive approval of a General Plan
Amendment to the County Circulation Element prior to the City approving this General
Development Plan. This request is reiterated in the attached letter dated March 16, 1993 from
Chairman Brian Bilbray of the County Board of Supervisors. However, staff recommends that
this GDP may be approved at this time, with a condition that prior to SPA approval, the
applicant resolve the road issues westerly of the project with the County of San Diego, through
a Circulation Element Amendment or other means acceptable to the County. The rationale for
the staff recommendation is that, under the City's Planned Community process, the General
Development Plan level of review is intended as a "buildout" scenario, which must conform to
the City's General Plan. Since San Miguel Road is shown as a four-lane facility on the General
Plan Land Use and Circulation Diagram, the overall project is in conformance at the General
Development Plan level of review. At the Sectional Plan Area (SPA) Plan level of review the
City reviews, among other matters, a project's proposed phasing of facilities necessary to allow
construction of the,project. It is at this level of review that the need to amend the County's
General Plan Circulation Element so as to allow the project to go forward is most appropriate
given the City's Planned Community process.
~\
The March 16, 1993 letter also states that the proposed interchange location of San Miguel
Ranch Road and SR-125 "presents problems." While an interchange at this location was
proposed as part of the earlier application, the revised "New Plan" deletes the interchange,
recognizing that its precise location does depend upon the alignment of SR-125 and the route
chosen for western access to Bonita Road.
Sweetwater Reservoir Runoff Protection
The northern parcel of the San Miguel Ranch borders on lands owned by the Sweetwater
Authority to the north and west, which contains the Sweetwater Reservoir. This reservoir
provides potable water supplies for the service area of the Authority, which includes the western
portion of the City of Chula Vista. The Authority is highly concerned about contamination of
this water supply by "urban runoff," the runoff from homes, roads, etc. which contains pollutants
such as pesticides, petroleum products, and other products of urban areas which could be
washed into the reservoir by rainfall.
To mitigate the negative impacts of urban runoff upon the Sweetwater Reservoir, the applicant
must develop storm water management plans, including a proposed runoff protection system,
for approval by the Sweetwater Authority. These plans would be incorporated into the Sectional
Plan Area (SPA) Plan for the northern parcel of San Miguel Ranch. .......,
The Sweetwater Authority has issued for public review a Draft Environmental Impact Report
which analyzes a comprehensive runoff protection system for the Sweetwater Reservoir. Among
J~ 6' -
~ 9,4 ~ r
.
.
.
Page 9, Item
Meeting Date 3/23/93
the alternatives being considered are several that include a "South Side Runoff Protection
System." This system would divert urban runoff from the northern parcel of San Miguel Ranch
via a system of "flow-carrying roadways" located on the perimeter of the proposed development
area. These roadways would be six to twelve feet in width. The runoff would be carried to a
diversion pond on the south side of the Sweetwater Reservoir and then carried in an above-
ground pipe to the north side of the reservoir and eventually into an existing runoff diversion
facility parallel to Jamacha Blvd. (State Route 54). The biological impacts of this project are
significant and not mitigable, with no feasible off-site mitigation available in the near vicinity
except on the northern parcel of San Miguel Ranch (which will most likely not be available if
any development is approved on the Northern Parcel).
The discussion in the Sweetwater Reservoir Urban Runoff Diversion System Draft Environmental
Impact Report, while relevant to the proposed project, does not change the basic staff
recommendation, which is that a comprehensive runoff protection plan for the Sweetwater
Reservoir be incorporated into the SPA plans for the project. If development occurs on the
northern parcel then the "South Side Runoff Protection System" would need to be further
evaluated by both the City and the Sweetwater Authority and additional environmental review
would be required.
Final Environmental Impact Report
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prior to the approval of
any non-exempt project that may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must
prepare a Final EIR (FEIR). The final EIR-90-02 consists of the following items:.
1. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the original proposed project;
2. Letters of comment and responses to those letters, transcripts of public hearings
and responses; and
3. Errata - incorporating textual changes needed as a result of the comments
received;
4. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report analyzing the "New Plan";
5. Letters of comments to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and
responses to those letters, transcripts of public hearings and responses and errata;
6. Technical Appendices to the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
It should be noted that the Final EIR for this project is a "Program" EIR, which will be
supplemented by more specific "Project" EIRs at the SPA plan stage of development
review.
On February 10, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take testimony
on the adequacy of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan. The Supplement to the DEIR
addresses a revised General Development Plan application, known as the "New Plan,"
It-f --7)4-'1
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date 3/23/93
~
which was submitted by the applicant in response to City Council and Planning
Commission concerns regarding the original proposed Rancho San Miguel project.
Prior to the Planning Commission hearing the Supplement to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report was circulated for a thirty (30) day review period. Comment letters were
received from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Transportation
(San Diego Branch), County of San Diego Department of planning and land Use, Chula
Vista Elementary School District, Sierra Club, Sweetwater Community Planning Group,
Robert E. Thompson, and Michael Roark. Eleven (11) individuals provided public
testimony at the February 10, 1993 hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Commission closed the public review period.
Subsequently, on March 3, 1993, the Planning Commission voted 5 in favor, 1 against,
1 abstention to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project.
Attached are Table 1-2 from the original Draft EIR which summarizes the original
proposed project's impacts, and Table 1 -2 from the Supplement to the Draft EIR, which
revises the original proposed project's impacts to land use, landform/visual, biology,
traffic, and parks, recreation & open space.
The "New Plan" has impacts to landform/visual, biology, and air quality which are
significant and not mitigable. Therefore, if the proposed project is to be recommended .-.,
for approval, the City Council will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations which justify these significant and not mitigable impacts.
The original Draft EIR contains several project alternatives, which are fully described in
Section 5 of that document. The Supplement to the Draft EIR does not modify these
alternatives.
Four comment letters on Volume 3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR were received
subsequent to the Clearinghouse's 30-day review period and subsequent to the close of
the public hearing on February 8, 1993. Two of the letters were from State agencies
(Cal iforn ia Transportation Department and California Department of Fish & Game). One
was from California Transportation Ventures and one is from City of Chula Vista
Department of Parks & Recreation (see attached).
California Transoortation Deoartment
In response to CAl TRANS' concern regarding precluding of alternative alignments for SR-
125, this project must still undergo SPA plan and Tentative Subdivision Map review, and
it is not anticipated that the City would approve any Tentative Map preceding final route
selection for SR- 125 which would compromise any of the proposed alignments still under
consideration at that time. Also, the discussion is corrected per CAlTRANS comments
to indicate the conceptual nature of any interchange at San Miguel Road and SR- 125.
--.
~!v /6 "'
C)IJ ;/ P
.
.
.
Page 11, Item
Meeting Date 3/23/93
California Deoartment of Fish & Game
In response to th is letter, staff has updated the figure showing proposed mitigation areas
on the Northern Portion for impacts to the Southern Portion of the project, and has
clarified the loss of coast barrel cactus associated with the project. The remainder of the
Depl. of Fish & Game's comments do not require a specific response.
Landscaoe Review Sheet - Parks & Recreation Deoartment
The comments on the first page of the landscape review sheet refer to the lack of specific
information regarding trails and questions about the alignment of SR-125. These are
issues on which further detail will be provided at a later stage in the process (SPA level).
The issue regarding mountain bike use of the greenbelt is also appropriate to analyze at
the SPA level.
California Transoortation Ventures
The comments that this letter provides regarding the proposed 125 alignments,
interchanges and phasing desired of Rancho San Miguel are useful and will be
considered in further SPA level environmental analysis.
CEOA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Attached to this report are candidate findings required to approve the project pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, justifying
the significant and unmitigable impacts of this project.
The March 16, 1993 letter from the County of San Diego takes issue with the Overriding
Considerations originally proposed by the applicant, stating that the considerations constituted
normally required exactions of any large development, and did not provide a significant
additional public benefit. Chula Vista staff also had a significant concern with these same
findings, and as a result they have been comprehensively redrafted. The revised Statement of
Overriding Considerations now within the CEQA Findings only includes items of benefit "above
and beyond" normal processing requirements.
Conditions of Aooroval
If the New Plan as proposed is approved, staff recommends that the approval be subject to
compliance with all provisions of the Chula Vista General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the
Growth Management Program and Ordinance, and all other relevant City resolutions, policies,
codes, ordinances, and programs.
The project shall demonstrate compliance with the recommended mitigations outlined in the
final Environmental Impact Report (EIR-90-2) and with the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to approval of the first Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) for this project, except for those conditions related solely to the Northern Portion,
QA .~ Ii
t -It. Iff
Page 12, Item
Meeting Date 3/23/93
-.
which must be completed prior to a SPA Plan approval for the Northern Portion. It should be
specifically noted that the project may be split into several SPA Plans, processed separately.
Specific conditions of approval are contained within the Draft Resolution of Approval attached.
Letter Received from the Bonita Golf Course
On March 12, 1993, staff received a letter from the law firm of Branton & Wilson, representing
the Bonita Golf Course, expressing concern regarding drainage from the San Miguel Ranch
property onto the course.
The Environmental Impact Report for this project does include a requirement that a detailed
drainage report and plan be approved by the City Engineer prior to SPA plan approval.
Drainage design must include plans for runoff conveyance, sediment control, routing of runoff
to avoid compounding peak discharge, and protection of natural channels from scouring. This
plan will reduce drainage impacts to a level below significance, and should satisfy the concerns
of the Bonita Golf Course. The Golf Course staff will have an opportunity to comment on the
adequacy of the drainage report and plan prior to its approval by the City Engineer.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project, if approved, is expected to have an overall positive fiscal impact on the City of -....
Chula Vista. After buildout, Rancho San Miguel's contribution to city revenues is projected to
be a positive $530,897 per year in 1991 dollars. A fiscal impact analysis is included in the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
rsmccrpl.gh}
-.
r /t - /:J.. --
911,.1 ;;.
e
e
.
WHEREAS, on December 16, 1992, the applicant withdrew the proposed Project and on
January 26, 1993 submitted new applications for a General Development Plan (Case # PCM 93-
14) and Pre-Zone (Case # PCZ 93-H) on file in the City Planning Department, hereinafter
referred to as the "New Plan" (the revised Project); and
WHEREAS, a Draft Supplement to Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 90-02
(hereinafter referred to as "Draft Supplement") dated January 8,1993, on file in in the City
Planning Department was prepared to address the environmental impacts of the "New Plan"; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Supplement presented revised information and environmental findings for
the following environmental aspects: (l)Land Use; (2)LandformlVisual; (3)Biology; (4)Traffic;
(5)Parks & Recreation; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Supplement was transmitted by the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency,
to all concerned parties for review and comment on January 8,1993; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Supplement was given on January 8,1993 as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Supplement were accepted from
January 8, 1993 to February 10, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony
on the Draft Supplement on February 10, 1993; and
WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Response to Comments
Section of the revised Draft Final Program Environmental Impact Report 90-02 (Addenda 1 and
2 deleted and replaced by the Draft Supplement, herafter referred to as the "Revised Draft
FPElR"), dated March, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the General Development Plan
and Pre-Zone ("New Plan") and considered the Revised Draft FPEIR on March 3, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to certify the Revised Draft FPEIR by a vote of
5 in favor, 1 opposed, and 0 abstaining, and recommend approval of the "New Plan"Project
(General Development Plan and Pre-Zone) by a vote of 6 in favor, 0 opposed, and 0 abstaining);
WHEREAS, the City Council has by Resolution No.
approved the New Plan GDP, subject to conditions;
considered concurrently herewith
NOW THEREFORE, THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND,
DETERMINE, AND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
A.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
3
I~~~r
A,/.
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on the Draft PEIR, on February 5, 1992, their public hearings on the '''''\
former Project (pCM 90-19, and PCZ 90-M) on September 30, 1992 and October 19,
1992, their public hearing on the Draft Supplement on February 10, 1993, and their
public hearing on the revised Project ("New Plan") on March 3, 1993, and the minutes
and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
B. FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1. The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) for the project consists
of:
a. 1) the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, issue date December,
1991, 2) Comments and Responses to Comments on Draft PEIR, 3) the
Draft Supplement dated January 8, 1993, and 4) Comments and Responses
to Comments on the Draft Supplement.
b. Appendices A through J to the Draft Program Environmental Impact
Report dated December, 1991.
2.
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed, and
considered FPEIR 90-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this
project; the Candidate CEQA Findings (Attachment B), the proposed mitigation
measures contained therein, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Attachment C), and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment D)
prior to approving the project (Attachments B, C, and D here referred to are
attached to Resolution No. , considered concurrently herewith).
-.,
3. The City Council does hereby find that FPEIR 90-02, the Candidate CEQA
Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement
of Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
4. The City Council finds that the FPEIR reflects the independent judgment of the
Chula Vista City Council.
C. (P-C) ZONE FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed prezoning of the Project Site to P-C
Planned Community is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and that
public necessity, convenience, the general welfare, and good zoning practice support the
prezoning to P-C Planned Community. Furthermore, the findings required by Chula
4
~.
r /q/? f'
9A ,.1"
.
.
.
Vista Municipal Code Section 19.48.020 for establishment of a Planned Community (P-
C) prezone and made by the City Council in Resolution No. approving the General
Development Plan for the New Plan are hereby readopted and incorporated by reference
into this ordinance.
D.
REZONING
Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (being the Zoning Map) is hereby
amended to pre-zone the Project Site to P-C .Planned Community., as shown on
Attachment E attached hereto (Attachments B-D excluded, see Resolution No.
, considered concurrently herewith).
E. CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Adoption of Findings
The City Council does hereby approve and incorporate as if set forth full herein, and
make each and every one of the CEQA Findings (Attachment B).
2. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As is more fully identified and set forth in FPEIR 90-2 and the q::QA Findings for the
Project, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, that those mitigation measures described in the
above referenced documents as feasible are feasible, and adopts them and makes them
binding upon the appropriate entity such as the Applicant, the City, or other special
districts, which has to implement these specific mitigation measures.
3. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures
As set forth in the CEQA Findings, the City Council finds that the remainder of the
proposed mitigation measures, identified therein as infeasible, are in fact infeasible, for
the reasons set forth in said CEQA Findings.
4. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment C). The City Council finds
the Program is designed to ensure that, during the project implementation and operation,
the Applicant and other responsible parties implement the project components and comply
with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings and in the Program.
5.
Infeasibility of Alternatives
5
,.;~~"~
9A ,./7
As set forth in the CEQA Findings, the City Council finds that none of the proposed .-.,
Project Alternatives set forth in the FPEIR feasibly substantially lessen or avoid the
potentially significant effects that will not be substantially lessened or avoided by
adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.
6. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, certain significant
environmental effects caused by the Project will remain. Therefore, the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations, (Attachment D), identifying the specific economic, social,
and other considerations that render the remaining unavoidable significant adverse
environmental effects acceptable.
7. Notice of Determination
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Determination and file the same with the County Clerk.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, -.,
this day of 1993 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
.........
6
~/f4;? .
RESOLUTION NO.
I?CJ5?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING RESOLUTION 17049 FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH REGARDING
CITIZEN INPUT INTO THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SPA PLAN AND
PAYMENT OF COSTS
WHEREAS, on March 23, 1993, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista passed and
approved Resolution 17049, approving the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan,
Certifying the Final EIR for San Miguel Ranch, and approving the Candidate CEQA Findings,
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 1993, the City Council also passed a motion adding a
condition of approval to Resolution 17049 which directs the creation of a citizens ad hoc
committee in order to obtain more formal public input at the SPA level in regards to the plan,
with staff to return with the make-up of this committee for council approval in one to two
weeks; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has not yet fully reimbursed the City and its Consultants for
costs incurred in the processing of the Project;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista as
follows:
Resolution 17049, is amended by deleting Condition D.13 and replacing it with the following:
13. Establish a formalized citizen input process, in conjunction with the City Planning
Department, for review of all Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans and
subsequent discretionary permits. This process shall include formation of an
independent ad hoc citizen's advisory committee, consisting of one member from
each of the following groups:
Representative from Sweetwater Community Planning Group
Representative from Sweetwater Civic Association
Resident of adjacent Bonita area
Resident of adjacent EastLake/Salt Creek area
Non-resident adjacent property owner
Representative from Endangered Habitats League
At-large member
Resolution 17049, is further amended by deleting section E. 7 and replacing it with the
following:
7. Notice of Determination
This action shall not become final. until the Director of Finance notifies the
?e-j
Environmental Review Coordinator that the Developer has fully and completely
paid the City all costs incurred in the processing of the Project for both staff and
City Consultants. Subsequent to this notification, the Coordinator is directed to
file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego
for posting.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
F:\home\planning\mnreum.gb
~~
Assistant City Attorney
rl3~~
.... t#:, . ';~'I'--~""'J'~, ~ i
. ~Hl::;lSA.2~-r\'
'll"~;;:-~~~ :ii"L~-~= ~"'v-'::', ',"::,'- ~:--~~;'" .,. /' r
-~: ~(n~f:i l_ '/--JPr'~sa '~, ~ ',- - -_' :':;;/0 /j
.. "" ,,,;:.>;J;a-~~ ~",.~ ~ ~""~IT -A-
==:# ..~ ~ '----,., ,--,~
~_'=_7-_( e'" "51..J -- .n&?O.:i1I'~ 9~ ?f~ '
.....--~~..._- - '- ~
- .' - -. . .
III,~ !~~ -==~~---.._ ~:.' _' - Sfal I
,/ 't'),-,".~; ff Co.,
,::::::::::~" ~CG'
~ li@:;;); ~ -', "~~''''''''~'~''
7"~_' / C"". T,"f'f'
-) ('''I'f'
:.:i ':""~ ~5C
....v,.
.()
v,.'
.~.
",\:00:
-
."
't'"
\\ ~
f,1 $"'~:'W"" 1....
5\\"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
Item I ~
Meeting Date 4/13/93
.).5'5P . .
ORDINANCE Ord~nance Amend~ng
Chapter 3.48 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code to Permit the Financing of Projects by
Tax- Exempt organizations
. L S.
Community Development D~rector -
ci ty Manage~ b.v, ~\
()~
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND
In 1982, Chapter 3.48 of the Chula vista Municipal Code was
created. This Chapter authorizes the City to issue bonds
for the purpose of financing or otherwise assisting the
acquisition and construction of projects located within the
City to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the city,
to encourage industrial and commercial development within
the city and to enhance the financial resources of the City.
Since 1982, many projects have been funded, such as the
South Bay Ambulatory Surgerical Center of Third Avenue.
Currently, Chapter 3.48 does not expressly allow the
beneficiary of bond funds to be a non-profit corporation.
In the near future, the contemplated acquisition of Bayscene
Mobile Home Park by a non-profit corporation will be coming
to the Council, and this project cannot be accomplished if
the Chapter is not amended. Approval of this Ordinance does
not obligate the Council to approve the contemplated
acquisition of Bayscene by a non-profit.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Ordinance
Amending Chapter 3.48 of the Chula vista Municipal Code.
(First Reading)
BOARD AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
In November of 1992, the Agency directed staff to continue
working with the Richard A. Hall Company and a non-profit
corporation to determine the feasibility of assisting a non-
profit to acquire Bayscene Mobile Home Park so that the Park
may be used as a relocation mobile home park. Since
November of 1992, staff has been actively pursuing this
project, and found that in order to structure the financing
for this project, Chapter 3.48 must be amended to permit the
beneficiary of bond proceeds to be a non-profit corporation.
The financing for the project is currently structured so
1(fJ- J
""
~l '
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
JIJ
4/13/93
that the City would issue revenue bonds, pursuant to the
amended Chapter 3.48. Then, the proceeds would be loaned to
a non-profit corporation to enable the corporation to
purchase the Park. In order to make these revenue bonds
more credit worthy, the bonds will be backed by a pledge
from the Agency, if approved. As in the case with the South
Bay Ambulatory Surgical Center, these conduit revenue bonds
are limited obligations of the City. Therefore, the
bondholders may only be paid from the revenue generated by
the project or from the amount pledged by the Agency.
Staff plans to present the complete financial structure for
the acquisition of Bayscene Mobile Home Park by a non-profit
corporation to the Council/Agency on May 11, 1993. However,
since an ordinance is not effective until 30 days after its
passage, the Ordinance needs to be passed prior to the
decision on the project so that staff will be able to
complete the project in a timely manner. Approval of this
Ordinance does not necessarily mean that this project will
be approved. However, if approved, it will enable the city
Council to assist a non-profit corporation to purchase
Bayscene Mobile Home Park.
FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of this Ordinance will allow
the city to assist with the financing of projects that
involve non-profit corporations as borrowers, such as the
Olympic Training Center. The adoption will not result in
any added expenses for the city.
/~"eA
ORDINANCE NO.
,;.55(/
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48
OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO
PERMIT THE FINANCING OF PROJECTS BY
TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS
WHEREAS, the city of Chula vista (the "city") is a municipal
corporation and charter city duly organized and existing under a
charter (the "Charter") pursuant to which the City has the right
and power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect
to municipal affairs and certain other matters, in accordance with
and as more particularly provided in Article XI of the Constitution
of the State of California and section 200 of the Charter; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 3.48 of the Municipal Code of the City (the
"Municipal Code") authorizes the City to issue bonds for the
purpose of financing or otherwise assisting the acquisition and
construction of projects located within the city to promote the
health, safety and welfare of the City, to encourage industrial and
commercial development within the City and to enhance the financial
resources of the city; and
Whereas, the City is currently considering the institution of
proceedings to provide financing for the acquisition and
construction of various projects by organizations which are exempt
from federal income taxation pursuant to section 501(c) (3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the City Council
wishes to amend Chapter 3.48 of the Municipal Code to authorize
such financing proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the city Council, acting under the Constitution of
the State of California and under the Charter, finds and determines
that the public interest and necessity require the adoption of this
ordinance to authorize the issuance of revenue bonds for the
purpose of financing such projects, and that providing such
financial assistance constitutes a municipal affair of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the city of Chula vista
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Amendment. The definition of the terms "Bonds,"
"Exempt Organization," "participating Party" and "Project" in
paragraphs B, H, J and K, respectively, of section 3.48.020 of the
Municipal Code are each hereby amended in their entirety to read as
follows:
1
I~:J
"Bonds" means any bonds, notes, interim certificates,
debentures or other obligations issued by the city
pursuant to this chapter, which are payable exclusively
from revenues and other funds permitted by this chapter.
ails uhieh arc .. ifui\ist.rial Eic7e.leplR~Rt sendo" ui thill the
IfleaRillEj of ~cetieR Ie) (19) af the InterRal Re.....cFll:lC Cede. af
1954, as amendes, ey allY similar pre7iaien af t.he Ceac
t.hen if). effect.
"Exempt Organization" means an eR~i~y el!emllt fram federal
iReame tal!atiaR IlUrsuaRt ta orqanization described in
section SOl(c)11l of the Internal Revenue Code of ~
1986, as amended.
"Participating Party" means any person, corporation,
partnership, firm or other entity or group of entities,
includinq but not limited to exemot orqanizations, which
require financing for the acquisition of a project
pursuant to this chapter.
"Project" means real property improved with an industrial
or commercial structure, includinq but not limited a real
orooertv to be used bv an exemot orqanization in
connection with its authorized ourooses. and all property
in connection therewith or incidental thereto, including
all machinery, equipment and furnishings, the acquisition
of which is financed or otherwise assisted pursuant to
this chapter; provided, however, that no project to be
financed may be located outside the city unless the city
council shall find and determine that such project would
directly benefit the citizens of the city by
substantially promoting one or more of the public
interests recited in section 348.010. Project also
included qualified residential ~ rental property fer
family ~Rits as described in and within the meaning of
CcotieR lQJ (13) (4) (~) af the Internal Re~6fll:le Ceee af
~ section 142(dl of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, and regulations and rulings promulgated
thereunder, including all property in connection
therewith and incidental thereto.
section 2. Effect of Amendment. The amendments made pursuant
to section 1 hereof shall apply to bonds or other obligations to be
issued by the City under Chapter 3 .48 of the Municipal Code
following the effective date of this ordinance, and not to any such
bonds or other obligations issued by the city prior to such
effective date.
2
/~-Lj
section 3. Publication Hereof. That the city Clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to cause a digest or a copy of this
ordinance to be published at least once in the Chula vista star
News within fifteen days after the adoption of this ordinance
pursuant to section 312 of the Charter.
section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect
and be in force on the thirtieth day from and after its passage.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Approved as to form by:
~
Assistant city Attorney
Presented by:
F:\home\commdev\chapter.ord
3
II) -5
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM
1/
MEETING DATE Aoril 13. 1993
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION
17(').5r
Amend i ng FY
appropriation
the Li abi 1 i ty
1992-93
from the
Insurance
Budget, authorizing an
l i abi 1 i ty Trust Fund to
Account.
SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL f&
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER J~ ~ ~ (4/5th Vote: Yesl No_>
Due to unexpected legal defense costs and claim settlements, an appropriation
from the Li abil i ty Trust Fund of $190,000 is needed to cover expenses through the
end of FY 1992-93.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resol uti on provi ding for an
appropriation of $190,000.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/C
DISCUSSION:
Recent settlements and unanticipated legal eXi",",>es associated with claims
against the City have created a shortfall in the General Liability Insurance
budget. Fiscal year budgets are estimated and formulated well in advance of the
start of the fiscal year. Although staff has a good grasp of current claims and
associated expenses when budgets are estimated, it is difficult to predict
exactly what will occur after budgets are submitted and after the fiscal year
starts. Very often, a claim with no merit will proceed to a lawsuit simply
because there are serious injuries and no other deep pocket than the City. It
is not unusual to spend upwards of $50,000 in expenses duri ng the di scovery
period to obtain a complete dismissal.
Chula Vista appears to be part
Office reports that across the
faster than liability losses.
economy.
A total of $190,000 is needed to cover two proposed settlements and anticipated
legal fees through this fiscal year. Any additional judgements or settlements
that occur during this fiscal year will be dealt with by separate appropriation.
of the national trend. The Insurance Services
country, defense costs in liability are rising
Many experts attribute this trend to the poor
FISCAL IMPACT:
A total of $190,000 is to be appropriated from the Liability Trust fund to
Insurance Account 100-0700-5233. The total sum appropriated to this account
will be expended by authorization and approval of the Finance Director.
IN /II-J.
RESOLUTION NO. 17 ~5'~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING FY 1992-93 BUDGET,
AUTHORIZING AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE
LIABILITY TRUST FUND TO THE LIABILITY
INSURANCE ACCOUNT
WHEREAS, due to unexpected legal defense costs and claim
settlements, an appropriation from the Liability Trust Fund of
$190,000 is needed to cover expenses through the end of FY 1992-93.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby amend the FY 1992-93 Budget by
appropriating $190,000 from the Liability Trust Fund to Insurance
Account 100-0700-5233.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Rlff1FIilt.stant
City Attorney
Candy Boshell, Director of
Personnel
F:\home\attomey\1iabilty
/1-3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
/~
Meeting Date 04/13/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution I ')1J5' Authorizing the Department of
General Services of the State of California to purchase vehicles on
behalf of the City of Chula vista.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance~
REVIEWED BY: city Manage~ ~~ (4/5THS Vote: Yes_No-L)
The FY 92-93 budget includes funds for the purchase of thirteen
Police patrol sedans, four sedans and one compact pick-up truck and
one Mini Van in the Equipment Replacement Fund. One compact pick-
up truck requires replacement from the Emergency Equipment Purchase
fund.
Council Resolution No. 6132 authorizes the City to participate in
a cooperative bid with the State of California for the purchase of
these vehicles. The procedure requires that adoption of a
resolution designating the State as its purchasing authority in
making the purchase. A service charge of one percent of the total
before taxes is required for each transaction.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopt the resolution
BOARDS , COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: NA
DISCUSSION:
The Equipment Replacement Fund provides for the replacement of
nineteen vehicles. For each vehicle purchased, one vehicle will be
removed from service and sold at auction. The vehicles to be
purchased are as follows:
ACTIVITY
DESCRIPTION
Police Dept
Fire Dept
Patrol Sedans (13)
Compact Sedans (3)
Intermediate Sedan (1)
7 passenger Mini Van (1)
Compact Pick-up Truck (1)
Parks & Rec Dept
Purchase cost for the above vehicles is $267,648.28 based on State
contract prices.
One compact pick-up truck, a 1987 Ford Ranger, in the Streets
Division of Public Works Operations is in need of over $3,000 of
engine and suspension repair work. It is not cost effective to
repair the vehicle, therefore, it is requested that a new compact
I~"'I
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
I~
0/13/V
pick-up truck be purchased from the Emergency Equipment Purchase
fund. The purchase cost for the vehicle is $10,428.84 based on the
state Contract price.
Purchase costs include a one percent state service charge and cash
discount terms if the city pays the invoices within a time frame
proposed in the contract. The City will pay the invoices in
sufficient time to take advantage of these discounts.
FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are provided for in the FY 92-
93 Equipment Replacement fund for the nineteen vehicles. The
budget provided $302,480. Purchase cost will be $267,648.28.
Sufficient funds are available in the Emergency Equipment Purchase
fund for the one vehicle. Purchase cost is $10,428.84.
/02 ;;<
RESOLUTION NO.
17~>1
RESOLUTION OF THE .CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO
PURCHASE VEHICLES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
WHEREAS, the FY 1992-93 budget includes funds for the
purchase of thirteen Police patrol sedans, four sedans and one
compact piCk-Up truck and one Mini Van in the Equipment Replacement
Fund; and
WHEREAS, Council Resolution No. 6132 authorizes the City
to participate in a cooperative bid with the State of California
for the purchase of these vehicles; and
WHEREAS, said procedure requires the adoption of a
resolution designating the State as its purchasing agent in making
the purchase and a service charge of one percent of the total
before taxes is required for each transaction; and
WHEREAS, the purchase cost for the vehicles is
$267,648.28 based on State contract prices which includes a one
percent State service charge and cash discount terms if the city
pays the invoice within the timeframe proposed in the contract; and
WHEREAS, one compact pick-up truck, a 1987 Ford Ranger,
in the Street Division of Public Works Operations is in need of
over $3,000 of engine and suspension repair work and it is not cost
effective to replace the vehicle, therefore, it is requested that
a new compact piCk-Up truck be purchased from the Emergency
Equipment Purchase Fund in the amount of $10,428.84 based on the
State contract price; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney of the City of Chula vista has
executed a certificate, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full, in accordance with section
1895.2 of the California Administrative Code, advising that the
requested purchase by the State Department of General Services does
not conflict with the provisions of the city Charter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize the Department of
General Services of the State of California to purchase thirteen
Police patrol sedans, two compact piCk-Up trucks, and one Mini Van
on behalf of the City of Chula Vista, pursuant to section 14814 of
the Government Code and that James V. Espinosa, Purchasing Agent,
is hereby authorized and directed to sign and deliver all necessary
requests and other documents in connection therewith for and on
behalf of the City of Chula vista.
/;/.-;3
Presented by
Lyman Christopher
Director of Finance
F:\bome\attomey\OSApurch.bid
Approved as to form by
(;Z~/i) (~/
Ru~ M. Fritsch
Assistant city Attorney
1.2." i
~~~
:-~~ ::
-------
~~~~
CllY OF
CHUIA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
April 5, 1993
Department of General Services
state of California
P. O. Box 942804
Sacramento, Ca. 94204-0001
Re: Certificate of Compliance
Gentlemen:
I hereby declare that I am the duly appointed Assistant city
Attorney of the city of Chula Vista authorized to advise the
officials of said City on all legal matters and to perform those
acts required by section 1895.2 of the California Administrative
Code of the State of California.
I hereby certify that the authorization' of the Department of
General Services of the State of California to purchase vehicles
does not conflict with any provision of the Charter of the City of
Chula vista.
Very truly yours,
Rut~~~ih~(~
Assistant City Attorney
RMF:lgk
C:\4oc\CettifIC.OSA
J~"'>"
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5037
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /.3
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Resolution: I ?"~OResolution of the city
Council of the city of Chula vista allowing
the closure of Third Avenue from "E" to "F"
Street in order to conduct a festival on May
2, 1993, waiving the Sidewalk Sales
Ordinance, and waiving the Business
License Fees for the CincoFest 1993
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Community Development ~~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~~~/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X )
The Chula vista Downtown Business Association is requesting
permission to close Third Avenue between "E" and "F" Street
in order to conduct CincoFest 1993 on Sunday, May 2, 1993
from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM. The festivities for this event
will include live entertainment along with 100 arts and
crafts booths. The Ronald McDonald Show will also be part
of the entertainment for the day.
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council adopt the
attached Resolution which:
1. Allows the Downtown Business Association to close Third
Avenue from "E" to "F" Street;
2. Waives the city's sidewalk sales ordinance; and,
3. Waives Business License Fees for vendors taking part in
the CincoFest 1993.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
The Downtown Business Association is requesting the
following:
1. The closure of Third Avenue on Sunday, May 2, 1993 from
6 AM to 8 PM (A formal letter of request is attached);
and,
2. The Downtown Business Association requests a waiver of
sidewalk sales ordinances and business license
requirements for vendors taking part in the event.
13,/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
)3
4/13/93
The Chula vista Downtown Business Association proposes to
execute the following:
1. Provide a map to the traffic engineer depicting the
closure of streets and the flow of traffic;
2. Contact Police Department to arrange for necessary
traffic and crowd control;
3. Work with the Fire Marshall to arrange for
meeting city Fire Department requirements;
4. Coordinate scheduling of a meeting between the County
Health Department and food vendors to assure compliance
with County Health Codes;
5. Notify all business affected by the street closures
along Third Avenue;
6. Arrange for barricades and posting of no parking signs
24 hours in advance;
7. Make provision for: trash and litter control during the
event, cleaning the streets at the end of the Festival
and coordinate final street sweeping with the Public
Works Department fOllowing the Festival; and,
8. Provide a certificate of general liability insurance in
the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000), which
names the city of Chula Vista as additional insured.
Execute the city's hold harmless agreement.
ANALYSIS:
Since closing Third Avenue will affect the flow of traffic
in the downtown area, the DBA will contact the city's
traffic engineers, and they will prepare a plan which
specifies how traffic must be managed on Sunday, May 2,
1993.
Since closing Third Avenue will also affect the City Transit
System, staff spoke with the Transit Department, and they
have agreed to the closure as long as "E" and "G" Streets
remain passable for traffic. The Downtown Business
Association is aware of this stipulation.
The Downtown Business Association has also requested that
the Business License Fees be waived for The Third Avenue
Festival. In the past, the city has waived the Business
License Fees for vendors taking part in the one day event in
order to encourage participation. The Festival is expected
/;J'~
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date
~
4/13/93
to attract people as well as promote the downtown. If the
fees are not waived, each individual vendor will be charged
$83.75 plus whatever the Downtown Business Association is
charging for booth fees, and the combination of these fees
could discourage vendor participation. since having a large
number of vendors will help insure the success of CincoFest
1993, Staff recommends the waiver, and since most of the
$83.75 is the downtown assessment district fee, it seems
reasonable to waive these fees.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Downtown
Business Association's requests subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Downtown Business Association must provide, 14 days
prior to CincoFest 1993, evidence of general
liability insurance in the amount of $1 million, in the
form of a certificate of insurance and policy
endorsement, naming the city of Chula vista as
additional insured;
2. The Downtown Business Association must execute an
agreement to hold the city harmless from any liability
stemming from Festival activities in the street;
3. The Downtown Business Association needs to provide for
adequate traffic and crowd control, as determined by the
Police Department, the cost of which will be paid for by
the Downtown Business Association. The Downtown
Business Association must prepare and submit to the
Traffic Engineer a plan for managing traffic on May 2,
1993;
4. The Downtown Business Association needs to also provide
for adequate litter control during and after the event
including professional street sweeping. Expenses for
this service will be paid for by The Downtown Business
Association; and,
5. The Downtown Business Association must notify everyone,
business people and residents, affected by the street
closure within ten days of the event.
D~
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 4/13/93
/3
FISCAL IMPACT: The city will incur the administrative costs
of processing this request. The Downtown Business
Association will pay for costs related to the special police
for traffic/crowd control; public works personnel for trash
control, street cleaning, sidewalk cleaning and any
additional costs or labor; and any additional services
provided by the City.
Disk 5 (A:dbaclos3)
).3. L/
March 23,1993
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Chula Vista
'u 276 Fourth Avenue
'" Chula Vista, CA 91910
r )
DOViNiOWN
~siness Association ~
360 Third Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
619-422-1982
FAX 619-422-1452
Dear Chris,
Re: 1993 Street Closures
CincoFest 1993 is co-sponsored by K-1040 AM and will be held on Sunday, May 2
from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m.. We would like to close Third Avenue to through traffic
between E Street and F Street from 6 a.m. until 8 p.m. to allow an\j'lll! time for set up
and end of the day clean up. We will have a map ready for your approval within two
weeks. We anticipate approximately 100 art and crafts booths along with live
entertainment on stage beginning at 11 a.m.. The Ronald McDonald Show will be part
of the days entertainment. We will encourage all businesses to be open and utilize
their sidewalk space and plan to have local restaurants to provide food for the event.
The Third A venue Festival will be held on Saturday, August 21 from 10 a.m. until
6 p.m.. We would like to close Third Avenue to through traffic between E Street and
G Street from 6 a.m.until 8 p.m..We can have a map ready for your review by July 1.
We would also like to explore the possibility of relaxed/no parking meter enforcement
every Saturday and especially on Saturday, August 21. Relaxed/no enforcement
would ensure that our customers would not be ticketed if they shopped longer than
planned but would still encourage people to pay the meter. Saturdays are a major
shopping day in Downtown and in order to compete with other shopping districts we
must make it easy for customers to come Downtown.
Thank you for your cooperation and support.
J/U~
Martin Altbaum, President
cc:Ricardo Gomez, K-1040 AM
cc:John Gates, Parks and Recreation Department
/3;5 /I~-'
/7PI,tJ
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ALLOWING THE CLOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE FROM "E" TO "F" STREET
IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A FESTIVAL ON MAY 2 , 1993, WAIVING OF
THE SIDEWALK SALES ORDINANCE, AND WAIVING OF THE BUSINESS
LICENSE FEES FOR CINCOFEST 1993
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula vista
established a Business Improvement Area on November 16, 1971
which created the Downtown Business Association; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Business Association has
requested to close Third Avenue from "E" to "F" Street in
order to conduct CincoFest 1993, a Cinco de Mayo Festival,
on May 2, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Business Association has
requested a waiver of the city's Sidewalk Sales Ordinance so
that the Downtown Business Association can conduct CincoFest
1993; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Business Association has also
requested a waiver of the Business License Fees for vendors
taking part in The Third Avenue Festival; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista approves the closure of Third Avenue
on May 2, 1993 for the purpose of the Downtown Business
Association conducting CincoFest 1993 subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the
city of Chula vista approves the requested waiver of the
City's Sidewalk Sales Ordinance so that the Downtown
Business Association can conduct CincoFest 1993 on May 2,
1993.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council of the
City of Chula vista approves the requested waiver of the
city's Business License Fees for all vendors taking part in
the CincoFest 1993 on May 2, 1993.
PIP;}:
Chris Salomone
Director of Communi
~
;4~~ form by'
Ruth M. Fritsch~
Assistant City Attorney
Development
(ADR, disk5,dbareso.doc)
13'7
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval for the Closure of Third Avenue on
May 2, 1993 by the Downtown Business Association
1. The Downtown Business Association shall provide,
fourteen days prior to CincoFest 1993, evidence of general
liability insurance in the amount of $1 million, in the form
of.~ certiflcate of insurance and policy endorsement, naming
the-CIty of Chula vista as additional insured;
2. The Downtown Business Association shall execute an
agreement to hold the city harmless from any liability
stemming from Festival activities in the street;
3. The Downtown Business Association shall provide for
adequate traffic control and crowd control, as determined by
the Police Department, the cost of which will be pai~ RY the
Downtown Business Association. The Downtown Business
Association must prepare and submit to the City's Traffic
Engineer a plan for managing traffic on May 2, 1993;
4. The Downtown Business Association shall provide for
adequate litter control during and after the event including
professional street sweeping. Expenses for this service
shall be paid by the Downtown Business Association; and,
5. The Downtown Business Association must notify all
business people and residents affected by the street closure
ten days prior to the event.
/3'~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
J?P/,/
Resolution accepting Federal Library Services and
Construction Act (LSCA) Title I grant funds awarded
to the Chula vista Public Library for compliance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
appropriating funds and amending the FY 1992-93
budget.
SUBMITTED BY: Acting Library Director~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~~~~\(4/5ths Vote: Yes-X-No__)
The Chula vista Public Library has been awarded a Federal Library
Services and Construction Act (LSCA) grant by the California State
Library in the amount of $29,950 to develop a public library model
for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance.
MEETING
ITEM~
DATE 4-6-93
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On February 24, 1993 the Library
Board of Trustees voted to support the Library'S application for
LSCA funds to further compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DISCUSSION
On March 9, 1993 the City Council ratified the Library'S
application for grant funds to acquire specialized adaptive
equipment and furniture to be located in the reference area at the
Library at 365 F Street. This will enable individuals with a
variety of disabilities to access library materials they presently
cannot make use of, as required by the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Equipment will include a "reading machine" that will read
both English and Spanish language materials, text and screen
enhancers, and a telephone for the deaf (TDD). Funds will also be
used to train staff in serving library users with disabilities.
This project will also serve as a model for providing access to
individuals with disabilities at other libraries, including the new
South Chula vista Library.
FISCAL IMPACT
Accepting this grant will provide $29,950 for the purchase of
equipment, related expenses, and training only. No staff will be
added under this grant. These funds will be appropriated into fund
260-2612 (See attachment A).
It! - /
ATTACHMENT A
LSCA/AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT BUDGET
FY 1992-93
BUDGET ACCOUNT: 260-2612
5252 - Telephone wiring 80
5254 - Training 1,500
5298 - Other Contractual Services 700
5398 - Supplies 150
5568 - Equipment $27.520
TOTAL BUDGET $29,950
/'-/..,;..
RESOLUTION NO.
I '1O/' I
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING LIBRARY SERVICES AND
CONSTRUCTION ACT, TITLE I GRANT FUNDS AWARDED
TO THE CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT, APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND
AMENDING THE FY 1992-93 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Public Library has been awarded
a Federal Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) grant by the
California State Library in the amount of $29,950 to develop a
public library model for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
compliance; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 1993, the Library Board of
Trustees voted to support the Library'S application for LSCA funds
to further compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby accept the Federal Library
Services and Construction Act (LSCA) Title I grant funds awarded to
the Chula vista Public Library for compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 1992-93 budget is
hereby amended by appropriating $29,950 from the Library Federal
Grant Fund 260 to Account 260-2612 as set forth in Attachment A.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
David Palmer, Acting
Library Director
Ass1stant
F:\home\attomcy\LSCAgmt
)l/.; .J
ITEM NUMBER:
RESOLUTION NUMBER:
171Ji/()
ORDINANCE NUMBER:
OTHER:
ITEM NUMBER REFERENCED ABOVE WAS CONTINUED FROM
DATE:
(AGENDA PACKET SCANNED AT ABOVE DATE)
ITEM NUMBER REFERENCED ABOVE HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO
DATE:
Jf -~ 7- 9.3
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION:
j5-/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / ,
Meeting Date: 4/13/93
ITEM TIlLE:
Resolution ) 70 ~t;rizing temporary street closures 'on May 7, 1993 for
a parade sponsored by paloma~mentary School.
Director of Parks and Recreati~
City Manager.jtJ ~~] , (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-X)
SUBMITIED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Request from Palomar Elementary School to conduct a school parade on May 7, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the request subject to staff conditions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
The principal of Palomar Elementary School, 300 East Palomar Street, has requested permission to
conduct a school parade on May 7,1993, from 9:45-10:45 AM. (Attachment A). The parade is the
culminating event in the school's Spirit Week celebration. The proposed parade route is indicated
on the attached diagram (Attachment B). Approximately 500 students from the school will
participate, along with a marching band from Castle Park Middle School. The school has conducted
this parade for several years without incident.
Approval should be subject to the school meeting the following conditions:
1. Provision of a certificate of insurance and policy endorsement in the amount of $1 million,
naming the City of Chula Vista as additional insured.
2. Execution of a hold harmless agreement.
3. Provision of adequate traffic control as determined by the Police Department. The cost for
any required service will be paid for by the school.
4. Clean-up of any litter generated by the event.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Attachments: A - Letter of Request NOT SCANNED
B - Diagram of streets involved
wp\parade
/J, -/ //6-1.
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
A
PALOMAR
SCHOOL
300 EAST PALOMAR STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91911
March 10, 1993
Mr. Jess Valenzuela
City of Chula Vista
Parks & Recreation Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Dear Mr. Valenzuela,
Palomar Elementary School will be celebrating SPIRIT WEEK
the week of May 3rd, finishing up the week with a parade
on May 7th.
We request the city to permit us to have this parade on
May 7, 1993 on the adjoining local streets, according to
the pre-approved route. The parade would begin at approx-
imately 9:45 and continue to 10:45 a.m.
We will contact the Chula Vista Police Department and
request police services.
Thank you for your assistance on this event.
Sincerely,
1f1r-J
Nelson
BJN:pc
RECEIVED
CHULA VISTA R<>.RKS &
RE'::Sf_~I~_Q~L C~PT.
/J,-.J..
Ie
, ~,."......
:B
L- ID -
O(
/200 =
NACION AVE. 14G
~ NILE AVE NILE ~ ~ "E.c.~N
. z CT. 0
~ ,,\. MOUNtAIN VIEW ~
c c. ...
1&1 tit 1&11- NEPTUNE .,.: ~~ LN. lL
I- 1&1 2(1) D" . U
tit e:: 1&1 ...
III C C -
1&1 1&1 NAPA AVE. ..~ 4
% 2 0 . .
K I- NA~ 0 '\~~ 1,
I- Z ~
C ..... .
c AVE. NOLAN i c -l,y'
- '"'}l~'
> lL
NOCTURNE SSION .,.:
CT AVE U
AVE MONTEREY
+II AVE. ,. :' L.g)
i
C
Z
51-' l'\al.ll.OSE. 10."'-.
I&IU
oJ
.... MYRA .,.: t; .,.: ..,: ..,: MYRA
MYRA AVE. AVE (I) (I) tit In
MONSE"ATE AVE.
c ..;
In
1&1' oe 0 c ECKMAN
c)- c 0 c )- A~E
1&1- - 1&1
S lL 0 z 2
% 2 - c 0 oJ
l- I-' c 1&1 (I)
~ tit 0 ~ Z .oJ oJ - MAX AVE
0 c c f
0 0 lL
.,.: ~
1&1 (I) THERESA WY
.- Z 1&1 1&1 1&1 1&1 ..; oJ
(I) Z
C C
z JUDSON ;:)
.- 0 z ci WY. 0
(I) tit 1&1 C
C C 1&1 0
(I) III ;:) I&. ~
1&1 Z ~ 0 )( JOSSELYN AVE
oJ z 0
II. C 1&1 HELIX AVE.
C 1&1 I- HELIX
z oJ ..
II, ~:J
RESOLUTION NO.
I')P~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET
CLOSURES ON MAY 7, 1993 FOR A PARADE SPONSORED
BY PALOMAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
WHEREAS, Palomar Elementary
permission to conduct a school parade on
10: 45 A.M.; and
School has requested
May 7, 1993 from 9:45-
WHEREAS, approximately 500 students from the school will
participate, along with a marching band from Castle Park Middle
School; and
WHEREAS, the school has conducted this parade for several
year without incident and it is staff's recommendation that
approval be granted to the school for the temporary street closure
subject to the conditions listed hereinbelow.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize temporary street
closures (as indicated on Attachment B) on May 7, 1993 from 9:45-
10:45 A.M. for a parade sponsored by Palomar Elementary School
subject to the following conditions:
1.
provision of a certificate of insurance and policy
endorsement in the amount of $1 million, naming the
city of Chula vista as additional insured.
Execution of a hold harmless agreement.
2.
3.
provision of adequate traffic control as determined
by the Police Department. The cost for any required
service will be paid for by the school.
Clean-up of any litter generated by the event.
4.
Jess Valenzuela, Director
of Parks and Recreation
Approved as to form by
Rut~~tant
City Attorney
Presented by
F:\homc\attorney\paJparad
" -1/ .
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:fl
Meeting Date: 4/13/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution) "7" ~ :3 Authorizing the City Manager to submit an
application for Federal Grant Funding to purchase and install an
emergency vehicle traffic signal pre-emption system.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of PlWlic Works- t
Fire Chief?JI1t" ..,.
REVIEWED BY: City Manager .JGt~ ~1
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to submit a grant application
for funds for the purchase and installation of an emergency vehicle traffic signal pre-emption
system within the City of Chula Vista. Special grant funds, administered by the California State
Office of Traffic Safety, are available under the National Highway Safety Act of 1966.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution and authorizing the grant
application submittal and the grant execution.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
A traffic signal pre-emption control system enables emergency units to move uninterrupted
through signalized intersections by directing the traffic signal controller via an electronic device,
called a phase selector, to advance to and/or hold a green light in the direction of the oncoming
emergency vehicles. The traffic signal pre-emption system consists of four (4) units: an optical
emitter mounted on the emergency vehicles, optical detectors at the signalized intersection,
optical detector cables, and a phase selector placed inside the traffic controller. An emergency
vehicle traffic signal pre-emption system will enable emergency vehicles to change downstream
red signals to green or maintain the green light, thereby allowing the emergency vehicles to
maintain a safer progression through signalized intersections without the potential of right angle
conflicts from cross traffic which now is the case.
When the pre-emption system triggers the signal to turn green, it disrupts the signal cycle, but
the signal will return to syncronization with the computerized system within three cycles. The
use of pre-emption signals will improve emergency vehicle response time and reduce the risk
of accidents at signalized intersections. According to the local representative for 3M Company,
a manufacturer of a traffic signal pre-emption system, the system is used very effectively by the
City of National City, City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego and every city in the
County except Coronado and Chula Vista.
/7-1
Page 2, Item 17
Meeting Date 4/13/93
There are currently 118 signalized intersections within the City, three of these intersections in
the northeast part of the City have already been equipped with a signal control system as part
of a program paid for the Bonita Fire Protection District. The Bonita Fire Protection District
installed the pre-emption system on the Bonita Road signals at Willow Street, Allen School Road
and Otay Lakes Road under a Public Works construction permit. It is estimated that the total
cost to purchase and install a emergency vehicle traffic signals system for all 115 signalized
intersections in the City to be about $700,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: None to the City. Grant provides up to 100% financing. Since this action
only approves an application for funds this item would come back to Council for further
authorization, including appropriating funds if the grant is not equal to the full cost of the
project.
ZAO:SB:FILB:_
F:ENGINEER\AOENDA \PREEMPT .SYS
I?';'
RESOLUTION NO.
/71)/':1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL GRANT
FUNDING TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL AN EMERGENCY
VEHICLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council authorize
the City Manager to submit a grant application for funds for the
purchase and installation of an emergency vehicle traffic signal
pre-emption system within the city of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, a traffic signal pre-emption control system
enables emergency units to move uninterrupted through signalized
intersections by directing the traffic signal controller via an
electronic device, called a phase selector, to advance to and/or
hold a green light in the direction of the oncoming emergency
vehicles; and
WHEREAS, special grant funds, administered by the
California State Office of Traffic Safety, are available under the
National Highway Safety Act of 1966.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby authorize the City Manager to
submit an application for Federal Grant Funding to purchase and
install an emergency vehicle traffic signal pre-emption
system.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
/~d
Ruth M. Fritsch, Assistant
City Attorney
F:\home\attomey\prempt.sys
J7~3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / ~
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Resolution I ? () j. 'I Approving temporary closures on various
streets in EastLake
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Public wor~
City Manager J6 'tJ fi!) (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No..K)
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Kiewit Pacific Company is preparing to commence work on the Second San Diego Aqueduct
Pipeline Extension through the EastLake area of Chula Vista. In order to complete the necessary
work, which involves deep trenches, the contractor is requesting to temporarily close certain
residential streets for up to two weeks. Access to all area residences will always be maintained.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolution which approves
temporary closures subject to certain conditions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has received a written request from Mr. Jamie Wisenbaker, Project Engineer for the Kiewit
Pacific Company, requesting temporary detours and some street closures to allow for the
construction of the San Diego County Water Authority - Second San Diego Aqueduct Pipeline
4 Extension Phase II project. The aqueduct pipeline work is scheduled to commence in mid-
April and terminate in August 1993. Street work will be confined to four locations (see area
plats attached), each up to two weeks in duration. The four job sites are numbered in the order
of construction on the area plats. At no time will there be more than one work area under
construction at any particular time.
According to the contractor, it will not be possible to maintain traffic movement through the
work area at two locations because of the size and depth of the aqueduct pipeline. The two
locations which require temporary street closures will result in some neighborhood inconvenience
by forcing some residents to drive out of direction to reach their destinations. The two work
areas which will necessitate street closures are:
. Zinfandel Terrace just east of Port Claridge (location #1), and
. Port Renwick between Hillside Drive and Port Chelsea (location #2).
/t" /
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Temporary bypass roads will be provided around the work area for the remaining two locations.
No out of direction travel will be required at these locations as the work will not affect access
to the homes:
. Clearbrook Drive - west of Suncreek Drive (location #3 Area Plat)
. Gotham Street - east of Lehigh Avenue (location #4 Area Plat)
Staff recommends that the Second San Diego Aqueduct Pipeline 4 Extension Phase II project
construction be approved for these locations subject to the following conditions:
1. The closure, at Zinfandel Terrace will be for a one week period from 7:00 a.m. Monday
through 7:00 a.m. Monday, a period 168 consecutive hours and will provide for access
to Port Claridge at all times via a temporary access road. The closure at Port Renwick
will be for a maximum of two weeks. Clearbrook Drive and Gotham Street will have
temporary access roads for 2 consecutive weeks each.
2. An approved traffic control plan be submitted to the Chula Vista Department of Public
Works at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the closure and/or detour. (Staff
has received some preliminary traffic control plans as of mid-March).
3. All detour signing to be maintained by the contractor throughout the length of time that
street closure and/or detour is in effect.
4. The contractor is to notify all residents of Port Claridge, Clearbrook Drive (west of
Suncreek Drive) and 2005 Gotham Street at least one week in advance of the street
closure and detour routes.
5. The contractor is to notify the Chula Vista Star News, San Diego Union Tribune, Chula
Vista Police Department, Chula Vista Fire Department, Chula Vista Transit, Chula Vista
Public Works Department, Laidlaw Waste Systems and EastLake Elementary School at
least one week in advance of each road closure.
6. Any street improvements, landscaping, street signs or other City property which is
damaged, will be replaced at the contractor's expense.
7. The contractor will make available to all listed above in numbers 4 and 5, three 24-hour
emergency telephone numbers and three names of contact personnel.
8. No closure/detour shall be made until the traffic control plan has been approved by the
City and signs are erected at least one week in advance notifying the public of the closure
in accordance with California Vehicle Code Sections 21101 and 21103.
9. If work is completed early, then the roadway will be opened to through traffic as soon
as practically possible.
/d'"- j
Page 3, ltem-.lZ
Meeting Date 4/13/93
The scope of the work is as follows:
Work crews will be setting up traffic control/detour signs no later than one week in advance of
the construction work. Workers will then close off the street and begin to work on the
temporary detour, if applicable, and begin the trench work. Due to the type of construction
work required, 16 foot trenches, the roadway cannot be maintained opened to through traffic on
Zinfandel Terrace and Port Renwick. Vehicular access to Port Claridge, Clearbrook Drive,
Gotham Street and Lehigh Avenue will always be maintained.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the resolution to temporarily close various streets
in EastLake for a period not to exceed two weeks at each location subject to the conditions listed
above. The closure at Zinfandel Terrace will not exceed one week. Staff has notified all
affected residents of tonights City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
File: PC-870
Attachments: Area Plats
Letter Dated 3~D
WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\stclose.elk
/1'-:; /tK-r
RESOLUTION NO. I/(//,i
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING TEMPORARY CLOSURES ON
VARIOUS STREETS IN EASTLAKE
WHEREAS, The Kiewit Pacific Company is preparing to
commence work on the Second San Diego Aqueduct Pipeline Extension
through the EastLake area of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, in order to complete the necessary work, which
involves deep trenches, the contractor is requesting to temporarily
close the following residential streets for up to two weeks:
. Zinfandel Terrace just east of Port Claridge (location #1).
. Port Renwick between Hillside Drive and Port Chelsea (location
#2) .
. Clearbrook Drive - west of Suncreek Drive (location #3 Area
Plat)
. Gotham Street - east of Lehigh Avenue (location #4 Area Plat)
WHEREAS, access to all area residences will always be
maintained; and
WHEREAS, the aqueduct pipeline work is scheduled to
commence in mid-April and terminate in August 1993 with street work
to be confined to four locations, each up to two weeks in duration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the temporary closures
of the above-named streets in EastLake subject to the following
conditions:
1. The closure, at Zinfandel Terrace will be for a one week
period from 7:00 a.m. Monday through 7:00 a.m. Monday, a
period 168 consecutive hours and will provide for access to
Port Claridge at all times via a temporary access road. The
closure at Port Renwick will be for a maximum of two weeks.
Clearbrook Drive and Gotham Street will have temporary access
roads for 2 consecutive weeks each.
2. An approved traffic control plan be submitted to the Chula
vista Department of Public Works at least two weeks prior to
the commencement of the closure and/or detour. (Staff has
received some preliminary traffic control plans as of mid-
March).
3. All detour signing to be maintained by the contractor
throughout the length of time that street closure and/or
detour is in effect.
1
/Y"5
4. The contractor is to notify all residents of Port Claridge,
Clearbrook Drive (west of Sun creek Drive) and 2005 Gotham
street at least one week in advance of the street closure and
detour routes.
5. The contractor is to notify the Chula vista star News, San
Diego Union Tribune, Chula vista Police Department, Chula
vista Fire Department, Chula vista Transit, Chula vista Public
Works Department, Laidlaw Waste Systems and EastLake
Elementary School at least one week in advance of each road
closure.
6. Any street improvements, landscaping, street signs or other
City property which is damaged, will be replaced at the
contractor's expense.
7. The contractor will make available to all listed above in
numbers 4 and 5, three 24-hour emergency telephone numbers and
three names of contact personnel.
8. No closure/detour shall be made until the traffic control plan
has been approved by the City and signs are erected at least
one week in advance notifying the public of the closure in
accordance with California Vehicle Code sections 21101 and
21103.
9. If work is completed early, then the roadway will be opened to
through traffic as soon as practically possible.
Presented by
Approved as 0 form by
2tvJ A
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Ruth M. Fritsch, Assistant
City Attorney
F:\bome\attorney\stclose.eJk
2
18"' (,
....
c(
w .J
~ ~ a.
.J
t;
4: c(
W
W
a:.
c(
~
u
a:
)(
u..
(I)
0)
"-
o
(I)
"-
(I)
.
..
.
c
~
7,
'"
~],....~~,
~ J )~~~~
I()I, 0 0.,.>-
l<i', O~
., ~
~
~~ * - f
" ~... 6<t. l~ ~OO~/
0,) '" ",q;
\ q;V
M ~"
/1
~
t
-'"
~
...
/'
1/
,
,
~
~
:l
o
a::
C'I
.
"
.
.:
Q.
.
..
:l
o
a::
...
.
"
.
.:
Go
I
1;
i
I
I
.
'I T7 /
~
~ L...
.....-
I..---
,--
II..---
I
I
-c..--I ~-
c..-- I Z; 't-
___ ~l" .- IS>_
~-- ~ '\
br-l-- '\:);) t-
t \'0 \V/, X
~.
~~
:
-"
'"
...-- --
/\
...
, ..
. I-- ,-
0
0
"
!:
-' ..-
i
.lSI1',3
\
\//~ .>'" ~.>
I"-
~.<
:S-
"'0
o
"
.L
~
-'
v-:
r1 ~ ",'
I "'....' I Qc' " /
~(---;.',-:n- ~ f!fJJ~ ~~ :v~ ~
,,' )'LJ./ tfIJ'--I~" c
r Jl ^ ~
100'.... '\. ~~~'^ '\ f
(1" '/18--9 c
..~
-
l-
e(
..J
C.
e(
w
0:.
e(
.
:;;
i=
II:
)(
II..
CO)
Gl
"-
o
CO)
"-
CO)
Ii
..
.
c
.
ADDRESS REPLY TO:
KIEWIT PAcIii:e\~ba:"
',-.t.':,,_,;..,::-r~ ,~~'.cUt:,'~
A Kiewit Corhpany' . \ 4
\,,<:;~ u~R - 2 1'\<\ 4.
li,;...... f\.p
NOKTHWESF DISTRICT OFFICE:
215 V SUP.a. Box 1769
Vancouver, VVA 98668
206/693-1478
.
1270 Eastlake Parkway
Chula Vista, CA 91915
(619) 656-0397
March 26, 1993
HOME OFFICE:
1000 Kiewit Plaza
Omaha, Nebraska 68131
city of Chula vista
Public Works Department
Traffic Engineering
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
ATT: HR. HAROLD ROSENBERG
city Traffic Engineer
RE: PIPELINE 4 EXTENSION, PHASE II
Traffic Control
KPC Job No. 036-3812
Serial Letter 001
This letter is in regards to proposed temporary street closures at
Zinfandel Terrace and Port Renwick, and a temporary detour at
Clearbrook Drive. Barring any further inclement weather this work
will begin in mid April at Zinfandel Terrace and proceed South
toward Clearbrook Drive, with each closure reopened prior to the
next closure. This work will encompass approximately six weeks
total work, with each closure/ and or detour lasting approximately
one week. Attached is a copy of the Traffic Control Plans
furnished by the San Diego County Water Authority for the P4EII
project, with proposed revisions made. If you have any questions
you may contact Darrin Hansen or myself at 656-0397. Thank you in
advance for your time and effort in this matter.
KIEWIT PACIFIC CO.
~"'k':
project Engineer
/8'.;1
I-
W
W
cr
Ii;
"
-
......
NO. DATE
"'~
Ii;
'"
w
>- cr
cr 0
ii? 0-
cr W
w '"
~ ~
~ III
.......
..............
,
J
PIPELINE 4 EXTENSION
PHASE II (P4EIIl
-
1jj
8~ -
STANfORO
'--
RUTGERS
"A
I-
W
W
cr
I-
en
I-
o
<(
-'
f2
o
-'
I-
en
...
~
::>
:z:
"
;;j
~~/VE"LL
/VUE
....
en
!:J
;!
REVISIONS
ASL Consultants, Inc.
STEVE TEDESCO PROJECT MANAGER RCE 39261
169~9 BERNARDO CENTER OfHVE, SUITE 21~
SAN DIEGO, CA 92128
OWN CKO APPR (619)673-~:'O~
~
,
,
o WARNING SIGNS
:1 FI CArlO N
BLE HAUL ROUTES
~
~~
t-
W
W
'"
t-
'"
12
IE O{SIGNAHO KAUL ROUTES FOR ALL LABOR,
:EO ON TKE PROJECT.
E TO REPAIR ANY DAHAGf TO UISTING STREETS
~ CA Tl NG THE ttAH E 0 F PRQJ E C T , AG E Nty .
-IONANO 24-HOUR EHERGENCY TELEPHONE NUHBER
u.s PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE
-,:
DR.
PROCTOR
-
,~
, ~PIPELlNE 4 EXTENSION
PHASE II (P4ElIl
...
...
...
...
...
,
-..
...
...
RUE
PARe
I-
'"
<t
w
lASE
.
ur
JR RAL
--,
SHADOW
CANYON
WAY
..
xf
F/fOG"
IY" I /
S "lfL
@
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
WATER AUTHORITY
SECOND SAN DIEGO
AQUEDUCT
PIPELINE 4 EXTENSION
PHASE II
HAUL ROAD SIGNS AND
ROUTE PLAN
SCHEDULE A
SPEC_ NO
432
0fWWIG N<
TC-3
Sl-EETNO
106 OF 14
~
San...... """"'"
--
3211 FFTH.ltIENUE 610W.FFTH.ltIENUE
SANOEGO.CA1l2103 ESCONOIOO.CA92Crn>
619-2117-3218 61g-.ea()-1991
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /9
SUBMITTED BY:
Meeting Date 4/13/93
--
Resolution /7 P~..!j Approving agreement between the City
of Chula Vista and Pacific Bell for installation of traffic signal at
Oleander Avenue and Otay Valley Road and authorizing the Mayor
to execute on behalf of the City
Director of Public Work:;1
City Manager ~cq lir ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoXI
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
The City is currently involved in the planning and construction activities to widen Otay
Valley Road southerly of its current location in the segment between 1-805 freeway
and the easterly City limits. Phase I of the project goes from 1-805 freeway to just
east of Nirvana Avenue including the intersection of Otay Valley Road with Oleander
Avenue. Phase II goes from just east of Nirvana Avenue to the easterly City limits.
Pacific Bell proposes to fund design and construction of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Otay Valley Road and Oleander Avenue to improve ingress and egress
from Pacific Bell's site at said intersection. The proposed agreement provides for this
inclusion of the traffic signal work as part of our project.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor
to execute on behalf of the City.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Pacific Bell has approached the City with a proposal to fund the. design and
construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Otay Valley Road and Oleander
Avenue to improve the ingress and egress from Pacific Bell's site just south of the
intersection. The intersection of Otay Valley Road and Oleander Avenue does meet
traffic signal warrants. However, based on the number of points it receives, it would
be ranked near the bottom of the City's Traffic Signal Evaluation list and would not
justify the expenditure of City Traffic Signal Funds at this time due to the limited
amount of funds available. In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set
forth in the agreement, the parties agree as follows:
1. Upon execution of this agreement, Pacific Bell shall deposit with the City the
total of $95,200 for work associated with the traffic signal and modifications
19-/
Page 2, Itemft
Meeting Date 4/13/93
to public improvements adjacent to their site. This cost is broken down as
follows:
Design of traffic signal $15,200
Estimated cost for traffic signal improvement 75,000
Estimated additional cost for work associated with
revisions to approve contract plans 5,000
TOTAL 95,200
City shall be entitled to use the deposited funds to meet the obligations under
the term of the agreement.
2. Traffic Signal Facilities Easement - On the condition that the City implements
the road widening improvements on Otay Valley Road, Pacific Bell shall seek
and obtain an easement for installation and maintenance of traffic signal
facilities granted to the City by the owner of Pacific Bell's site. The City shall
provide Pacific Bell with the legal description and plat of the easement area
necessary. Pacific Bell shall bear all cost to obtain the easement including but
not limited to costs associated with title reports, property value appraisals, and
property acquisition. If Pacific Bell is unable to obtain the easement from the
owner of the property, City may at its sole discretion, terminate this agreement.
3. Engineering for Traffic Signal - On the condition that the City implements the
Otay Valley Road widening improvements, the City shall provide the
engineering design work for the installation of the traffic signal at Otay Valley
Road and Oleander Avenue.
4. Engineering for Pacific Bell Site Improvements - The City may determine that
certain modifications to the road widening improvements on Otay Valley Road
may be required as a result of the installation of the traffic signal. If the City
so determines that the modifications are required, Pacific Bell shall at their own
cost and expense, cause a Civil Engineer to provide the revisions to the Otay
Valley Road improvement plans to accommodate the modifications.
5. On the condition that all the foregoing conditions and covenants have occurred,
the City shall cause the traffic signal and modifications to be constructed as
part of the City's Otay Valley road widening improvements. At all times herein
provided, Pacific Bell shall neither own nor have any vested interest in the
traffic signal or any modifications not otherwise constructed in the right-of-way
owned by the City or on property owned by the City.
6. Cost Distribution - Except for cost incurred for inspection and testing which
shall be borne by City, Pacific Bell shall bear all cost for the design and
19-,;1.
Page 3, Item-'.!l..
Meeting Date 4/13/93
construction ofthe traffic signal and modifications. Conditions now unforeseen
may require modifications of plans and specifications heretofore approved by
Pacific Bell for the work. Cost for changes in the work shall be the
responsibility of Pacific Bell. City may apply all funds and deposit toward the
cost properly chargeable to Pacific Bell under this agreement. If at the
completion of the traffic signal and modification work, the City shall determine
the actual cost for the work and shall either reimburse Pacific Bell for unspent
funds remaining from the deposit if such funds exist, or Pacific Bell shall pay
the City such funds additional to the deposit as may be required to cause
Pacific Bell to pay for the cost of the work.
FISCAL IMPACT: The majority of the cost associated with this agreement is being
funded by Pacific Bell. The City will incur only minor expenses in regards to additional
inspection and testing services which will be borne by the City during the construction
of the improvements. Annual energy and maintenance costs of $3,500 to the City
is associated with this new traffic signal.
SLH:FILE #AO-060-G
WPC F:IHOMEIENGINEERIAGENOAI8EllAGMT
003383
19-3/19-1'
RESOLUTION NO.
)')~~5"
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND PACIFIC BELL FOR
INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT OLEANDER
AVENUE AND OTAY VALLEY ROAD AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, the city is currently involved in the planning
and construction activities to widen Otay Valley Road southerly of
its current location in the segment between 1-805 freeway and the
easterly City limits; and
WHEREAS, Phase I of the project goes from 1-805 freeway
to just east of Nirvana Avenue including the intersection of Otay
Valley Road with Oleander Avenue and Phase II goes from just east
of Nirvana Avenue to the easterly city limits; and
WHEREAS, Pacific Bell proposes to fund design and
construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Otay Valley
Road and Oleander Avenue to improve ingress and egress from Pacific
Bell's site at said intersection; and
WHEREAS, the proposed agreement provides for this
inclusion of the traffic signal work as part of our project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement between
the City of Chula vista and Pacific Bell for installation of
traffic signal at Oleander Avenue and Otay Valley Road, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
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.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
as to form by
Presented by
F: \home\attomey\bellagmnt
/,~ /1'''6
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND PACIFIC BELL
FOR INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL
AT OLEANDER A VENUE AND OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD
This Agreement, made and entered into this _ day of , 1992, by and between
the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter called "City")
and PACIFIC BELL, a California corporation, (hereinafter called "Pacific").
RECITALS
A. City is currently involved in the planning and construction activities to widen Otay
Valley Road southerly of its current location in the segment between 1-805 Freeway and the
Easterly City limits. Phase I of the project goes from 1-805 Freeway to just east of Nirvana
Avenue including the intersection of Otay Valley Road with Oleander Avenue. Phase II goes
from just east of Nirvana Avenue to the Easterly City Limits. ("Road Widening Improvements")
B. Pacific proposes to fund design and construction of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Otay Valley Road and Oleander Avenue ("Traffic Signal") to improve ingress to
and egress from Pacific's site at said intersection.
C. Both parties wish to construct the proposed Traffic Signal in conjunction with and
as a change orderto City's current construction contract for Road Widening Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth
below. the parties hereto agree as follows:
I. Recitals. The parties to this agreement agree that the above recitals are true and correct.
2. Deposit.
Upon execution of this Agreement, Pacific shall deposit with City the total of $95,200.00
for the work associated with the traffic signal and modification to public improvements
("Deposit"). This cost is broken down as follows:
.
Design of Traffic Signal
Estimated cost for Traffic Signal Improvements
Estimated additional cost for work associated
with revisions to the approved contract plans.
TOTAL =
$15,200.00
$75,000.00
.
.
$ 5.000.00
$ 95,200.00
f:\home\attomey'i>acbell. wp
December 7, 1992
Agreement re Traffic Signal; Otay Valley Road at Oleander
Page I
/9-7
City shall be entitled to use the deposited funds to meet its obligations under the terms of this
agreement
3. Traffic Signal Facilities Easement
On the condition that the City implements the Road Widening Improvements Pacific shall
seek and obtain an easement for installation and maintenance of traffic signal facilities granted
to City by owner of Pacific's site. City shall provide Pacific with legal descriptions and plots
of the easement.
Pacific shall bear all costs to obtain the easement including but not limited to costs
associated with: title reports; property value appraisals; and property acquisition. If Pacific is
unable to obtain the easement, City may, at its sole discretion, terminate this agreement.
4. Engineering for Traffic Signal.
On the condition that the City implements the Road Widening Improvements, the City
shall provide the engineering design work for the installation of the Traffic Signal at Otay Valley
Road and Oleander Avenue ("Traffic Signal Design").
5. Engineering for Pacific Site Improvements.
If the City implements the Road Widening Improvements, the City may determine that
certain modifications to the Road Widening Improvements ("Modifications") may be required as
a result of the installation of the Traffic Signal. If the City so determines that Modifications are
required, Pacific shall, at their own cost and expense, cause a competent engineer to provide the
revisions ("Modification Plans") to the Road Widening Improvements to accommodate the
Modifications in a manner and at such timing as to not cause any delay in the implementation
of the Road Widening Improvements. Failure to deliver the Modification Plans according to the
provisions of this section shall give the City the option to terminate this Agreement, not install
the Modifications, and upon doing so, City shall return the unspent portion of the Deposit.
6. Duty to Construct the Traffic Signal
On the condition that all of the foregoing conditions and covenants have occurred, the
City shall cause the Traffic Signal and Modifications to be constructed as part of the City's Road
Widening Improvements in accordance with the Traffic Signal Design and Modification Plans.
At all times herein provided, Pacific shall neither own nor have any vested interest in the Traffic
Signal or any Modifications not otherwise constructed in right of way owned by the City or on
property owned by the City.
f:\home\attorney\pacbell. wp
December 7, 1992
Agreement re Traffic Signal; Otay Valley Road at Oleander
Page 2
/9-r
7. Costs Distribution.
Except for costs incurred for inspection and testing which shall be borne by City, Pacific
shall bear all costs for the design and construction of the Traffic Signal and Modifications.
Conditions now unforeseen may require modifications of plans and specifications heretofore
approved by Pacific for the Work. Costs for changes in the Work shall be the responsibility of
Pacific. City may apply all funds on Deposit toward the costs properly chargeable to Pacific
under this Agreemenl If at the completion of the Traffic Signal and Modifications ("Work"),
City shall detennine the actual costs for the Work and shall either reimburse Pacific for unspent
funds remaining from the Deposit, if such funds exist; or Pacific shall pay City such funds
additional to the Deposit as may be required to cause Pacific to pay for the costs of the Work.
8. Miscellaneous Provisions.
A. Modification.
This Agreement may not be altered in whole or in part except by a modification, in
writing, executed by all the parties to this Agreement.
B. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement, together with all the exhibits attached to this Agreement, contains all
representations and the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter
of this Agreement. Any prior correspondence, memoranda, or agreements, whether or not such
correspondence, memoranda, or agreements are in conflict with this Agreement, are intended to
be replaced in total by this Agreement and its exhibits.
C. Binding Effect.
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties and their
respective purchasers, successors, heirs, and assigns.
D. Applicable Law.
This Agreement and any disputes relating to this Agreement shall be construed under the
laws of the State of California.
E. Unenforceable Provisions.
The terms, conditions, and covenants of this Agreement shall be construed whenever
possible as consistent with all applicable laws and regulations. To the extent that any provision
of this Agreement, as so interpreted, is held to violate any applicable law or regulations, the
f:\home\attomey'q:lacbell. wp
December 7, 1992
Agreement re Traffic Signal; Otay Valley Road at Oleander
Page 3
19-9
remaining provlSlons shall nevertheless be carried into full force and effect and remain
enforceable.
F. Representation of Capacity to Contract.
Each party to this Agreement represents and warrants that it has the authority to execute
this Agreement.
G. No Waiver.
The failure of either party to enforce any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement
on the date it is to be performed shall not be construed as a waiver of that party's right to
enforce this or any other, term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement at any later date or as
.a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement.
H. Notices.
All letters, statements, or notices required pursuant to this Agreement shall be deemed
effective upon receipt when personally served or when sent certified mail, return receipt requested
to the following addresses:
To: "City"
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Atto: City Engineer
To: "Pacific" Pacific Bell
3848 Seventh Avenue, Suite 120
San Diego, CA 921032078
Attn: Patty Hamilton, Real Estate Manager
I. Time of Essence. The parties agree that time is of the essence as to all matters
specified in this Agreement.
f:\home\attorneywacbell. wp
December 7, 1992
Agreement re Traffic Signal; Otay Valley Road at Oleander
Page 4
19'1()
Signature Page
to
Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Pacific Bell
for Installation of Traffic Signal
at Oleander Avenue and Otay Valley Road
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Pacific Bell have executed this Agreement thereby
indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent
to its terms:
Dated:
19_
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
Dated:
~C BELL
B;;~.Wir-
M. J. Williams
Director-Portfolio Management
f:\home\attorneY'i>acbell. wp
November 5,1992
Agreement re Traffic Signal; Otay Valley Road at Oleander
Pages
/9-/1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item )j)
Meeting Date 4/13/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution' "7 Q (ok, Approving Agreement for Deferral of Park Acquisition and
Development Pees and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Said Agreement
Resolution l/ {) '.0 1 Approving the Pinal Map for Chula Vista Tract 90-05, Villa
del Rey Condominiums.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~ (}
Director of Parks and Recreatio~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager --'4 'Q-@1 (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
On March 14, 1990, by PCS-90-05, the City Planning Commission approved the Tentative Map for
Chula Vista Tract 90-05, Villa del Rey Condominiums. The project consists of one lot containing 10
condominium units. An agreement for deferral of Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees and
the Pinal Map (see Exhibit "A") are now before Council for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The project is generally located on the west side of Fifth Avenue between Naples Street and Oxford
Street and consists of one lot containing ten condominium units. The developers at the time of Tentative
Map approval were John and Yolanda Pollorena. Currently the developers of record are Danny and
Vicky Biggins and Jerry and Ellen Halamuda.
Tentative Map Condition of Approval No.4 requires the developer to pay the PAD, DIP and RCT fees
which are in effect at the time of collection. Section 17.10.100 (parklands and Public Facilities) of the
City Code states that PAD fees shall be paid prior to final map approval; DIP and RCT fees are due
at building permit approval. The developers have agreed to pay either the current fees ($38,100.00)
or whatever fee is in effect at such time building permits are issued. The ability for a developer to
defer payment of PAD fees has not historically been considered by staff. Approval for Villa del Rey
Condominiums would be the first time staff is recommending such an agreement. Staff has reviewed
the proposal and considers that, in view of the developer's financial restrictions, it is reasonable to
require the payment of PAD fees as a condition of the building permit issuance. It is estimated by the
developer that building permits would be pulled and fees paid in 4 months. However, should
circumstances arise, and the building permits are not pulled; the agreement contains a condition which
obligates the developer to pay the PAD fees by May 1, 2003. Staff has reviewed and the City Attorney
?.D - I
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Attorney has approved the proposed deferral agreement and recommends approval by Council.
Approval of the agreement also means that the requirements of Condition No.4 have been fully met.
The Parks and Recreation Department will be returning to Council this fiscal year with proposed
amendments to the Parklands and Public Facilities Ordinance which will facilitate the City's ability to
consider the granting of requests for fee deferrals, based on certain conditions at staff level without
going to Council or require that park fees are paid at the time building permits are issued. It would be
prudent for the City to review each request to ascertain any impact, on the ability of the City to fund
the development of park and recreation facilities, that such a deferral process would signify.
The Tentative Map for Chula Vista Tract 90-05 would have expired on March 14, 1993. However, on
February 3, 1993 the developers submitted an application for a one year extension. In accordance with
section 66452.6(e) of the Subdivision Map Act, the map shall automatically be extended for sixty days
or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied (by the Planning
Commission), whichever occurs first. During the 60-day automatic extension, the developer is entitled
to request final map approval. The Final Map for Chula Vista Tract 90-05, Villa del Rey
Condominiums, has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and found to be in conformance
with the approved Tentative Map. The developers have paid all applicable fees and met all conditions
of approval if the agreement is approved. In the event Council does not approve the deferral agreement,
then Council cannot approve the Final Map because all conditions of approval will not have been met.
In that case, staff will forward the request for tentative map time extension to the Planning Commission.
By approving the Final Map, Council will be accepting a portion of Fifth Avenue and a 5.5 ft. street
tree planting and maintenance easement along Fifth Avenue (see Exhibit "A").
A subdivision improvement agreement for this development is not required since the public
improvements along the subdivision frontage on Fifth Avenue are being constructed under a City Capital
Improvement Project. The developers (Pollorena) paid $8,255.84 to the City on April 30, 1992 for the
cost of improvements on Fifth Avenue fronting the development. This payment was in accordance with
the agreement known as document number C092-018 which was approved by Council Resolution No.
16508 on February 18, 1992. There are no onsite public improvements.
A plat is available for Council viewing.
FISCAL IMPACT: The approval of the Agreement for Deferral of Park Acquisition and Development
Fees for Villa del Rey Condominiums would delay the City's collection of such fees to a future date,
in the amount of $38,100.00, plus interest.
GVIEY.313
WPC F:\horne\engineer\ageoda\748.93
Attachment: Agreement to Defer PAD fees
').{) - z.
.0' <<l'
, N'n-3e'~'E 620 20' ISEE DET-A-)
13700' (DEED)
--
135 00
2.00'
LOT I 8
S 0..11111I:.. IGROSS) (jj
"'
~ FO.lSEE lET 'A') "
B. "'
138.00' (DEED) l!!'
~. -'
. ,
13600 8"D
__DEED LINE ~'"
-~
U TR~t ~'W1 NW
~ iE.. ~T D S~:V.if. ::>
.... EXlST. INGRE SS IHJ EGRESS ill~~8N v'STA A EO, Z
";;; EASEMENT REC'D .IAN ~,1976 ~ ~'
N /JS FIN 76-002692 O. . 55
11 Il! .~ c:t
z -",
ZOO' Z'OF FIl'TH A V!I'IUE ~~
DEDICA 11[) tt!REON
ISEE DETAIC 'A")
IL
273.00' ii:
N7,..'29"E Znl.OO'IDEED)
~ DI9K RCE. 321%~
CONCRETE ON T
OF WIIl.L.
N 7'1- 39' tStlE
_ ,,-i. OXFORD
STR E ET
i
.
'OISEE S
i
r
EXH 'B'T "A"
VILLA DEL. REf Co~DOM INlUM-S
2l' "..3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Bill Ullrich, Senior civil Engineerk/lt1
J. Luis Hernandez, Associate Planne~
Steve Griffin, Principal Planner ~
PCS-90-OS, Villas Del Rey Condominiums Final Map
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
The Planning Department has reviewed the subject Final Map and
grading plans for compliance with the Tentative Map conditions of
approval. We have also met with Mrs Norma Jimenez, owner of the
northerly adjacent property to resolve some of the accessibility
issues she raised at the DRC hearing. as a result of this meeting
the project applicant has agreed to install a 6 ft. high fence
along the west side of Mrs Jimenez's property, delete fencing from
the first 20 ft. of the north property line' and provide a 12 ft
wide gated access at the southwest end of Mrs Jimenez's property
(see attached letter).
In regards to Tentative Map condition No 4, which requires the
applicant to acquire the access rights from the northerly adjacent
property owner, ~he applicant has opted to redesign the project
site plan and allow the existing access easement and accessibility
rights the to current beneficiary to remain.
In the last meeting with Mrs. Jimenez, on March 23,1993, she stated
her concurrence with the above mentioned solutions and approved the
proposed access to her property from the above mentioned access
easement. Based on this, the Tentative Map conditions of approval
pertaining to the Planning Department are hereby deemed complete.
Please call me if you have any questions, X-S090.
cc: Lombardo Detrinidad, Associate civil Engineer
;;"0-'1
RESOLUTION NO. 17 D~t.o
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL
OF PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEES AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Tentative Map Condition of Approval No. 4
requires the developer to pay the PAD, DIF and RCT fees which are
in effect at the time of collection; and
WHEREAS, section 17.10.100 (Parklands and Public
Facilities) of the City Code states that PAD fees shall be paid
prior to final map approval; DIF and RCT fees are due at building
permit approval; and
WHEREAS, the developers have agreed to pay either the
current fees or whatever fee is in effect at such time building
permits are issued; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the proposal and considers
that, in view of the developer's financial restrictions, it is
reasonable to require the payment of PAD fees as a condition of the
building permit issuance; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the proposed deferral
agreement and recommends approval by Council which also means that
the requirements of Condition No. 4 have been fully met; and
WHEREAS, in the event that building permits are for any
reason not issued, the PAD fees shall be paid by developer no later
than May 1, 2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve Agreement for Deferral
of Park Acquisition and Development Fees, a copy of which is on
file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the city of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F:\homc\attomey\pad.vdr
')J)A- / / ).DII"2.-
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
)-(
;
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF PAD FEES
The city of Chula vista ("City"), and Danny Biggins and
Vicky Biggins, Trustees of the Biggins Family Trust dated
and Jerry Halamuda and Ellen Halamuda
(collectively, "Developer"), make this Agreement this day of
, 1993. ---
WHEREAS, Developer has obtained a tentative subdivision map
for a ten (10) unit condominium project on property commonly
known as 1190-2 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, and more
specifically described Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a
part hereof, the subdivision commonly being referred to as the
Villa Del Rey Condominium Project;
WHEREAS, the Chula vista Municipal Code Sections 17.10.070
and 17.10.100 require the payment of Park Acquisition and
Development ("PAD") fees prior to the acceptance by the City of a
final subdivision map, calculated according to the City's Master
Fee Schedule;
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested in writing that
collection of PAD fees for the Project at the time of Final Map
be waived, by deferring collection of the fees until the issuance
of a building permit for the Project;
WHEREAS, the fees set forth in the Master Fee Schedule may
be waived;
WHEREAS, the City Council of Chula Vista has considered
Developer's request for waiver and approved the request subject
to the provision of adequate security and consideration for the
deferral.
1
;2oA.3
The parties agree as follows:
1. The collection of PAD fees for the vista Del Rey
Condominium Project is deferred until the issuance of a building
permit for the Project.
2. The PAD fees are set at the amount of $38,100.00.
Interest shall accrue on this amount from the time of approval of
the Final Map until issuance of the building permit at the rate
of seven percent (7%) per annum. However, if PAD fees have
increased at the time the PAD fees for this project are paid,
Developer shall pay the greater of the then existing PAD fees or
$38,100 plus interest.
3. In the event that building permits are, for any reason,
not issued, the PAD fees shall be paid by developer no later than
May 1, 2003. The amount due shall be as described in Section 2,
above.
4. A lien is hereby created against the Property as
security for the payment of the PAD fees plus interest. If the
Developer or its assigns fail to pay PAD fees plus interest as
provided above, City may foreclose this lien. The parties agree
to execute a memorandum of agreement in a form which may be
recorded so as to perfect city's lien. Developer agrees to
cooperate with City by executing any additional documents which
the City may reasonably request for the purpose of strengthening
its lien rights such as a document permitting sale by nonjudicial
foreclosure on default by Developer.
5. The provisions of this agreement are deemed independent
and severable. If any part of this agreement is held invalid,
void, or unenforceable, the validity of the remainder of this
agreement shall survive.
6. The failure of the Developer or the city or any of
their respective agents to enforce any provision of this
agreement shall not constitute a waiver thereof nor of the right
to enforce such provision thereafter.
7. In any proceeding brought by or on behalf of either
party involving a dispute, question or other matter relating to
this agreement, the prevailing party or parties shall be entitled
to recover costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.
8. No provision of this agreement shall be construed in
favor of or against a party by reason of such party or its
attorney having either prepared or assisted in the preparation of
such provision.
2
2DA .~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Lease as of the date first above written.
The Ci~y of Chula Vista, California
l~~~
Ellen Halamuda . ~
D u .
~)S~
Danny B 1ns, rustee
l:;~ik)1 ~ ~n i'), JJ "t R R -'
V1cky gg1n, rus ee
3
2.DPi~~
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and
between The City of Chula Vista ("city"), and Danny Biggins and
Vicky Biggins, Trustees of the
("Developer") to witness that:
The parties have executed an Agreement For Deferral of PAD
Fees, in which it is provided that to insure that fees are paid
at the time of issuance of a building permit for the property, a
lien is created against all that certain property in the County
of San Diego, State of California, described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
EXECUTED on
County, California.
,1993, at Chula Vista, San Diego
The City of Chula vista, California
By:
a~ ~~- ~~~
anny Bl. ins, OJ'bUstee
lIrJv.~ (v'Yt~/) 0;M-:U.U
Vl.cky B~gl.ns ~rustee
4
').oA-1o
RESOLUTION NO.
17~/P?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA
TRACT 90-05, VILLA DEL REY CONDOMINIUMS, AND
ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
THE EASEMENT GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID
SUBDIVISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista hereby finds that that certain map survey
entitled CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-05 VILLA DEL REY CONDOMINIUMS, and
more particularly described as follows:
Being a subdivision of a portion of Lot 31, in Quarter
section 145 of Chula vista, a subdivision of a portion of
Rancho del la Nacion, in the City of Chula Vista, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 505, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, March 13, 1888.
Area: 0.91 acres
Number of Lots: 1
No. of Condominium Units: 10
Lettered Lots: 0
is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to
the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land
shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the city of Chula vista the easement for street tree
planting and maintenance adjacent to Fifth Avenue, as granted and
shown on said map within said subdivision, subject to the
conditions set forth thereon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of
Chula vista be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to
endorse upon said map the action of said Council; that said Council
has approved said subdivision map, and that certain easement for
street tree planting and maintenance and portion of Fifth Avenue,
as granted thereon and shown on said map within said subdivision
are accepted on behalf of the city of Chula vista as hereinabove
stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be, and she is
hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Diego.
<'
as to form by
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
of Public Works
F:\homc:\attomey\fmal.VDR
,JOB' /
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~)
SUBMITTED BY:
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Resolution 1 711 t. 8" Approving submission of FY 1993-94
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 Claim
Director of Public Works ~
City Manager..);; bv6~J (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No...K)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
The FY 1993-94 Claim for Article 4.0 funds to support Chula Vista Transit (CVT) operations
and capital procurements was submitted to SANDAG and MTDB on April I, 1993, as required
by State law. (Because the TDA guidelines and funding apportionments are not issued by
SANDAG until the fIrst week in March, Transit staff does not have adequate time to prepare the
claim for approval by Council prior to the April 1 submission date; however, an amendment to
the claim may be made after submission to SANDAG and MIDB by direction of Council). The
total claim is in the amount of $2,176,040, consisting of $2,063,986 claimed against the City of
Chula Vista's IDA funds and $112,054 claimed against the County of San Diego's IDA funds.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolution approving the FY 1993-94 IDA Article
4.0 claim.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 1993-94 IDA 4.0 Claim consists of the following components:
City of Chula Vista County of San Diego
TDA Account TDA Account Total
Operations $2,051,986 $112,054 $2,164,040
Capital 12,000 0 12,000
Total $2,063,986 $112,054 $2,176,040
The $112,054 from the County's IDA account is for CVT service in the unincorporated areas
provided by Routes 705 and 711. The $2,063,986 is for the balance of CVT operating and
capital costs claimed against the City of Chula Vista's IDA funds as contained in the preliminary
FY 1993-94 Transit Division budget request, and for Transit's share of two CIP projects
(Geographic Information System and Automated Budget System). Also included in this claim
amount is $23,000 for 50% share of Bayfront Trolley Station operating costs next fiscal year (the
other 50% will be provided by the County of San Diego). This claim, including prior year's
.21'/
Page 2, Item ~ I
Meeting Date 4/13/93
unallocated funds, will leave a balance in the Chula Vista TDA account of $2,090,684. The
City's unclaimed funds may be used for future capital and operating expenditures.
Following is a breakdown of estimated Transit Division costs and revenue sources for FY 1993-
94.
Estimated Costs:
Contractual Service for CVT Operation $2,578,300
Other Supplies & Services 831,740
Capital Outlay 12,000
Total Estimated Costs $3,422,040
Estimated Revenue Sources:
Fare Revenue $1,200,000
TDA Article 4.0 Funds 2,176,040
Investment Earnings 46,000
Total Revenue Sources $3,422,040
The claim is based on estimated costs and revenues for FY 1993-94, and may be modified due
to: changes in the proposed FY 1993-94 Transit Division budget; and a difference between
actual and estimated costs and revenues in FY 1993-94.
FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 1993-94 IDA Article 4.0 claim contains no City of Chula Vista
General Fund contribution. Transit Division operating and capital costs are funded by City of
Chula Vista TDA Article 4.0 funds, County of San Diego Article 4.0 funds, farebox revenue and
investment earnings. This claim, including prior year's unallocated funds, will leave a balance
in the City of Chula Vista's IDA account in the amount of $2,090,684.
WMGlFile: OS-022
WPC F:\HOMEENGINEER\Bn..L\688.93
,)./- oJ.
RESOLUTION NO.
I 'JO~E'"
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF FY 1993-
94 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA)
ARTICLE 4.0 CLAIM
WHEREAS, the FY 1993-94 Claim for TDA Article 4.0 funds
to support Chula vista Transit (CVT) operations and capital
procurements was submitted to SANDAG and MTDB on April 1, 1993, as
required by State law; and
WHEREAS, the total claim is $2,176,040, consisting of
$2,063,986 claimed against the City of Chula vista's TDA funds and
$112,054 claimed against the County of San Diego's TDA funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby authorize submission of FY
1993-94 Transportation Development Act Article 4.0 Claim in the
amount.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~d
th M. Fr1tsch, Assistant
City Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\TDA 4.0 Claim
~/~3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ;l ~
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Resolution I 7 P ~ 9 Approving agreement between County of San
Diego and City of Chula Vista for public transportation services for FY
1993-94
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJ\ ,~]
tr
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_No..xJ
This agreement authorizes the City of Chula Vista to claim $112,054 in County of San Diego
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.0 funds for provision of Chula Vista Transit
(CVT) service in the unincorporated area of the County.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolution approving agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
This agreement authorizes the City of Chula Vista to claim $112,054 in County IDA Article 4.0
funds for CVT service provided by Routes 705 and 711 in the unincorporated area during FY
1993-94. The estimated net cost (gross operating cost minus revenue credit) for CVT service in
the County next fiscal year is $112,054. This agreement estimates a gross CVT cost per mile
of $2.94, estimated 69,440 passengers, and total revenue credit of $38,866 (based on $0.56 per
passenger).
FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement will authorize the City of Chula Vista to claim $112,054
of County of San Diego Article 4.0 funds for CVT services in FY 1993-94.
WMGlFile: DS-027
WPC F:\HOMBENGINEER\Bn.LG\691.93
>>-1 / OltR-;l.
RESOLUTION NO.
17~J.9
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR FY 1993-94
WHEREAS, this agreement authorizes the city of Chula
vista to claim $112,054 in County TDA Article 4.0 funds for CVT
service provided by Routes 705 and 711 in the unincorporated area
during FY 1993-94; and
WHEREAS, the estimated net cost (gross operating cost
minus revenue credit) for CVT service in the County next fiscal
year is $112,054; and
WHEREAS, this agreement estimates a gross CVT cost per
mile of $2.94, estimated 69,440 passengers, and total revenue
credit of $38,866 (based on $0.56 per passenger).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement between
the county of San Diego and the city of Chula vista for Public
Transportation Services for FY 1993-94, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the city Clerk.
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.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Approved as to form by
Ri!!Z!;1:!1::!.t~t
City Attorney
Presented by
F:\bome\aUomey\691.93
:lJ- -;J / ~~-J/
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
FOR FY 1993-94
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the County of San Diego
hereinafter called "COUNTY" and the City of Chula Vista, hereinafter called
"OPERATOR".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, COUNTY is desirous of providing public transit service to areas
within the jurisdiction of the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, the South Coast Organization Operating Transit (SCOOT), a Joint
Powers Agency between the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego, currently is
the operator of Chula Vista Transit; and
WHEREAS, SCOOT will be dissolved effective midnight on June 30, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista will be OPERATOR of Chula Vista Transit;
effective July 1, 1993; and
WHEREAS, OPERA TOR has the knowledge and expertise to provide the service
desired by the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY recognizes the value of the service to be provided by
OPERATOR to its citizens and is willing to contract with OPERATOR to provide
transportation service within the unincorporated area of the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code, Section 99288, authorizes COUNTY and
OPERATOR to enter into a contract for OPERATOR to provide such public
transportation service for the benefit of the COUNTY and permitting OPERATOR, when
such contract is entered into, to claim for local transportation purposes, from the Local
Transportation Fund, the apportionment of the COUNTY or so much thereof as may be
agreed upon, in the manner provided in Article 4 (commencing at Section 99260) of the
Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (Ch. 4, Pt. 11, Div. 10 of the Public Utilities Code);
NOW THEREFORE COUNTY and OPERATOR mutually agree as follows:
Public Transportation Services Agreement
F:\home \engineer\billg\560.93
Page 1
.1;l.~
1. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
1.1. Public Transportation Services to be Provided
OPERATOR shall provide public transportation services for the benefit of
residents of and visitors to COUNTY, upon those routes, during those times, and at the
level of service specified in Exhibit A.
1.2. Passenger Counts
OPERATOR shall perform at least once annually, a one-day count of
passengers boarding and departing the services provided under this Agreement. The
number of counts and specific methods of counting will be determined by the
OPERATOR, upon consultation with the COUNTY, and in conjunction with the regional
transit passenger counting program, where practicable. A report summarizing the
results of the count will be submitted to the COUNTY.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
2.1. Base Term
The term of this Agreement is from July 1, 1993 through June 30,
1994, unless terminated earlier as provided herein.
3. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
3.1. Claim - OPERATOR may, without further authorization, include in any claim
filed with the Local Transportation Planning Agency of San Diego County under the
provisions of Article 4 (commencing with Section 99260) of the Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act
(Ch. 4, Pt. 11, Div. 10 of the Public Utilities Code), an amount up to but not exceeding
$112,054 of the apportionment to the unincorporated area of the COUNTY for FY
1993-94.
3.2. Service Actuallv Performed - OPERATOR shall be compensated for service
provided under this Agreement. If OPERA TOR performs only a portion of the services
described in Exhibit A of this Agreement, OPERATOR shall be paid an amount equal
to the unit of service actually provided.
3.3. It is estimated that in FY 1993-94 OPERATOR shall be compensated based
on the estimated net operating cost for services as described in Exhibit A.
3.3.1. If COUNTY and OPERATOR agree to change the level or type of
service provided for in this Agreement, or there is a change in the level of service
provided by OPERATOR due to strike, civil disaster or other public calamity, COUNTY
and OPERATOR shall negotiate a mutually agreeable cost rate for the specific additional
or reduced service provided.
Public Transportation Services Agreement
F:\home\engineer\bUlg\S60.93
Page 2
,2.;-~
3.3.2. OPERATOR shall revise and update Exhibit A annually. The level
of public transit service and the rate(s) for service shall be provided by OPERATOR to
COUNTY for approval at least 90 calendar days prior to the beginning of any fiscal year
covered by this Agreement.
3.4. Periodic Payments - OPERA TOR shall be compensated by periodic payments
in advance from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the Local
Transportation Planning Agency of San Diego County.
3.5. If the amount allocated to OPERATOR by the Local Transportation Planning
Agency is insufficient to meet the cost of services as described in Exhibit A, OPERATOR
shall immediately notify COUNTY. In that event, COUNTY agrees that this Agreement
shall be amended to reduce the services provided or to pay OPERATOR from other
sources the amount necessary to meet the cost of services as described in Exhibits A and
B.
4. INSURANCE
4.1. OPERATOR, through its Agreement with its contractor, shall produce the
following insurance, which may contain self insurance retentions:
4.1.1. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business
Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount of $10,000,000 naming the COUNTY and
its employees and officers as additional insureds. This coverage shall include
Comprehensive General Liability Insurance including contractual liability, and personal
injury liability.
4.2. On or before July 1,1993, OPERATOR shall provide COUNTY a complete
copy of OPERATOR's contractor's Certificate of Insurance indicating that the insurance
required above has been obtained. OPERATOR shall give COUNTY 30 calendar days
written notice of cancellation or material change required by the insurance company in
the insurance coverage required by this Agreement.
4.3. Occurrence means any event or related exposure to conditions which
results in bodily injury or property damage.
4.4. Neither OPERATOR nor its contractors shall cancel or materially change any
of the required insurance coverages.
5. AUDIT
5.1. At any time during normal business hours and as often as COUNTY may
deem necessary, OPERATOR shall make available to COUNTY for examination all of its
records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement, shall permit COUNTY
to audit, examine and make excerpts of transcripts of such records, and shall permit
COUNTY to perform audit procedures as deemed necessary with respect to all invoices,
Public Transportation Services Agreement
F:\home\engineer\billg\560.93
Page 3
.,):1.-7
payrolls, equipment, materials, and other data relating to matters covered by this
Agreement.
6. INDEMNITY
6.1. Except as may be provided otherwise in the Agreement, OPERATOR shall
investigate, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officers, agents and
employees from any and all claims, demands, loss or liability of any kind or nature
whether real or alleged which COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees may sustain
or incur, or which may be imposed upon any kind of or for any acts or omissions by
OPERATOR, its officers, agents or employees hereunder.
7. WHEN RIGHTS AND REMEDIES NOT WAIVED
In no event shall any payment by the Local Transportation Planning Agency as
provided herein constitute or be construed to be a waiver by COUNTY of any breach
of conditions or any default which may then exist. The existence of any such breach or
default shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to COUNTY
with respect to such breach or default.
8. INTEGRA TED DOCUMENT
8.1. This document, including Exhibit A embodies the entire Agreement between
COUNTY and OPERA TOR for the transportation service described herein and the terms
and conditions. No verbal agreements or conversation with any officer, agent or
employee of COUNTY prior to the execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify
any of the terms or obligations contained in any documents comprising this Agreement.
No such verbal agreement shall bind COUNTY.
8.2. This Agreement may be changed only by a written amendment signed by
both parties.
9. SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS
If any provisions of this Agreement are held to be invalid, the remainder of this
Agreement shall not be affected, provided the remainder conforms to the terms and
requirements of applicable law.
10. TERMINATION
10.1. COUNTY may terminate this Agreement at any time for reasonable cause,
defined as the failure by OPERATOR to substantially perform in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement, by giving written notice to OPERATOR of such
termination and specifying the effective date thereof,.at least 90 days before the effective
date of such termination. OPERATOR may terminate this Agreement at any time for
failure by COUNTY to substantially perform in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement by giving written notice to COUNTY of such termination
Public Transportation Services Agreement
F:\home\engineer\billg\560.93
Page 4
,;..). - s---
and specifying the effective date thereof, at least 90 days before the effective date of such
termination.
10.2. During the time between the written notice of termination and the effective
date of termination, both parties shall work toward remedying the cause or reasons for
the intent to terminate. If COUNTY terminates this Agreement without cause, COUNTY
shall pay all settlement costs, claims and attorneys arising out of such termination.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
For purpose of this Agreement, OPERATOR is an independent contractor, and no
employee of OPERATOR is, for purposes of this Agreement, an employee of COUNTY.
12. BUS STOPS
12.1. Specific bus stops shall be established by agreement with COUNTY.
13. REPRESENTATIVES OF CITY
13.1. The County's Director of Public Works or designated representatives shall
represent COUNTY in all matters pertaining to this Agreement and shall administer this
Agreement on behalf of the COUNTY.
14. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
14.1. In performing under this Agreement, OPERATOR and COUNTY shall not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed,
color, sex, or national origin. This performance shall include, but not be limited to, the
following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment advertising, layoff
or termination, rates of payor other forms of compensation, and selection for training,
including apprenticeship.
15. NOTICE
15.1. All notices and communications with respect to this Agreement shall be
effective upon mailing thereof by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested)
and addressed as follows:
OPERA TOR
COUN1Y
City of Chula Vista
707 "F' Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
ATIN: Bill Gustafson, Transit Coordinator
County Dept. of Public Works
5555 Overland Avenue, MS 0386
San Diego, CA 92123
ATIN: Bruce Boland, Acting Director
Public Transportation Services Agreement
F: \home\engineer\blllg\S60.93
Page 5
.2,;. -1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
by their respective representatives thereunto duly authorized on this _ day of
1993.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
B~W
City Attorney l)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By
Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
By
By
County Counsel
Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors
Public Transportation Services Agreement
F: \home\engineer\billg\560.93
Page 6
..u -/(')
EXHIBIT A
SERVICE AND COST SUMMARY
FISCAL YEAR 1993-94
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BUS SERVICE
CHULA VISTA TRANSIT
Gross Cost @ Projected Revenue Credit @
Route Miles $2.94 Mile Passengers $O.56/Passenger Net Cost
705 22,357 $65,730 38,640 (14%) $21,638 $44,092
711 27,168 $79,874 30,SOO (56%) $17,248 $62,626
Subtotal IDA Subsidy:
5% Administrative Pass-Through Oairn:
TOTAL IDA AMOUNT:
$106,718
$5,336
$112,054
Route Descri"tion
Route 705: Enter County on Bonita Road, eastbound, at the intersection of Bonita Road
and Lynnwood Drive to the Chula Vista City limit line at the eastern
boundary of Glen Abbey Cemetery on Bonita Road. The inbound trip
follows the same route in the opposite direction.
Route 711: From Plaza Bonita, enter County at the intersection of Plaza Bonita Road
and Bonita Mesa Road, east of Bonita Mesa Road, north of Mesa Vista
Road, east on Sweetwater Road, south on Willow and to the Chula Vista
City limit line. Re-enter County on Bonita Road about one-fourth mile east
of Otay Lakes Road, turn northeast on Central Avenue, south on Corral
Canyon Road, and enter Chula Vista City limit at a point approximately
400 feet north of County Vista Lane. The inbound trip follows the same
route in the opposite direction.
WPC F,\HOME\ENGINEER\Sn.LG\630.93
,2,) -1/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ';'.3
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 4/13/93
J'1P7{)
Resolution Approving submission ofFY 1993-94 Transportation
Development Act (TDA) Article 4.5 Claim for HandYtrans operation
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Public WorkV(
City ManagerJc" ~O ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No...xJ
REVIEWED BY:
The City of Chu1a Vista's FY 1993-94 IDA Article 4.5 Claim to support HandYtrans operation
was submitted to SANDAG and MTDB on Apri11, 1993, as required by State law. (Because
the TDA guidelines and funding apportionment are not issued by SANDAG until the second
week in March, Transit staff does not have time to prepare the claim and obtain Council
approval prior to the April 1 submission date; however, an amendment to the claim after
submission may be made by direction of Council). The claim consists of the following funding
sources: $186,562 in IDA Article 4.5 funds; $23,097 in TransNet funds; $54,000 in fare
revenue; $32,437 in State Transit Assistance funds [STA]; $33,474 in TDA Article 4.0 funds;
and $1,000 in investment earnings.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve submission of the FY 1993-94 TDA Article
4.5 claim.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The following is a breakdown of estimated operating costs and funding sources in FY 1993-94
based on the preliminary budget request:
ESTIMATED COST
Contractual Services $325,000
Other Supplies and Services $5,570
Total Cost $330,570
ESTIMATED FUNDING SOURCES
TDA Article 4.5 Funds $186,562
TransNet Funds 23,097
Fare Revenue 54,000
ST A Funds 32,437
TDA Article 4.0 Funds 33,474
Investment Earnings 1,000
Total Revenue $330,570
';:J. /
Page 2, Item .)..:l
Meeting Date 4/13/93
The total estimated cost for next fiscal year is a 12 % increase over this year due to the
contractual services component of the HandYtrans budget, which includes Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) service requirements and an increase in HandYtrans drivers' starting
wages from $5.25 to a minimum of $6.00 per hour. However, Transit staff has issued a
Request for Proposal (RFP) for HandYtrans operation, and it is possible that the contractual
services cost may be less than estimated by staff in the preliminary budget as a result of the
competitive proposal process.
TDA Article 4.5 funds historically have been the primary funding source for HandYtrans
operations. Due to the recession, the City of Chula Vista's TDA Article 4.5 apportionment for
FY 1993-94 is about the same as the current fiscal year, which is 20% lower than FY 1991-92.
Therefore, in order to fund the estimated HandYtrans cost of operation next fiscal year, the
claim contains two new funding sources: $32,437 in STA funds and $33,474 in TDA Article
4.0 funds. Although these two funding sources have been used to support fixed route bus
operations in the past, because IDA Article 4.5 funded transit services like HandYtrans have
been designated by MTDB and SANDAG as Complementary Paratransit Services under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, MTDB and SANDAG are permitting jurisdictions to claim STA
and TDA Article 4.0 funds for operating support.
FISCAL IMPACT: Proposed HandYtrans operation for FY 1993-94 is funded by the following
sources:
IDA Article 4.5 Funds $ 186,562
TDA Article 4.0 Funds 33,474
TransNet Funds 23,097
STA Funds 32,437
Farebox Revenue 54,000
Investment Earnings 1,000
TOTAL $ 330,570
WPC F:\HOME\ENGfNEER\BILL0\738.93
.2:>"~
RESOLUTION NO.
17/)70
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUBMISSION OF FY 1993-94
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE
4.5 CLAIM FOR HANDYTRANS OPERATION
WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista's FY 1993-94 TDA Article
4.5 Claim to support HandY trans operation was submitted to SANDAG
and MTDB on April 1, 1993 as required by state law; and
WHEREAS, the claim consists of $186,562 in TDA Article
4.5 funds; $23,097 in TransNet funds; $54,000 in fare revenue;
$32,437 in State Transit Assistance funds (STA); $33,474 in TDA
Article 4.0 funds; and $1,000 in investment earnings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve submission of FY 1993-
94 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.5 Claim for
HandY trans operation.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
,/ju1 ~d{/-
Ruth M. Fr~tsch, Assistant City
Attorney
C,\n\4.S TDA
-23:3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item cl 'I
Meeting Date 4/13/93
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution 17P ? I Approving a Certificate of Reallocation with
the City of Chula Vista, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and the Eastlake
Development Company
Director of Public Works)!
City Manager j(1 bt1-- &)J
O'-?
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
On July 2, 1992, the City entered into a Development Agreement with Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals. The Development Agreement places a threshold on the buildout of the Kaiser
Hospital and also limits the amount of development permitted by EastLake Development
Company, until State Route 125 is constructed. These development deferrals were deemed
necessary to mitigate traffic impacts identified in the Kaiser Hospital environmental impact
report. The deferrals are equivalent to 1,772 peak hour trips, 521 for Kaiser Hospital and 1,251
for EastLake Development Company. The amount of trips produced by Kaiser Hospital was
assumed to be 26 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The Development Agreement
provides that additional traffic studies of the existing Zion Avenue Kaiser Hospital in San Diego
be the basis for establishing a traffic generation rate. The study was performed by the firm
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. under the contract to Kaiser in accordance with the
Development Agreement. City staff reviewed tlie study and confirmed the findings. This study
disclosed that the trip rate should be 20 trips per 1,000 square feet. This lower trip rate results
in a reduction of the peak hour trips from 1,772 to 1,152 thereby removing the need to defer
development of the Kaiser Hospital (521 trips) and releasing development of EastLake properties
equivalent to 99 PM peak hour trips.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
When the City Council approved the EastLake I SPA Amendment to allow for the development
of a Kaiser Foundation Hospital, EastLake Development Company agreed to defer a portion of
their commercial and office development in their EastLake Village Center to accommodate
Kaiser Phase I and II and a portion of Phase III. Kaiser Hospital likewise agreed to withhold
construction of a portion of their project (Phase III) until sufficient circulation capacity becomes
available. These deferrals were deemed necessary because the City's Transportation Phasing
Plan (TPP) indicated that the planned circulation network prior to the construction of State Route
125 (SR-125) could not absorb additional trips beyond that generated by the cumulative effect
of all of the approved projects, including the original EastLake I SPA Village Center Plan.
,;.'1- /
Page 2, Item .< If
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Since the PM peak hour represents the most critical impacted period of the day, it was agreed
that the trips produced by the original EastLake I SPA Village Center during this hour,
amounting to 2,386 trips, would not be exceeded by the amended Kaiser Hospital Village Center
Plan. Since the EastLake I amended SPA Plan was shown to produce 1,772 more PM peak hour
trips, Kaiser agreed to defer construction of their hospital equivalent to 521 peak hour trips and
EastLake Development Company agreed to defer commercial and/or office development
equivalent to 1,251 trips (see attached Exhibit A). A recent traffic generation study performed
at the Kaiser Zion Medical Center revealed that the assumed rate of 26 trips per 1,000 sq. ft.
of hospital use for the new EastLake facility probably overstated the peak hour trip count. The
Kaiser Zion Hospital Study revealed that the actual daily trip rate of that facility is 20 trips per
1,000 sq. ft. and, based upon a comparison of the two facilities, is probably the more
appropriate trip generation rate to be used at EastLake for the area wide traffic. The original
study utilized data from four of Kaiser's Southern California facilities, however, this more
detailed Zion Hospital study indicates that the Zion facility is a more typical case study. This
reduction in the trip rate allows for a removal of the Kaiser peak hour trip deferral and a
reduction in the deferral imposed on EastLake, thereby allowing for a reallocation of PM peak
hour trips stipulated in the City's development agreement with Kaiser and EastLake.
DISCUSSION:
The original EastLake I SPA Village Center was estimated to generate a number of average daily
trips equivalent to 2,386 p.m. peak hour traffic trips. The approved amended plan, which
includes the development of the Kaiser Medical Facility in three phases and modified land uses
of the remaining property within the EastLake I SPA Village Center, produced 4,158 equivalent
p.m. peak trips, an increase of 1,772 peak hour trips. The daily trip generation rate for the
hospital was assumed to be 26 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. with a p.m. peak hour factor of 1.97 trips
per 1,000 sq ft. The total number of trips produced by the Kaiser Hospital Project based these
factors resulted in 34,710 daily trips and 2,630 p.m. peak hour trips.
Based on projected traffic demands produced by land developments prior to the construction of
SR-125 as noted in the City's Transportation Phasing Plan, it was concluded that adverse traffic
impacts could result if the p.m. peak hour volumes exceeded the values originally assumed for
the previously approved EastLake SPA I Village Center. To allow development of the Kaiser
Medical Facility, EastLake Development Company, Kaiser, and the City entered into a deferral
agreement entitled "Grant of Easement and Declaration of Covenants Running with the Land".
This agreement precluded development within the Kaiser Permanente Phase 3 and EastLake
Development Company Village Center North Projects an amount sufficient to offset the 1,772
p.m. peak trip increase. Provisions within the Development Agreement (paragraphs 6.5 through
6.5.7) outline various ways in which new traffic capacity is to be allocated to Kaiser and
EastLake to eliminate the development deferrals guaranteed by the deferral agreement.
The development agreement also includes a proviso that allows for the reduction in the hospital
trip generation rate if a focused trip rate study at the Kaiser Zion Avenue medical facility in San
Diego disclosed a lower rate. To determine whether the medical facility p.m. peak trip rates
assumed by the environmental impact report prepared in conjunction with the approval of
.;1/..2
Page 3, Item~
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Kaiser's proposed development in EastLake were too high, a Zion Traffic Generation Study was
performed during the week of October 19, 1992. The Zion Study revealed a daily rate of 20
trips per 1,000 sq. ft., and a p.m. peak hour factor of 1.5 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. The rates used
in the original Chula Vista Kaiser Medical Facility Traffic Impact Study was 26 and 1.97
respectively.
Based on the results of the study, staff is recommending that the trip generation rate for the
medical facility be modified for determining eastern areawide traffic impacts. Application of
the modified rates lowers the p.m. peak hour trips from 1,772 to 1,152 p.m. peak trips, a
reduction of 620 peak hour trips. In accordance with paragraph 6.5.2 of the Development
Agreement the "savings" in p.m. peak trips (620 trips) are to be first credited against Kaiser's
deferral (521 trips). This credit eliminates Kaiser's Phase 3 deferral obligation. The balance
of the "savings" or reduction in p.m. peak trips (99 trips) is to be credited to EastLake. This
latter credit brings the EastLake total revised deferral requirement to 1,152 p.m. peak trips.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that:
1. The City concur with the results of the Zion Medical Facility Study and find that the
traffic generation rate assumptions of 20 average daily trips per 1,000 sq. ft. and 1.5
p.m. peak trips per 1,000 sq. ft. be used when determining the eastern areawide traffic
impacts of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility located within the boundary of the
EastLake I SPA Amendment.
2. The City formally recognize the impact of this change in trip rate assumptions by
approving and recording a copy of the resolution which will serve as a Certificate of
Reallocation which removes the Kaiser Permanente deferral of 521 p.m. peak trips.
3. The City formally recognize the impact of this change in trip rate assumptions by
approving and recording a copy of the resolution which will serve as a Certificate of
Reallocation which reduces EastLake Development Company's current deferral of 1,251
p.m. peak trips to a total of 1,152 p.m. peak trips within the Village Center North area.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\ZIONTRIP
040893 File:
,lJ./ ~.J
EXHffiIT A
EA.STLAKE VUt.LAGE...C.ENTER
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
ORIGINAL AMENDED AMENDED
LAND USE PLAN PLANt) DIFFERENCE PLAN(2) DIFFERENCE
Multifamily 324 -- -324 -- -324
Library 40 40 0 40 0
Commercial 1554 1211 -343 1211 -343
Office 468 234 -234 234 -234
Kaiser Hospital 2630 2630 2010 2010
Phase I -- 560 560 442 442
Phase II -- 1010 1010 758 758
Phase III -- 1060 1060 810 810
Industrial -- 31 31 31 31
Church -- 12 12 12 12
TOTAL 2386 4158 1772 3538 1152
ORIGINAL DEFERRAL
NEW DEFERRAL
00
1152
1152
- Kaiser Phase III 521
- Commercial/Office 1251
TOTAL 1772
(1) based on Daily Trips Rate of 26 trips per 1000 sq. ft. and a peak hour trip rate of 1.97 trips per
1,000 sq. ft.
(2) based on Daily Trips Rate of 20 trips per 1000 sq. ft. and a peak hour trip rate of 1.50 trips per
1,000 sq. ft.
WPC F:\bomeloogQ>eer1633.93
040793
.)'1- 'I
RESOLUTION NO.
17 ()? J
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING
A CERTIFICATE OF REALLOCATION WITH THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, AND
THE EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the approval of the EastLake I SPA Amendment,
the City of Chula Vista and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals entered into a Development Agreement
dated July 2, 1992; and
WHEREAS, paragraph 1.6 of the Development Agreement identified traffic
impacts of the proposed EastLake I SPA Amendment totaling 1,772 p.m. peak trips in excess
of p.m. peak trips generated by the previously approved land uses within the SPA Amendment;
and
WHEREAS, paragraph 6.5.1 of the Development Agreement outlined a method
whereby development of the Kaiser Hospital facility could proceed providing deferral of other
development was secured to offset the anticipated increase in p.m. peak trips; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, Kaiser Foundation hospitals and EastLake
Development Company entered into an agreement entitled "Grant of Easement and Declaration
of Covenants Running with the Land" (Deferral Agreement) which satisfied the deferral
requirements of paragraph 6.5.1 of the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, paragraph 6.5.2 of the Development Agreement provided that
additional traffic studies of the existing Zion Avenue Medical Center shall be the basis for
establishing traffic generation rates for the hospital facility; and
WHEREAS, based on information regarding traffic generation at the Zion Avenue
Medical Facility has demonstrated that the generation rates for the hospital were lower than
those assumed by the EastLake I SPA Amendment; and
WHEREAS, paragraph 6.5.2 of the Development Agreement finds that the Zion
Study justifies a reduction in the previously assumed traffic rates, that the first 521 p.m. peak
trips will be allocated to Kaiser to fully offset the deferral provided by Kaiser in the Deferral
Agreement with the balance of the reduction offsetting EastLake's deferral, within the Village
Center North property; and
WHEREAS, paragraph 6.5.7 of the Development Agreement requires the City
to prepare and record a Certificate of Reallocation which effectively reduces the Kaiser and
EastLake deferrals as is appropriate due to the new hospital facility traffic generation estimates
which are derived from the study of the existing Zion Avenue Medical facility.
1 .) t/.,f
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts
a "Certificate of Reallocation" for the EastLake I amended Specific Planning Area Village
Center Plan reducing the peak hour vehicle trip deferral from 521 to 0 for Kaiser Hospital and
1,251 to 1,152 for EastLake Development Company as noted in Exhibit A.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~ ">0 ~v(
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Ruth M. Fritsch, Assistant
City Attorney
F:\homc\aUomey\623.93
2
~ L/ -,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item ~
Meeting Date 4/13/93
PUBLIC HEARING /7/J 7tJ.. Concerning the Appeal
of the Community Development Director's
Approval of the Application to Close Twin
Palms Mobile Home Park
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOLUTION Resolution of the city
Council of the City of Chula vista Affirming
the Decision of the community Development
Director to Allow the Closure of Twin Palms
Mobile Home Park and Making Certain Findings
of Fact Demonstrating that the Requirements
of Chapter 9.40 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code Have Been Fulfilled \\~,
Community Developm~~ Director~
City Manager~ 1M' 1
U(4/ ths Vote: Yes No-X
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Chapter 9.40 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires,
"Prior to the cessation of use of all or any part of a
mobilehome or trailer park, an application to convert from
such use or discontinuance must be filed with the community
Development Department." The Chapter specifies what
documentation shall constitute an application for conversion
or discontinuance and provides that the Community
Development Director shall determine if an application is
complete. If the Community Development Director determines
that an application is complete, he/she shall grant the
application for conversion. The determination of the
Community Development Director may be appealed to the city
Council who may affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in
part the determination of the Community Development
Director.
In August of 1989, an application for conversion for Twin
Palms Mobile Home Park was filed by the park owner, Abode
Development Company, with the Community Development
Department. In November of 1992, the Community Development
Director determined that the application was complete and
granted the application for conversion. His decision was
appealed by four residents of the Park, two of which have
subsequently withdrawn their appeal because they reached a
settlement with the park owner.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council affirm the decision of the
community Development Director and adopt
the Resolution.
-2.5' /
Boards/Commissions Recommendation: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of Chapter 9.40 is to mitigate any adverse
impacts from the conversion of mobilehome and trailer parks
to other uses. According to the Chapter, the park owner is
obligated to provide financial assistance or some
satisfactory alternative thereto to mobilehome/trailer park
owner/occupants who are dislocated by the decision to
convert. The Chapter does not apply to mObilehome/trailer
owner/occupants who move into mobilehome/trailer parks where
the park owner has provided said mobilehome/trailer
owner/occupant with written notification at the time they
move in of intention to discontinue the mObilehome/trailer
park.
In order to document the efforts of the park owners to
mitigate the impacts of the park closure, Chapter 9.40 of
the Chula vista Municipal Code requires park owners to file
an application with the Community Development Director. The
application must contain the following items:
1. A relocation plan which shall make adequate
provision for the relocation of the
mobilehome/trailer owner/occupant who will be
displaced by the discontinuance of the use of
the property for a mObilehome/trailer park;
2. A profile of the existing park;
3. A timetable for vacating the park;
4. Evidence satisfactory to the Community
Development Director that agreements
satisfying the relocation assistance
requirements of Chapter 9.40 have been offered
to eligible mobile home/trailer
owner/occupants;
5. Evidence that the park owner has informed all
mobilehome/trailer owner/occupant in writing
of alternative sites available to them;
6. Evidence that the park owner has agreed to
purchase those homes of low and moderate
income mobilehome/trailer owner/occupants
which are determined to be not relocatable due
to age and/or condition. Such purchases shall
be based on standard insurance replacement
criteria;
7. Evidence that the displaced residents have
been provided right of first refusal to
purchase, lease, or rent any dwelling units or
mobilehome/trailer spaces which may be built
on the subject property;
8. A narrative summary of the planned new use for
the property to be converted; and,
>>~
9. If a three-year notice is given, the applicant
must assist all low and moderate income
displaced mobilehome/trailer owner/occupants
in accordance with the following schedule.
If the owner/occupant
Vacates Before End Of
Portion of Expenses
Paid bv Owner
Up to a
Maximum of
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
75%
50%
25%
$3000.00
$2000.00
$1000.00
As previously stated, the owner of Twin Palms Mobile Home
Park, which is located at 1689 Broadway, filed an
application for conversion in August of 1989 because he
intends to develop the site as a 65,000 square foot shopping
center. The Park originally had a total of 51 spaces.
Since the owner of Twin Palms filed an application with the
community Development Department, staff of the Department
has been actively working with the owner to insure that the
residents of the Park were relocated according to Chapter
9.40. Of the 51 spaces requiring relocation, the
owner/occupants of 49 spaces have been successfully
relocated. In order to relocate these owner/occupants, the
park owner provided the following relocation assistance:
1. Purchased the homes of owner/occupants;
2. Paid to relocate mobilehomes;
3. Paid storage costs for the mobilehome of 1
owner/occupant; and,
4. Offered assistance to several residents
who chose to sell their homes to people who
removed them from the Park.
The owner/occupants of spaces 3 and 24 have not been
relocated. The park owner offered to move the homes of
these owner/occupants to other parks within San Diego county
pursuant to section 9.40.030 (B) (4) (b), and he offered to
pay the full moving expenses instead of the 25% mandated by
the Chapter. Nonetheless, the owner/occupants declined the
offer.
Although two owner/occupants had not been relocated, the
community Development Director approved the application for
closure because the park owner had complied with the Chapter
by submitting a complete application, by relocating the
owner/occupants from 49 of the 51 spaces, and by providing
proof of offering relocation opportunities to the remaining
two owner/occupants which satisfied the relocation
assistance of the Chapter. As mandated by the Chapter, the
Community Development Director's letter approving the
closure of Twin Palms made a written finding which fully set
,25" .J
forth the facts and circumstances upon which he based his
approval, and the Letter is attached as Exhibit A. (The
complete application is on file in the community Development
Department for your review.)
chapter 9.40 states that the decision of the Community
Development Director shall be final on the fifteenth day
following the mailing of the decision to the applicant and
the mObilehome/trailer owner/occupants, except when an
appeal is filed within 15 days following the decision of the
Director. A timely appeal was filed by the residents of
spaces 3 and 24. The Chapter further states that the appeal
shall specify wherein there was an error in the decision of
the Community Development Director. The appeal by the
residents of space 3 listed three reasons for their
dissatisfaction with the Director's approval. First, the
residents state that they were offered a space in a mobile
home park, but they declined this space because they did not
like the location of the park. Second, the residents state
they were offered a space in a different park, but the space
rent was more than they could afford. Lastly, the residents
state that the park owner offered to buy their home, but the
price was too low. The park owner was not required under
Chapter 9.40 to buy their home since it could be relocated.
The park owner offered the residents of space 3 an
alternative space, pursuant to the Chapter and offered to
pay all of the costs for moving their mobilehome instead of
the 25% required by the Chapter. In addition, Chapter 9.40
only specifies that relocation sites should be within 100
miles of Chula vista. It does not address other location
issues. Staff visited the site offered to the residents of
space 3 and 24, and the park appeared decent, safe, and
sanitary. Therefore, the park owner complied with and
offered more than is required by the Chapter. A copy of the
appeal is attached as Exhibit B.
The appeal by the resident of space 24 states the offer to
purchase her home was too low. According to the park
owner's application, the park owner did not offer to
purchase this resident's home. Instead, the resident was
offered a space in a mobile home park and declined. In
order to verify that the resident was offered an alternative
space, staff contacted the park owner who confirmed that he
had offered an alternative space, but he had not offered to
purchase this resident's home since it could be relocated.
The resident of this space was offered relocation assistance
that satisfies the relocation assistance requirements of the
Chapter. Please see the copy of the appeal which is
attached as Exhibit C.
As demonstrated above, the park owner made every attempt to
relocate these two residents pursuant to Chapter 9.40 of the
Chula vista Municipal Code. Therefore, staff recommends
~r
that the Council adopt the Resolution affirming the decision
of the Community Development Director.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not Applicable.
)y>/AS-l,
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17tJ?:L.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO ALLOW THE
CLOSURE OF TWIN PALMS MOBILE HOME PARK AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT DEMONSTRATING THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 9.40 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE HAVE BEEN FULFILLED
The City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby
resolve the following:
WHEREAS, Chapter 9.40 of the Chula vista Municipal Code
requires the owners of mobilehome and trailer parks to
mitigate any adverse impacts which result from the
conversion of the mobilehome or trailer park to other uses.
WHEREAS, the Chapter also gives the Community
Development Director the power to approve an application for
the closure of a mobilehome or trailer park, but his/her
decision may be appealed to the city Council.
WHEREAS, the owner of Twin Palms Mobile Home Park filed
an application for closure in August of 1989, and in
November of 1992, the Community Development Director
approved the application for closure.
WHEREAS, the decision of the Community Development
Director to allow the closure of Twin Palms Mobile Home Park
was appealed by residents of the Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council affirms
the decision of the Community Development Director to allow
the closure of Twin Palms Mobile Home Park and makes the
following findings of fact which fully set forth the facts
and circumstances whereby the application for closure
fulfills the requirements of Chapter 9.40 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council finds that
the Abode Development Company, the owner of Twin Palms
Trailer Park, fulfilled the requirements of Chapter 9.40 by
providing the Community Development Director a complete
application for closure which contains the following
elements as required by Chapter 9.40.030 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code:
a. A relocation plan which makes adequate
provision for the relocation of the mobilehome
or trailer owner/occupants who will be
displaces by the discontinuance of the use of
the property for a mobilehome or trailer park;
.15~ 'l
b. A profile of the existing park;
c. A timetable for vacating the existing park;
d. Evidence satisfactory of the Community
. Development Director and the Council that
agreements satisfying the relocation
assistance requirements of Chapter 9.40 have
been offered to eligible mobilehome or trailer
owner/occupants. The type of assistance
offered each eligible mobilehome or trailer
owner/occupant is on file in the Community
Development Department. In two instances, the
reasonable offer was refused. In these two
instances, the residents of spaces 3 and 24
were offered spaces in other parks, and they
refused to relocate to these parks;
e. Evidence that the park owner or his
representative has informed all mobilehome or
trailer owner/occupants in writing of
alternative sites available to them;
f. Evidence that the park owner or his
representative has agreed to purchase those
homes of low and moderate income mobilehome or
trailer owner/occupants which are determined
to be not relocatable due to age and/or
condition;
g. Chapter 9.40.030 requires that residents be
provided the right of first refusal to
purchase, lease or rent any dwelling units or
mobilehome or trailer spaces which may be
built on the subject property. Because no
residential units will be built on the subject
property, the park owner was not required to
offer this right of refusal; and,
h. A narrative summary of the planned new use of
the property to be converted. The planned new
use is a 65,000 square foot shopping center.
Chrl.s Salomone
Community Develop
A/!lt~f~ by'
Ruth M. Fritsch
Assistant City Attorney
,)5'8'"
,
Exhibit A
~{~
~
....-::....:;:::~....;:
""':;o..""""-~-
,-
CllY OF
CHULA VISfA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
November 23, 1992
Mr. Robert Scott
P. O. Box 847
Bonita, California 92020
Dear Mr. Scott:
For the past several months, my staff has been working with you,
as the representative of Sam Sepehri the owner of Twin Palms
Trailer Park, in order to successfully complete the cXosure of
Twin Palms Trailer Park.
Under Chapter 9.40 of the Chula vista Municipal Code, in order
for an application for the discontinuance of a trailer park to be
complete, the applicant must submit an application which conforms
with all of the regulations, policies, and guidelines of the
Chapter. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that
commitments have been made which mitigate the impact of the
discontinuance on the health, safety and general welfare of the
persons residing in the trailer park. Because you, as Mr.
Sepehri's representative, have submitted an application for
closure which complies with the above listed application
requirements, I grant the application for the discontinuance of
Twin Palms Trailer Park. The discontinuance will be effective on
January 1, 1994.
In granting the application for discontinuance of the trailer
park, I make the following finding in rendering the above
decision, and this finding fully sets forth the facts and
circumstances whereby the application for discontinuance fulfills
the requirements of Chapter 9.40 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code.
I find that Mr. Sam Sepehri, the owner of Twin
Palms Trailer Park, fulfilled the requirements of
Chapter 9.40 of the Chula vista Municipal Code by
providing me with a complete application for
discontinuance which contains the following
elements as required by Chapter 9.40.030 of the Chula
vista Municipal Code:
a. A relocation plan which makes adequate
provision for the relocation of the mobilehome
or trailer owner/occupant who will be
displaced by the discontinuance of the use of
,25- ?
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5047
"
---
~-
the property for a mobilehome or trailer park;
b. A profile of the existing park;
c. A timetable for vacating the existing park;
d. Evidence satisfactory to the Community
Development Director that agreements
satisfying the relocation assistance
requirements of this chapter have been offered
to eligible mobilehome or trailer
owner/occupants. The type of assistance
offered each eligible mobilehome or trailer
owner/occupant is on file in the Community
Development Department. In four instances,
the reasonable offer was refused. In these
four instances, the residents of spaces 3, 24,
35, and 38 were offered spaces in other parks,
and they refused to relocate to th66& parks;
e. Evidence that Mr. Sepehri or his
representative has informed all mobilehome or
trailer owner/occupants in writing of
alternative sites available to them;
f. Evidence that Mr. Sepehri or his
representative has agreed to purchase those
homes of low and moderate income mobilehome or
trailer owner/occupants which are determined
to be not relocatable due to age and/or
condition;
g. Chapter 9.40.030 requires that residents be
provided the right of first refusal to
purchase, lease or rent any dwelling units or
mobilehome or trailer spaces which may be
built on the subject property. Because no
residential units will be built on the subject
property, Mr. Sepehri was not required to
offer this right of first refusal; and,
h. A narrative summary of the planned new use of
the property to be converted. The planned new
use is a 65,000 square foot shopping center.
The General Plan Amendment, the Specific Plan
Amendment, and the rezone necessary to
construct this shopping center was presented
to and approved by the Planning commission on
November 12, 1992.
Your complete application for the discontinuance of Twin Palms
Trailer Park is on file in the Community Development Department
and is available for public review.
~/O
CITY OF CHllI A VISTA
~
~-
As required by Chapter 9.40, a copy of these written findings
will be filed with the city Clerk, the Planning Director and the
Director of Building and Housing, and shall be mailed to the
mobilehome or trailer owner/occupants of the trailer park. Since
the residents of spaces 3, 24, 35, and 38 are the only remaining
owner/occupants, this notice will only be mailed to these spaces.
According to Chapter 9.40, this decision shall be final on the
fifteenth_day following the mailing of the decision to you and
themobilehome or trailer owner/occupants, unless an appeal is
takeri-tothe city Council as provided in the Chapter. You may
appeal this decision by filing an appeal in writing with the City
Clerk within 15 days on the Clerk's form, specifying wherein
there is an error in the decision. You will be notified if an
appeal is filed by a tenant, member of the public or any
governmental agency.
If you have any questions, please contact Alisa Duffey Rogers, in
my Department, at 691-5047.
s~e~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
cc: Sam Sepehri, Twin Palms Trailer Park
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Robert Leiter, Director of Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Amando Romero Moreno, Twin Palms Trailer Park, Space 3
Ana Maria Torres, Twin Palms Trailer Park, Space 24
Rosa Aripez, Twin Palms Trailer Park, Space 35
Rosalva Aguirre, Twin Palms Trailer Park, Space 38
.",}.Y / J
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
.,
~-
. ~
Exhibit B
RECEIVED
APPEAL OF THE DECISION TO ALLOW THE CONV'91S~ lSR AlO :02
DISCONTINUANCE OF A MOBILE HOME/TRAILER P~K
(This form must be filed with the city Clerk on or before
the fifteenth (15th) day following the mai1inGlT~iJFt/lli!jLA VISTA
Community Development Director's decision fro'IT~}{;LffiK\5illfFICE
appeal is taken. Failure to timely appeal waives your
appeai rights set forth in Chula Vista Code Chapter 9.40.)
Name I!moJ1d, ,1- /JrQCe~v f1()('(?r70
Address /6 8'1 f!3n:n rlaJo( ~ P -.3
CHl}/O V/STa~ G~. 9/9/1
Phone Number -f6/9) '-/ .z 9 - 5 :L ::r z
SECTION I
Below specify wherein there was an error in the decision of
the Community Development Director.
=u;: 'A;;:; ~ . -~' ~
~tlQ_~' ;~~~ Q, ~
~r ~ ~I+ ~- --l, ~ A-<><-- CVu2.
,0 :;:~ .u....~ ~ ~
:: -\. .J1 ~:,,::: s.. . .: tUL .~
- . -4- .
a...-n..'- A..-.......L
~
lL -fA...~ L.A ~L-:""'"
A-..-...6 .c > k 4i. "3 ~'D, ''''''-'A!L -~
)
a..-.L A..o~.1.., .....~ <'.<1-. fLi. "",U
~ <PJL
~-v~..-\..o
~
-?
-Lz^J
.~
~/~
~~~1 fu~ ~ ~r c~
lL:-". \{; ~~ -Co L<vuL-tLX.~ tU0L--
-u.- ...~ .;-". ~ ~ r ~~-to
.. lA.JJU . ~ ~ ~ ~J* to ~
~'-~.~ ~.-O~~ ~
~ -,- ~ ~ fu . ~ <S
AcF~~ ^:t:~~~
th.~~ 1-tU~~.~
~ ~ ~(}- 1 ~~., d- -~ ~-')..-
~~ ~A-~ .~~ ~~~
~ ~~-~ ~ ~~A. ll-4-> M ~
\0~.~~r~~
~T~tkt-~~F ~
~. LV~d-r~~.
.25>/')
, .
--
rf''jo,.
SECTION II
rv..DAA":
<<l-.~
-to ~~
~,r: ~,~ ~ .tL
1 ~~..... ~ ~--r;A~ c-P ~ 1'.......L.
". tL.~c
tv
J
The relief or curative action I desire is
IL
r:~
v'
1\.8' A. "" AA'I--lI-
I certify that the foregoing is true and correct under
penalty of perjury and that this appeal is taken in good
faith with 0 inte~ to unnecessarily delay reasonable
action 0 the clos ~ or conversion of the park.
.) ,
Olrfc l' LAL;;1, /2-15-- 1Z
Date
(ADR,disk5,appeal.doc)
,(5; 1,/
, .
~
""-
')
Exhibit C
APPEAL OF THE DECISION TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OR
DISCONTINUANCE OF A MOBILE HOME/TRAILER PARK
(This form must be filed with the City Clerk on or before
the fifteenth (15th) day following the mailing of the
Community Development Director's decision from which the
appeal is taken. Failure to timely appeal waives your
appeal rights set forth in Chula vista Code Chapter 9.40.)
Na~e-~ ~~ '-''\O~
Address llo r~ if]'tOQdw'd -# ;A~
e.h.vJIA.. 1/4,-" <lc-L. '7 I <; / /
Phone Number ~,;z3- /~ 9<;/
SECTION I
Below specify wherein there was an error in the decision of
the community Development Director.
:!kJ
~ €.;t WCU\ -fu
i{)1A/ -<
-l5'/.5
'\
.
RECEIVED
SECTION II
'92 IE 15 P1:09 /
The relief or curat1ve action I desire is ~L€~~
~ :=~ITY~~ ~Q +- L-
~ ~. ~~ ~~CE ~J~ ~ ~
. ..... v
(>jf~~ ~ _~ '10~C.CJ.J.{AA, k..-. ~1<~
-1.D.i..1Vu .Lh9-- ~ ~-"'YUAJ"l A1~)~
UJ/J./.Y d.llff~ e<-t ~".L~~"":D ~~
-p.~^ 1. ~jAQ.,/jJ^:-"\'j rd P :Jirut..e.... rfy\'kQ ~ .Ltu_
U'lvCtv. ~0~ '" ~&a ~ ~b-( .
I certify that the foregoing is true and correct under
penalty of perjury and that this appeal is taken in good
faith with no intent to unnecessarily delay reasonable
ac~ on the closu conversion of the park.
~ /c2/
Signature Date
~oL
(ADR,disk5,appeal.doc)
~.5'/'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 0< J.
Meeting Date 4/13/93
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing (continued): Variance ZA V-93-06; Appeal from the
decision of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission to deny
a request to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 6 feet at
140 Mankato Street - Gerald Drewett for Cora Marguia
Resolution J /If) 7:1 AffIrming the decision of the Zoning
Administrator and Planning Commission and thereby denying the appeal
on ZA V -93-06
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning /1fJI
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ 8.f!}1 (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No..xJ
This item was continued from the meeting of March 23, 1993, with the concurrence of the
applicant.
The proposal seeks to reduce the sideyard setback from 10 ft. to 6 ft. in order to construct a 15
ft. x 33 ft. (495 sq. ft.) carport on the westerly side of the dwelling at 140 Mankato Street in the
R-l zone. The Zoning Administrator denied the request on December 14, 1992. The matter was
appealed to and denied by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1993.
The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class I(L)(4) (Section 15303) exemption
due to the fact it is an accessory structure involving negligible expansion of an existing private
use.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution denying the appeal on ZA V-93-06.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On January 27, 1993, the Planning
Commission voted 7-0 to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal
on ZA V -93-06.
DISCUSSION:
Adiacent zoning and land use.
North - R-l - Single Family
South - R-l - Single Family
East R-l - Single Family
West - R-l - Single Family
.,2~ -/
Page 2, Item ;..~
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Existing site characteristics.
The property is a 66 ft. x 104 ft. (6,864 sq. ft.) R-l lot with a 1,715 sq. ft. single family
dwelling, a 476 sq. ft. detached garage, and a 60 sq. ft. detached patio cover. The dwelling
presently maintains setbacks of 5 ft. on the easterly side and 22 ft. on the westerly side.
Request.
The proposal is to attach a 15 ft. x 33 ft. carport to the westerly side of the dwelling. The
carport would be constructed over the driveway which leads from the street to the detached
garage at the rear of the lot. The carport would extend to within 6 ft. of the westerly property
line.
The required setbacks for a dwelling in the R-l zone are 3 ft. on one side and 10 ft. on the other
side, with a minimum separation of 10 ft. from adjacent dwellings. Since the existing setback
on the easterly side is 5 ft., the larger 10 ft. setback is required to be maintained on the westerly
side. The carport would extend to within 6 ft. of the westerly property line and therefore
encroach 4 ft. into the required setback along that boundary.
Detached accessory structures may encroach within required sideyards provided they are located
in the rear portion of the lot. Thus the existing detached garage complies with the setback
standards even though it extends to within 5 ft. of the westerly property line.
The Zoning Administrator denied the request based on the following findings (see attached
letter) :
I. The property is a typical, rectangular 6,864 sq. ft. R-l single family lot with no apparent
physical hardship related to the size, configuration or topography of the property or the
manner in which is has been developed.
2. A carport with an interior dimension of 11 ft. x 36 ft. could be constructed without the
necessity of encroaching into the required sideyard setback.
Finding #2 was based on what was (or was not) depicted on the plans submitted with the original
application. Following a detailed site inspection, however, it was determined that an existing
landing and stairway on the westerly side of the dwelling would make it infeasible to simply
reduce the width of the carport and still maintain an adequate width to park a vehicle. However
a narrower conforming carport for a single vehicle could be constructed over and to the front
of the landing provided a portion of the sideyard is paved in order to provide access around the
carport to the garage in the rear.
APPEAL:
The statements by the Appellant in support of the appeal are as follows (see attached appeal
form):
.)./p ....)..
Page 3, Item ). V
Meeting Date 4/13/93
1. The Planning Department made design changes that were complied with on the original
drawings and the plans were approved;
2. The homeowner is an elderly woman with a disabling disease. The carport will allow
protected wheelchair ramp access between the residence and a vehicle during inclement
weather;
3. Other residences in the area have reduced sideyards. Denial of the variance does not
allow the owner to develop her property to the same extent as her neighbors have been
allowed to do.
ANALYSIS:
With regard to the first statement, the Appellant is correct that there was an oversight at the
Planning counter when the plans were fIrst reviewed. At that time, the Appellant was told that
the lot coverage was too great. The drawings were modifIed by reducing the size of the carport,
and the plans were then stamped by the Planning Department. When the Appellant returned to
have additional plan sets stamped and a building permit signed off, the sideyard encroachment
was noticed and he was informed that the permit could not be approved.
It should be noted, however, that it was later discovered that the plans which were stamped did
not accurately reflect the full extent of building on the lot -- an existing 60 sq. ft. detached
covered patio was not depicted on the plans. If this patio cover had been shown on the plans,
they would not have been stamped because they would have shown the lot coverage in violation
of the City maximum. While this does not excuse the mistake that was made at the Planning
Counter, it does render the stamped plans invalid in any case. In any event, the fact that a set
of plans was stamped does not constitute a basis to deviate from or grant a variance from the
regulations of the Code.
With regard to the second statement made by the Appellant in support of the appeal, staff
acknowledges that the proposed carport would provide a benefit to the resident. However, there
appear to be other design solutions which are available. First, both the dwelling and garage
have doors which open on to the rear yard. These could be connected by a breezeway to
provide for protected access. Although this would also require a variance -- by attaching the
garage to the dwelling it becomes by definition part of the dwelling rather than a detached
accessory building and therefore subject to the same setbacks as the dwelling n it would not
affect the existing perimeter setbacks. Second, as noted above, a narrower, conforming carport
for a single vehicle could be constructed over and to the front of the landing if a portion of the
sideyard were paved to provide access around the carport to the garage in the rear. Please see
attached Exhibit A showing the breezeway and single vehicle carport alternatives.
Finally, the appellant states that other properties on Mankato and Whitney Streets have less than
the required setbacks, citing fIve lots out of a total of 59 lots which front upon these streets.
Much of the subdivision developed in the early 1950's when the sideyard setbacks were 5 ft. and
5 ft., and thus a few of the dwellings do have legal nonconforming setbacks. However, our
records indicate that no dwelling on either street has ever been granted a variance to reduce the
J.~...;!
Page 4, Item J..(p
Meeting Date 4/13/93
sideyard setback. In any event, the Code states that each case must be considered on its own
merits.
In conclusion, we do not believe any of the appeal points would favor granting the variance, and
therefore, we recommend that the Council uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and
Planning Commission and deny the request based on the findings contained in the attached
resolution.
For the Council's information, following are the findings that must be made in order to grant
a variance.
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner
exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property
for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this
context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and
neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous
variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on
its individual merits.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public
interest.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of
the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
WAC F:\HOME\PLANNING\614.93
.}I,-'/
,.
,
RESOLUTION NO.
17~,? .3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEREBY DENYING THE
APPEAL ON ZA V -93-06
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance was med with the Planning
Department of the City of Chula Vista on November 9, 1992, by J & D Construction on behalf of Cora
Marguia, the property owner, and
WHEREAS, said application requested approval to reduce the sideyard setback from 10
ft. to 6 ft. in order to construct a carport at 140 Mankato Street in the R-l zone, and
WHEREAS, the application was noticed and subsequently denied by the City Zoning
Administrator on the basis the property was found to be a typical, rectangular single family lot with no
apparent hardship related to the size configuration or topography of the property or the manner in which
it has been developed, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator also found that a narrower conforming carport
which complies with the applicable setbacks could be constructed on the westerly side of the dwelling,
and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 1992, J & D Construction on behalf of Cora Marguia, the
property owner, filed an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 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 7:00 p.m.,
Wednesday, January 27, 1993, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to uphold the decision of the Zoning
Administrator and deny the appeal in accordance with Resolution ZA V -93-06, and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 1993, Gerald Drewett for Cora Marguia filed an appeal from
the decision of the Planning Commission, and .
J/,--S'
~.,
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by it publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 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.,
Tuesday, April 13, 1993, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City council and said
hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 1 (L)(4)
exemption due to the fact it is an accessory structure involving negligible expansion of an existing
private use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby fmds as
follows:
1. The property is a typical, rectangular single family lot with no apparent hardship
related to the size configuration or topography of the property or the manner in
which it has been developed, and
2. A narrower conforming carport which complies with the applicable setbacks could
be constructed on the westerly side of the dwelling.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL hereby affirms the decision
of the Planning Commission and denies the appeal.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~<YAtt~"
Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning
F:\homeW1anning\782.93
.:;t~t
~__J I I
I I
__J I I
I I I
I , I
I I
. J I.. I ."1:.
.L
..---I
- '-1
.
I H-'
c:;,-p.e~
I
r-1
I I
~
-l
~
(')
~
~
",
.
)>>
<
1"1
SHAST A
MANKATO
ST.
I I I
I I I
I . _.I
( ~VD ~~
_' 1.40 IYIAN~ ",T )
NORTH ("lAV-'1?"-Vr., )
,
ST.
I
"-
,
,
.....
,
I
I I I
I I I
- t - r -'II
I I I
I I I,
I I I'
)-
<
'"
L
c
\\1
I
----1
I
I
I .
I I
-" --~- '
LOCATOR
~ ~1Dt?(~ ~~
fPCM ICI' 'fo ?I
..
...-. .~.. .
.,. - ~
.
,- -*
.
I
-+-
<;\
c'.
lCl
~
,
,
I
I
I
j",
1;-
I
I
I
~
-ri7.L__ _
.r~...
- "
--- ..,
\_u;
-~
1>1
\Xl
'11-
~"'IS1""_ ~t1-'. rr..
."",,-!-;z.ut ~N~P..
--~,.cI~II-I~
61Afi.~~e..
!i {k! (, pf)
'"
~
---: - --
11
e.,qs..,.'"" ~~~
~ ";'f"AJ~'"
\
,
\ '/
\ . /.
.. \~Z
. :~l' ~
.. tl
r.
~~ 1~-rltJc.,
..J. '-G I D €1-J ~ ':.
.
~~~
I
I~
l J~"
<.
I'
t't
..:
-~
~
.2,,' r
iI~'
-.....
. .
,
CI
..
I
-.6
,
:/
I-t t/
~
,-
I
I If;' /
II
/
/
/
~
/ .'
Ill":.
.-
III
~
1IQ
~xl?T" "0!tJ1
~'e -CX, (J:)V~R
~Z.EWAY Pt<OVIDIN~
mv~12W l..Dt'lN!:vTI~
FP-av1 1-l~6.1? ~~
-,
, ,
-~
.Jl
...."I~IIJ~ :
~AI2.}'~
.(.t'! (, _)
11
.- ---.--.
11 \
I B')( o/?'
(p.~pol<"r Al/OItI~
I
-....
<I
,
,
I
I
I
I""
11-
I
)
e.,(k7r'~ poi2&H
~ ~1"AI~~
~~ 1:.1"1.,J",
1:-'-C.1 D 4J" ':.
I
~
N.A~WeR, '71 N~ CA~cR-.f
WITH t;ID~Ai'O FAVW TO I>i,UW
V~'C-Ij~ .A(.L%J; TO v~
AT ~~ Of U;T.
~~~
I
I~
..
EXHIBIT IAI
-c.
ON
.)~-?
L.1N~
--:t
uu
'!;.r.t
, .
t~
I
-~
I.
.f"
",I
... ./
/
,
~
.
.
PC Minutes
-2-
January 27, 1993
ITEM 1.
PUBUC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-93-06; APPEAL FROM THE
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO DENY A REQUEST TO
REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM 10 Fr. TO 6 FT.
AT 140 MANKATO STREET - J & D Construction
Principal Planner Griffm presented the staff report, noting that the request was to add a 15 'x33'
carport on the westerly side of the dwelling. The carport would extend within 6' of the westerly
property line; the Code requires a 10' setback. Mr. Griffm reviewed the appellant's reasons for
the appeal, and offered some options. Based on the factors in the staff report, Mr. Griffm
recommended that the Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny
the appeal on ZAV-93-06.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Jerry Drewett, 811 Halecrest Drive, Chula Vista, the general contractor, said that the plans had
been approved, but staff had later found that the sideyard setback was too close and denied the
approval of the plans. He had applied for an administrative variance and was denied. There
had been only one complaint letter out of 42 notices. He noted other properties in the
neighborhood with less than 10' setback. Mr. Drewett discussed future access needed for the
owner who would probably be wheelchair bound in the next couple of years.
Commissioner Martin asked if the reason he was denied the variance was because one person
out of 32 complained. Mr. Martin felt it was denied because it was not in compliance with the
Code.
Mr. Drewett answered affmnatively.
Commissioner Martin asked about a path behind the house or a breezeway. Mr. Drewett said
the owner did not wish to do this; they were looking at the long-term of her disability and the
most convenient access for her to get in her vehicle would be out the side door off the kitchen.
The owner did not agree with the breezeway access.
In response to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Drewett noted that with a reduced width, there would
only be 11 feet, with less than 4 feet to access the vehicle with a wheelchair. Commissioner
Ray noted that if it was the owner's intent to park the vehicle there, he agreed they were not in
compliance; if it was to gain covered access to the garage, the width could be reduced and be
within compliance. Mr. Drewett said the owner did not store her vehicle in the garage but in
the driveway.
Commissioner Ray reviewed some of the options suggested by staff, but Mr. Drewett did not
agree with any of them.
Chair Fuller asked if there was any barrier between the edge of the house and the edge of the
garage. . Mr. Drewett said there was a step down. In response to Chair Fuller's suggestion of ,
. ,
,)~ '/fl
.
.
PC Minutes
-3-
January 27, 1993
a covered walkway by the back door, Mr. Drewett said there would not be room for ramp
access.
Commissioner Carson asked how long the setback had been in the Code. Principal Planner
Griffm said he believed it had been since 1970.
Principal Planner Griffm stated he had checked the addresses Mr. Drewett had suggested had
reduced sideyards.
Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Drewett if it would suffice if the cover was taken from the
existing patio and went back with the full width. Mr. Drewett answered affrrmatively.
Commissioner Tarantino asked if that would be in compliance. Chair Fuller asked if it would
encroach. Mr. Griffm said it would reduce the sideyard at another location and would encroach.
Commissioner Ray asked if the only issue was that it would be attached to the structure. Mr.
Griffm answered that even if this structure were detached, it would be a violation of the setback.
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted it was important to remember that the roof area could be
15' in width. With the support posts, there would be opportunity for access. If the width was
reduced down, there still would be a 12' dimension from the edge of the house to the support
posts.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
,
MSUC (Carson/Ray) 7-0 to deny the appeal of ZA V-93-06 and uphold the decision of the
Zoning Administrator.
.2/,.-; J
RESOLUTION NO. ZAV-93-06
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance was filed with the Planning Department
of the City of Chula Vista on November 9, 1992, by J & D Construction on behalf of Cora Marguia,
the property owner, and
WHEREAS, said application requested approval to reduce the sideyard setback from 10 ft. to 6
ft. in order to construct a carport at 140 Mankato Street in the R-I zone, and
WHEREAS, the application was noticed and subsequently denied by the City Zoning
Administrator on the basis the property was found to be a typical, rectangular single family lot with no
apparent hardship related to the size configuration or topography of the property or the manner in which
it has been developed, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator also found that a narrower confonning carport which
complies with the applicable setbacks could be constructed on the westerly side of the dwelling, and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 1992, J & D Construction on behalf of Cora Marguia, the property
owner, filed an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal and notice
of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 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 7:00 p.m.,
Wednesday, January 27, 1993, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5(a) exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby
affirms the findings of the Zoning Administrator as noted above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby denies the
appeal and upholds the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
WPC F:\bome\plannin&~8L93
.,). , ../.2.
Resolution No. ZA V-93-06
Page 2
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 27th day of January 1993 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Fuller, Carson, Martin, Tuchscher, Ray, Moot and Tarantino
None
None
/{!Mffl ~~
Susan Fuller, Chairman
ATTEST:
'"L}..".X ~ ;'{(i
Nancy Ri ey, Sec'retary
WPC F:'Ibome\planning'481.93
;/, "/3
.....
,
r City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Appeal Form
Date Received
Fee Paid
Receipt No.
Case No:
Appea1 from the decision of: [J Zoning ~ Planning [] Design Review
Administrator ~Commission Committee
Appellant: OC'l!-flL <) VklA/ett ~ chCtl "wt'ru.4PhOne ~/l / c:)~. 9/>~
Address: ?(f 174 ftzc ,..-')7 ]k.
Request for:
change, variance, design review, etc.
Please state wherein you bel ieve there was an error in the decision of 0 ZA ~PC DDRC
for the property located at: Is/v #/lN1/f7d >>. C? ~/"
Q ffA/II'J' ~'I"r~ ~clc'" ~r'~.Af (If'7m1~$ ~"t ~ ~"'r"c,'o
,
tp ( H-I m (),LI,~/NJ ~/)'$ ? t?&'J w<;-tt- If}/Y"~ V-t"/o
,
~ ~ifW~
V/frcfl ..(t's'
If .of>.
eP'cf~7
t! IIO'wJ
,
~ w'ff,
t..>1<<-( C'/L .
c;- .M-t tAlr~
/!rly /kU) J ;>0
f#Jt',fj,:
If{" ~), "..,c~
~ ~r
it< i4i:
-Ih 0...,.....
C"'o
'7 t.A'.Aft e{(.
,
&<'f/
II' t; (I W~~ fLy.
c
To: Planning Department
Do Not Write In This Space
Date Appeal Filed:
Case No:
Date of decision:
Receipt No:
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the:
Planning Commission City Council on
Planning Commissi~n Secretary City Clerk
(This form to be filed in triplicate.)
PL-60
Rev. 12/83
.2J, ~/Jj
,
~~~
r-- ~~ :::
~~~~
"C:~~~
CIlY OF
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I)ooNornher 14. 1992
J & D Construction
811 Halecrest Drive
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Attention: Jeny Drewett
Subject:
Vartance. ZAV-93-06. Reduce sldeyard setback at 140 Mankato Street
The Zoning Administrator has considered your request to reduce the s1deyard setback
from 10 ft. to 6 ft. in order to construct a 15 f1. x 36 ft. carport at 140 Mankato Street in
the R-1 zone. The proposal Is exempt from environmental review.
After reviewing your proposed project. site plan and the existing conditions in the
immediate vlcln1ty of the subject property. the Zoning AdmInIstrator has been unable to
make the required findings to grant the variance and therefore your request is hereby
denied.
Findings of fact are as follows:
1. The property is a typical. rectangula: 6.864 sq. ft. R-1 single family lot with no
apparent physical hardship related to the size. configuration or topography of the
property or the manner in which It has been developec1.
2. A carport with an interior dimension of 1. 'ft.. x 36 ft. could be constructec1 without
the necessity of encroaching into the rer:')trec1 sldeyard setback.
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. A completed form
along with a fee of$125.oo must be received by this office within ten days of the date of
this letter. Fonns are available from the Planning Department. In the absence of said
appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator is ftnal.
Steven Griffin. AlCP
PrIncipal Planner
cc: City Clerk
Code Enforcement
eJ. jp ~)5'
WPC F:"-'o\plannlnl\<21.92
.
3.
4.
5.
6.
.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1.
List the names of all persons having
subcontractor, material supplier.
rM ~"Cvet1 - ('1"",ryc.CtvT
(( CNI1 /).L.
(1,,1. CII 9/91cJ
a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
(lCM" ;f11fr2-. 'j t/,' '" .
II( u /11",,'1 e-n-a Sf
I' J. r'A. 9/'hc)
2.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is' a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
Ilj~
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
fA.(~
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Ye$_
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s): .-
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed ~e than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No./L If yes, state which
Councilmember(s ):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co.partnerslzip, joint venntrc, asso 1 lion, social club, fraternal organization, corporation.
('SIlI/e, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and nn)' olher COlinty, city and coun1T)J; city, municipality, district or OIher polilical subdi1';siolf,
or (lny other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Allach additional pages as necessary)
Dale: Zit, / '1}
( I
[1'0'>11-1'':' c ft,--
--
Signat e of contractor/applicant
Cc----,L.4-l> t. !)I(.fiWerl ~cr>tw",cf1Y
Print or type name of contrat<l1r/applicant
..2" ' / t, I Rcvi;<'d, lDo.vOI
!.\.II'.\:DISCLOSE.TXTj
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ItemAZ
Meeting Date 4/13/93
SUBMITTED BY:
Public Hearing to consider consolidation of Chula Vista Open Space
Districts 14 (Bonita Long Canyon Subdivision) and 24 (Canyon Views
Subdivision)
Director of Public Works ryrJ
Director of Parks and Recreatio~
City Manager.J~ ~~\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.K)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Tonight's hearing is the fIrst of a two hearing process. On February 23, 1993, Council declared
the City's intent to consolidate Open Space Districts 14 and 24 and set April 13 and 20 for
public hearings on the proposed consolidation. All property owners within the two districts have
been notified by mail of the two hearings.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct and close the fIrst public hearing
pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. A second hearing as required by the Act
is scheduled for April 20 after which Council action may be taken.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In July 1992, Council approved by Resolution 16723 the formation of Canyon Views Open Space
District No. 24 (Council report attached). Because there was such a large area of slopes outside
the gated community that were to be maintained by only 40 units, causing very high assessments
for this community, Council directed that staff begin proceedings for consolidation of Canyon
Views Open Space District with the Bonita Long Canyon Open Space District. Staff is preparing
to bid the Districts for next year's maintenance and needs to know whether to bid this as one or
two contracts.
Consolidation of these districts and their maintenance would increase the annual assessment of
Bonita Long Canyon properties from $345 to $359 per residence and would decrease Canyon
View's annual assessment from $661 to $359 per residence. The budgets of each district as
combined are shown in Table 1. It is likely that the combined budget would actually be less than
shown because staff anticipates that there would be cost savings due to the one district instead
of two. Table 1 presents the sum of the two budgets based on next year's proposed individual
budgets.
The actual savings in total costs by combining the two districts will not be known until bids are
received for contractual maintenance services. But if a total savings of $12,600 out of a total
budget of $325,800 (or a 4% savings) could be realized, the cost per residential parcel would
c9:?- !
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/13/93
remain at $345 per year. Staff costs are based on actual 1992-93 contractual prices for Bonita
Long Canyon, and estimated contractual costs for Canyon Views.
The actual assessment for next year will be lower (approximately $320) due to various other
factors such as excess reserve and fund balances due to cost savings during the year primarily
due to the drought and timing of Canyon Views turnover. However, the Bonita Long Canyon
residents can anticipate that there will be a permanent increase of approximately 4% due to
annexation of Canyon Views which may not be apparent next year. However, this increase may
be minimized in the long term by contract cost savings.
Consideration to consolidate the two districts is warranted because part of the Canyon Views'
slopes originally resulted from grading of East H Street in conjunction with the Bonita Long
Canyon subdivision. However, at that time, no maintenance mechanism was in place for these
"off-site" slopes and eventually the irrigation systems were abandoned and no maintenance
performed. When Canyon Views subdivision developed, additional slopes were created and the
entire slope areas (2.75 acres) along East H Street and Rutgers Road were landscaped and
dedicated to the City.
It should be noted that all the landscaping inside the gated community, including the slones above
the dwellings. of Canyon Views will not be maintained by the District. Only the street slopes
along East H St and Rutgers Road will be maintained by an Open Space District.
ODen Space District Formation
Traditionally, the size of an open space district has been determined by the size of an individual
development. That is because the creation of all past districts have been the result of a
development condition. We have annexed a new developing area to an existing established
district in the past. The particular case was in Terra Nova, when Lynndale Hills was annexed.
It is anticipated that District 11' s annexation will raise the assessments of the remaining district
by 5%. Open Space District 10 also had its boundaries amended to include other land areas.
The City administers contracts for 21 districts. Staff's goal is to try to add as few new districts
as possible to avoid the necessity of adding new staff to Parks and Recreation Department for
administration of Districts. Although, we realize that new staff will have to be added as Salt
Creek, Sunbow, the Otay Ranch, and Rancho San Miguel annex to the City, we will have the
opportunity to avoid small districts, such as Canyon Views in the future.
In hindsight, it would have been preferable to include Canyon Views in the original Bonita Long
Canyon District since there were slopes on their property that were graded by the developers of
Bonita Long Canyon and certainly the property owners of Canyon View also benefit by the
landscaping of Bonita Long Canyon along East H St. and Corral Canyon Road. However, the
conditions of development for Bonita Long Canyon were placed in the late 1970's or early
1980's and the future of the property now known as Canyon Views was uncertain, and it was
owned by people in Los Angeles. The issue of combining the Districts at that time was never
explored.
cfJ7~~
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Pros and Cons
One major problem in this issue is that the assessments of one district will be reduced
significantly, but at the expense of a small increase in the assessments of the larger district. Pros
and Cons of the consolidation are:
Pros:
. Canyon Views would be included in a district to maintain landscaping of East H St. and
Corral Canyon Rd.
. Bonita Long Canyon would help maintain a slope that they constructed
. There would be fewer districts and contracts to be administered by City Staff.
. There would be some overall costs savings by combining the two districts and
maintenance contracts.
. The fee for Canyon Views District would be lowered from $661 to $359. The assessment
is now by far the highest in the City. Other residential assessments range up to $420 per
year.
Cons:
. Increase in annual assessments to Bonita Long Canyon from $10 to $15 per year or
approximately 4%.
. Animosity created between two neighborhoods in Chula Vista
Protests
Staff has received several written protests to date which have been included in the attachments.
Several issues raised are responded to below.
At the annual homeowners budget review meetings conducted by the Open Space Coordinator,
Saturday, March 27,1993, all attendees from Open Space District 14 Bonita Long Canyon voiced
strong opposition to the proposed annexation and indicated their protests would be voiced at the
scheduled hearings as well as conveyed to Council via signed petitions. Staff has received
approximately 250 protests through letters and petitions to date out of a total of 900 properties.
If a majority protest, by land area, exists, the Council cannot overrule the protests and shall
abandon the proceedings to change the organization of the district. SB 773 effective January
1993 deleted the provision in the code which previously allowed the Council to overrule a
majority protest. On the other hand, if no majority protest exists, Council may approve the
resolution changing the organization of the district after the second hearing is conducted.
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 4/13/93
Staff will calculate the "land area" protest percentage after the second public hearing is conducted
if it appears that a majority protest exists and Council wants to consolidate the districts after
considering the public testimony. If this is the case, staff will return to Council on April 27 with
the determination of whether a majority protest exists or not. Due to the size of the district and
the number of protests, staff anticipates receiving, it is necessary to defer action for one week
after the April 20 hearing.
Protest SUmmary and ResDonse
1. Statement - Canyon Views is not a part of Bonita Long Canyon (BLC) and consolidation
is of no benefit to BLC.
ResDonse - Slopes created by the development of BLC are located within the Canyon
Views Subdivision's open space lots.
2. Statement - Canyon Views is a gated community and BLC should not be responsible to
pay for their amenities.
ResDonse - The gated area and amenities are not proposed to be part of the City-
maintained open space areas. The gated areas are maintained through the Canyon Views
home owner's association and are paid for by Canyon Views property owners.
3. Statement - Precedence of gated communities.
ResDonse - Gated communities typically have maintained all open space areas within their
development through a homeowner's association. Canyon Views is different because it
pays for maintenance of both homeowner and City open space areas. The City open
space areas are the only areas being considered for consolidation with BLC's areas.
4. Statement - Costs will increase BLC's assessment.
ResDonse - Consolidation of the districts will permanently increase BLC's assessment
by $5-l5/year. Instead of experiencing decreases in costs due to BLC's landscaping
maturing their costs will increase or remain about the same because of Canyon Views
slopes. This may be minimized by savings from consolidating the districts.
5. Statement - City's proposal to consolidate existing districts is not consistent with prior
Council action.
ResDonse - Although the City has not consolidated other open space districts, several
districts have had land and future improvements annexed into existing districts. The
proposed consolidation is not unlike these annexations except that the action is taken after
two districts have been formed. Consequently, staff feels that the consolidation is
consistent with prior Council actions.
6. Statement - Historic increases in assessments have ranged from $l00/year to the proposed
$360/year.
~7-P.f
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 4/13/93
ResDonse - The assessments have varied between $84/year and $370/year. This is typical
in the fIrst years of a large, phased development where open space areas are turned over
for maintenance over several years.
7. Statement - Let general taxes pay for open space.
ResDonse - Staff does not support use of a general tax for the maintenance of the open
space areas. These areas most benefIt those within the development or area due to access,
proximity, and community theme.
Copies of letters regarding property owners concerns are provided in the attachments and provide
complete information.
Notice
All property owners of both districts were mailed notice of the two public hearings pursuant to
the 1972 Act requirements. A copy of the letter is included as Attachment C. Notice was also
provided through publication in the local newspaper.
Engineer's ReDort
A copy of the Engineer's Report as approved on February 23, 1993 is attached.
Conclusion and Staff Recommendation
Staff realizes that this is a very controversial issue with the residents in Bonita Long Canyon.
Unless there are cost savings of $12,600 (4%) by combining the two districts, the assessments
of Bonita Long Canyon will increase slightly due to the consolidation. However, as discussed
in the Pros and Cons staff believes that the advantage of consolidation outweigh the disadvantage
and recommend the approval of the district at the meeting of April 27, 1993.
If there is a Drotest of 50% or greater bv land area of the combined district. the Council cannot
aDDrove the consolidation.
FISCAL IMPACT: It has cost approximately $3,000 of General Fund money to process this
consolidation. However, normal annual staff and administration costs will be included in the
assessment.
Attachments
.1 ,Table 1 - Combined Costs
"Engineer's Report with attachments A and B
Council report and minutes on establishing Canyon Views aSD NOT SCANNED
Attachment C - Letter to property owners r:K/\1\I!':",
Letters from homeowners NOT SCANNED '
DDS:FilelOSOlS
WPC F:\home\engineer'.agenda\768.93
dl7-~
TABLE 1
OSD 14 OSD 24
BONITA LONG CANYON CANYON VIEWS Combined
Utilities 69,240 7,160 76,400
Trash 280 280
Service 1,240 160 1,400
Staff 31,100 3,320 34,420
Contractual 190,620 14,270 204,890
Landscape 3,180 400 3,580
Materials 4.000 830 4.830
299,380 26,420 325,800
EDU's 868.22 40.00 908.22
CostlEDU 344.82 660.26 358.72
ACTUAL ASSESSMENTS
BONITA LONG CANYON CANYON VIEWS Combined
87-88 $ 84.48(1) -- --
88-89 195.66 -- --
89-90 254.64 -- --
90-91 361.88 -- --
91-92 369.38 -- --
92-93 323.20(2) 680.26 --
(1)
This large subdivision was turned over to the City in phases from 1987 through 1991
which is the major reason for the increasing assessments in these years.
(2)
This assessment is lower than prior years because of cost savings in water usage in
response to the drought and water allocation programs in 1991-92.
WPC F:\home\engin&er\510.93
I1-b
REPORT ON OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 14
(BONITA LONG CANYON/CANYON VIEWS)
I. Backaround
This report was prepared pursuant to City Council direction and in compliance with the
requirements of Division 15, Part 2, Chapter 1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California and the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 17.07.
II. Boundaries of District
The boundary of the district corresponds to the boundary of Chula Vista Tract 86-3 Bonita
Long Canyon Units 1 through 7 and Chula Vista Tract 88-8 Canyon Views and is shown
on the Assessment Diagram on file in the Office of the City Engineer. A reduced copy,
Attachment "A", is included in this report. As permitted in the Streets and Highways Code
Section 22571, the details of the individual lots (lines, dimensions and bearings) are
shown in the County Assessor's Maps on file in the San Diego County Assessor's office.
III. Maintenance Items
The areas to be maintained by maintenance contract consist of open space lots and
median totalling 286.7 acres. The facilities and items of maintenance included within the
District are as follows:
1. Maintain landscaping and irrigation system improvements within the
designated open space lots, medians and within the parkways adjacent to
open space lots.
2. Maintain theme walls and entry monuments located within open space
areas including graffiti removal.
3. Maintain drainage facilities within open space lots.
The proposed maintenance program for Open Space District No. 14 consists in general
of the following:
1. Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part to any improvement.
2. Irrigation, fertilization, trimming, and replacement of dead or diseased
landscaping.
3. Weed abatement.
4. Removal of trimmings, trash and litter.
5. Removal of debris from brow ditches (Parks and Recreation).
WPC F:\home\engineer\511.93 ~'}-.1
6. Graffiti removal.
IV. Cost Estimate
The estimated annual cost for maintenance of Open Space Maintenance District No. 14
is $360. This estimate is based on the proposed budget prepared for Fiscal Year 1993-
94 and has been reviewed by the Open Space Coordinator. See Table 1.
The estimated assessment on each parcel of land in the District is in direct proportion to
the estimated benefit to be received by such parcel. The district is composed of 902
single family homes of which 40 are attached, and two non-residential sites totalling 6.22
acres. It is proposed that each single family residence be equivalent to 1 equivalent
dwelling unit (EDU) and that the two other sites be equivalent to 1 EDU/acre. This is
consistent with the original Engineer's Reports for the two districts (see Attachment B).
V. Assessment Schedule
It is anticipated that the open space within Canyon Views will be turned over for
maintenance upon completion of the installation and establishment of ground cover on
East H Street and Rutgers Road required of the developer. All areas within Bonita Long
Canyon have been turned over for maintenance by the district.
WPC F:\hom8\engineer\511.93
tA'l-'l
.-. -..
t::'
0
c 0
~ III . I
z !. r, . I
au iii .
".-' ~ . :1 I
z I
u "
c
.~ I if.
~ - -.-
c . r 0
00 r
1"1 II it d-
o u' .
o . J
0 0
.
- 'J'l
;h - 0
0 " ---0
.
.
.~
.
.
.
\. 0 I
I
. )
0 I
J I: "\
~7-' III ,
0
[4:- l
, "
..
..
OPEN SF~CE MAINTENANCE lASTRICT NO. 14
.
..
.
'.
.
~~ ~ -- ~y &}~-fi6~~
tiJb · . "'no!..,' ..-. ~t:.f\8,>-~-::,<<~ IEVISED .~1~~:5 ESTAT
/ /}. f: J .~-U40' . .' . ~~-l -
~\.~ .JJ ~~S." .~. ./.... >'/':: , .~ ~W"" SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
. 9:~~~"'~Y' . '!'l' ."'''', ~ y r 2 II · · · l' -...
Y7.~>, :"'\.. :.... ;...... GROSSAIEA__ ......,...................... ...
",' ~... .~. I~f. .
"'...~:.. mKV :j' ", .ix.: ~~~\i 811lEE'l'RIW_ ........,............ ...
~Ej . ,..",. ..~~' ...~..F. . .,;.:}. ..... ~--61 flETAREA - ........... au........,... ....
rJ.:. '.~:.. "/":, . . ," .~. ;~\ .....'ll::~...~ '. ~"".E: NO.CJFLOTScaltl _ _... .. tal n ., ...
~. \""'<i:: . .' . r:n )\ """'. .... Fi 1lENSlTY....... .. ... .. .. ... ... ... ...
.1 ~ ^ "'\Y"~" " ..' ~.t::i=: -.......-- ------- -
'. . ':"./.).~ ~.I..~..'''': '. '" ~. '" :~ . ':.:::j::: _....___ ._______
". -,:.~' ,;' ~.' Io.~ ! .~. .. t:-\' ~ pH - BFA"CI'ItI... .. - - - - - - ...
'V' ..: ~." ": ';~'''t' \' ,rif{ ,'", ~~ =.--::. -: . . :
/" 'o.fo'.N. '::"'~' ",' '~Q . ._~_... ;. _
~ 1!~~2 ~V"'}~'~~ ~~~~/\. ~'"""""' '.":,.. . .-
~ ..~.~; ;J(y.". "";"~;:' '... ~ ~ ,..~!b. -:--=:::-- 'p.
.J ~ 1>:':, .'~' .' . . .~(~T-: ~". w., :,:. s ~ '. R~ u: .;oc ~"""'. '.. 'I DISTRICT lOUND4R'(
......"'.~ . <!i. ~''-~ C:..1. . ..,~ '. ~~..
ft ~ ~/' .. ;--@........lJ~'~~ rl.' '\./OX..;t;Jp.;..... " .,.,~ -.' .-......~'~. '\
JJ ~ . .. "'Yo.... . .......,.'IAA\"'..,. m . ,.,9.\\.\,.1'- .... .. ",'s. '"
-t\' "'" .<:,:;:;~::,,,,:"'~"TQ-'~~:"~m'JT' ~~1~~~,.b':-;;.'.' .......~< . .
. . . ~ .. :ill' >\.~~ ~'-'=Y"~';",;" .
r:D-... t....::. ~~ :'. X.. .l.r ~._<~~"u.~ - -..-::-....i'~\~.~. ......
.' ~":' . --. . ., ./.~:::f'?" -.~~. ..~':'; , F
. -....;;...., . .::i.1l7i;~ .v:..e:7f." /r\)(.J' '.. ,oi"'~, .;:.; ,....:>;' \ If} ......
. ..' . .~..; '.fti: "r~" .~ . .;..~\\tr9. -.. ~"' 1(-'; -.; ..~~. . ~I
___.::_"1;. -"~' ", -.....IS~~ ,~~f, ~~( . ..."", ~,~ .\ -....., . ..
. ,f .; .---' . "b:'>O"'.: !.. . ..,.,~:'. :::-tAOC'. ,\: .ae,:/A .' ~, .:.\ ~"
. .' ~... A" . ~ ,....... .~ '" .'. ~\ ~ t-.::;
~'~~~~'f:!~:~::ttil5::~~,,:~~~;;,j~l?:'>,'. '. .~ .~~~ ~~~~
.AV-:f:# li. ~. -e: ..~~*~'l./' - :s:: . ^ . '
~ 'm "" Q..O .A. '"" ' ~'.~ ,,\, \J'il'/" .. '~' . ~. i Y
;'&\ If? 1l::i . .: - ~ . foY .;..' X. .. -"'..
~'(',".I:l ",' .~. n'lj~ '.\\ . ~~~. " _ .,
. ~~I' 'i' ')~'';' ",., ..-.. . "~_ r1< .'i<< . . ~ ...
) ';:1} ';'.~t;1~ .;,";, .\;...:.;v- . . ~. , . ~ ~~ ..
:: ; . ~ 'r:. ~~.)>v~~ ~~~.,.. .~ <3~f~: s ~." ~ J:L IX
..':":::: -'" '. Z ~:::.~~'>11.;. ''';l~~....ft::!_....: . ~ ri
~ A~",~ l=l~ ~.'" ....... .,.~- =... ro.
.-:~,AtlJ.~=I~! ~ ~~~~~~:l<.'" .'\ ~';~,:.:_ ' ..c ' .
. ~ ~ 1R.;Jyy- V~~;r /. '.bl/.. ;..< :". . ~~~.-" 1.oOl ~>: ~
,. .~; HUo'S"..t-.;,. [~~~~.":~ ~~ ..:" :. "
. . - i:t.... ~....,,'"
. '.... . :~~~~A"~.~~'~':'-::,:'.__~.' 'f
1-- - - . .~ -...-..... ~E:~k:7z.~~f:" '-~ ,~.., .: '. .;
~ ..~I;u::u....n ""-l,r''"-' . U ~ I.~,
... n-H~H~LJ"'>.~~' I~' i.'"
_~U'tA1P'I'o: 0 . .
rri"R, ;. fl.f1 . .~~ V
BONITA LONG CANYON
ES
. . .
~..1t
1'tPII::AL IIlREET IIECT10NS
-
J:at ~ ~i lL:~:"n~ 1*ht':'iiL' ~ "-
.._a._. _
----
---- -
fiL ,~:a ~L -t
II"'""';" ..r....-.... .....
.....""""
lEGEN)
....-=..-
---
-
':.:j-r
---
vn-
-
C"'-==-=~
.ATTACHMENT ''Ao
~ 7!-- 9 ~ IJ
A'l'!ACHMENT B
ASSESSMENT ROLL
----------------------------
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT No. 14
1993-94 ASSESSMENT PER UNIT = 358.72
PROPERTY DESCRIP. BENEFIT 1993-94
(A.P.N.) UNIT ASSESSMENT
594-070-04 to 59 56.00 20,088.52
594-071-01 to 64 64.00 22,958.31
594-071-67 1.00 358.72
594-110-13 5.32 1,908.41
594-110-14 0.90 322.85
594-321-01 to 63 63.00 22,599.59
594-322-01 to 70 70.00 25,110.66
594-323-01 to 66 66.00 23,675.76
594-341-01 to 55 55.00 19,729.80
594-342-01 to 50 50.00 17,936.18
594-343-01 to 25 25.00 8,968.09
594-351-01 to 10 10.00 3,587.24
594-351-12 to 16 5.00 1,793.62
594-351-18 1.00 358.72
594-351-22 to 23 2.00 717.45
594-352-01 to 19 19.00 6,815.75
594-361-01 to 20 20.00 7,174.47
594-361-22 to 30 9.00 3,228.51
594-361-32 1.00 358.72
594-362-01 to 42 42.00 15,066.39
594-371-01 to 27 27.00 9,685.54
594-372-01 to 46 46.00 16,501.29
594-381-01 to 29 29.00 10,402.99
594-382-01 to 42 42.00 15,066.39
594-383-01 to 22 22.00 7,891.92
594-384-01 to 41 41. 00 14,707.67
594-391-01 to 34 34.00 12,196.60
594-392-01 to 34 34.00 12,196.60
594-393-01 to 28 28.00 10,044.26
595-310-01 to 18 18.00 6,457.03
595-311-01 to 22 22.00 7,891.92
908.22 $325,800.00
BENEFIT UNIT FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS= 1 UNIT/ACRE
BENEFIT UNIT FOR DAYCARE CENTER = 1 UNIT/ACRE
;'7- b
.. S II
ATTACHMENT C
~V~
~ ..idS~ ~
.-..;::~~~
~~~~
el1Y OF
CHUlA VISTA
February 26, 1993
File #OS-015
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
TO:
Property Owner
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NOS. 14 AND 24 (BONITA LONG CANYON/CANYON
VIEWS)
On February 23, 1993, by Resolution 17002, the City Council
declared its intent to consolidate Open Space District Nos. 14 and
24 and set public hearings for Tuesday, April 13 and 20, 1993 at
6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, to
take testimony on the proposed consolidation.
It is anticipated that consolidation of these two districts will
cause a 5% increase in the assessments of Bonita Long Canyon owners
which is approximately $15 each year. Staff estimates the
assessment for Fiscal Year 1993/94 to be $360 per residence
contingent upon final budget, reserve requirement and fund balance.
The assessments will be used to maintain all open space lots (287
acres) previously maintained by the two separate districts (OSD 14
& 24).
Please be advised that protests on the Council's intent to
consolidate these districts may be filed during the public hearings
or filed by mail prior to the second hearing at City of Chula
Vista, City Clerk, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Existence of a majority protest, by land area, will cause
consolidation proceedings to be abandoned.
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 hearings described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to
the public hearings.
Should you have any questions, please call Donna Snider at 691-
5266.
aMPLIANCE WIlH AM:RIO\NS WIlH DISABILITIES ACf (All'\)
The City of Chula Vista, in c~lying with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, request individuals who require special
acccnmodation 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 DOlll1l1 Snider for
information or to place your request at (619)619-5266. California
Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired at 476-5342
(1m) .
(DDS3\BONLNGCN.NTC)
,)7-/;2 --L
276 FOURTH AVE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 (6'9< 691~?021
FORM LETTER
TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
<;;];>0-
~~r1<l?
OPPOSING CON.SOLIDATION OF OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 24 (CANYON vmw
" , ~.
" HOMESI:T-O OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 14 (BONITA LONG CANYON)
As residents of Bonita Long Canyon, we strongly oppose the City's proposed consolidation of
the 'eated ~nyon View Homes development on Ruteers/East H Street (District 24) with Bonita
Long Canyon (BLC, District 14).
Residents of BLC pay approximately $360/home per year for maintenance Of the approximately
284 acres' of open space included in our community. The District was formed for this purpose
in 1985. Addition of the approximately 3 acres of slope area in Canyon View to our District
is estimated to increase our annual assessment for the first year by $15 per home. Increases to
future annual assessments are not known, Canyon View is not part of BLC and was not
included when the original District was formed. It is unfair to ask the residents of BLC or any
other District to assume the majority of the costs to maintain areas outside their District and
subsidize homeowners in any other community. The fact that Canyon View is gated and only
residents can enjoy the amenities is further evidence of the inequity of this consolidation
proposal.
This proposed consolidation is contrary to established City policy and sets a dangerous
precedent. Earlier this year the Council denied a request to separate BLC's District into two
districts on the basis that "It has always been the goal of the City for open space areas not to
divide communities in the search for lesser assessments." An earlier decision was made to keep
the gated Corona Vistas subdivision off Otay Lakes Road separate from the existing District 4,
Canyon View is not Dart of BLC. and we should not be responsible for sharing their
maintenance costs. Assessments for BLC should be decreasing since our open space is
established and "natural", not increasing to pay for establishment and maintenance of another
neighborhood's slopes.
We request the City Council abandon consideration of annexing Open Space District 24 (Canyon
View Homes) to Open Space District I (Bonita Long Canyon).
NAME/SIGNA TURE
ADDRESS
__________u_________________u Tear here before mailing _________uu______u________u___uu_u____uu_
In order for us to succeed, please sign and mail the above petition before April 13, 1993 to the
City of Chula Vista, City Clerk, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, Ca. 91910,. Thanks for
your support.
d? - /3- c... r:\PN 0~4 - 3\-\\-,~
t E.:.i
TO TIlE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
..;- j~ H';:../.. VlS 1 A
-\.i,.- \_t'~-;:.~~.lt..;r; (tE3T
OPPOSING CONSOLIDATION OF OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 24 (CANVOr4FVIEfW PM I: 13
HOMES) TO OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 14 (BONITA LONG CANYON)
As residents of Bonita Long Canyon, we strongly oppose the City's proposed consolidation of
the gated Canyon View Homes development on Rutgers/East H Street (District 24) with Bonita
Long Canyon (BLC, District 14).
Residents of BLC pay approximately $360/home per year for maintenance of the approximately
284 acres of open space included in our community. The District was formed for this purpose
in 1985. Addition of the approximately 3 acres of slope area in Canyon View to our District
is estimated to increase our annual assessment for the first year by $15 per home. Increases to
future annual assessments are not known. Canyon View is not part of BLC and was not
included when the original District was formed. It is unfair to ask the residents of BLC or any
other District to assume the majority of the costs to maintain areas outside their District and
subsidize homeowners in any other community. The fact that Canyon View is gated and only
residents can enjoy the amenities is further evidence of the inequity of this consolidation
proposal.
This proposed consolidation is contrary to established City policy and sets a dangerous
precedent. Earlier this year the Council denied a request to separate BLC's District into two
districts on the basis that "It has always been the goal of the City for open space areas not to
divide communities in the search for lesser assessments." An earlier decision was made to keep
the gated Corona Vistas subdivision off Otay Lakes Road separate from the existing District 4.
Canyon View is not part of BLC. and we should not be responsible for sharing their
maintenance costs. Assessments for BLC should be decreasing since our open space is
established and "natural", not increasing to pay for establishment and maintenance of another
neighborhood's slopes.
We request the City Council abandon consideration of annexing Open Space District 24 (Canyon
View Homes) to Open Space District 14 (Bonita Long Canyon).
NAME/SIGNA TURE
ADDRESS
E- v6L y ~ SU/V1A B/t-T
({~ ~cJ;a-
_.
~
uu._.._____.u.u__.._.__..__ Tear here before mailing _____n__n___n_n___uu__u.u.uu___n.__..__
In order for us to succeed, please sign and mail the above petition before April 13, 1993 to the
City of Chula Vista, City Clerk, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, Ca. 91910. Thanks for
your support. V d<--d n!::l ~~ ~ ~J ~
J ~aM.-C ~ f~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Wl\J P/vO~, $--v ~~ aJL
/YUL ~s::r~? cJ)/r-C.
t-{~~E:\!~~
.!; l :-Jr ^.; :; . '
TO THFHlHULICVIstA'CltY COUNCIL
., - ... ,,"!":'..!I
OPPOSING CONSOLIDA T1~ llif OPEJII.lSIl-A~ DISTRICT 24 (CANYON VIEW
HOMES) TO OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 14 (BONITA LONG CANYON)
As residents of Bonita Long Canyon, we strongly oppose the City's proposed consolidation of
the e:ated Canyon View Homes development on Rut~ers/East H Street (District 24) with Bonita
Long Canyon (BLC, District 14).
Residents of BLC pay approximately $360/home per year for maintenance of the approximately
284 acres of open space included in our community. The District was formed for this purpose
in 1985. Addition of the approximately 3 acres of slope area in Canyon View to our District
is estimated to increase our annual assessment for the first year by $15 per home. Increases to
future annual assessments are not known. Canyon View is not part of BLC and was not
included when the original District was formed. It is unfair to ask the residents of BLC or any
other District to assume the majority of the costs to maintain areas outside their District and
subsidize homeowners in any other community. The fact that Canyon View is gated and only
residents can enjoy the amenities is further evidence of the inequity of this consolidation
proposal.
This proposed consolidation is contrary to established City policy and sets a dangerous
precedent. Earlier this year the Council denied a request to separate BLC's District into two
districts on the basis that "It has always been the goal of the City for open space areas not to
divide communities in the search for lesser assessments." An earlier decision was made to keep
the gated Corona Vistas subdivision off Otay Lakes Road separate from the existing District 4.
Canyon View is not part of BLC. and we should not be responsible for sharin!! their
maintenance costs. Assessments for BLC should be decreasing since our open space is
established and "natural", not increasing to pay for establishment and maintenance of another
neighborhood's slopes.
We request the City Council abandon consideration of annexing Open Space District 24 (Canyon
View Homes) to Open Space District 14 (Bonita Long Canyon).
NAME/SIGNA TURE
ADDRESS
Ji,~E SUMAeit7
~t:f.~ ~
'rUG J;J61/G /..OP~t<. ~HOClL.O 1!Je' f4rs p()AJ&/~LE -=o.e ""'H1~
nnn_________________________ Tp'''T h"T" hefoT" m.ilino ----------------------------______________________
.
-;,
.......
/,~.~
:f;
/'"
d 7- /) - ~
,
( ,;;.;.,1
I
I
RECEIVED
March 8, 1993
'93 MR 11 AlI:21
City Clerk
City of Chula Vista
CITY OF CHULA VIS 1 A
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Dear Sir:
We received your letter regarding your intent to consolidate Open Space
District Nos. 14 & 24. We are very much opposed to this since not only
is our assessment already very high but we feel that this area does not
even belong to Bonita Long Canyon and should probably be consolidated
with a nearby Chula Vista area or with East Lake. Even though at the
moment it would only mean about a $15.00 dollar increase in our yearly
fee, as you stated, who knows what it might involve in the future.
We know that tract has a problem but it is not fair to try to dump it
on our laps. Our yearly fee is high enough already.
Thank you for your time and feel free to call me if you have any ques-
tions.
00; 0~~. ~S/:s
~1onica Baigts
1591 Drake Ct.
Bonita, CA 91902
475-0233
~~..
('I)
~
M
A'Pt>l. S'1'-1 321 42 00
,;; 7 -/ " - c...
--
"
1'- 1)~12-/ UN ~AI12 II-r vot&d
,I p-s~ Foe YDU
buyS.
TO TIlE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
....
.~
OPPOSING CONSOLIDATION OF OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 24 (CANYON VIEW
HOMES) TO OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 14 (BONITA LONG CANYON)
As residents of Bonita Long Canyon, we strongly oppose the City's proposed consolidation of
the gated Canyon View Homes development on Rut!!ers/East H Street (District 24) with Bonita
Long Canyon (BLC, District 14).
,
Residents of BLC pay approximately $360/home per year for maintenance of the approximately
284 acres of open' space induded in our community. The District was formed for this purpose
in 1985. Addition of the approximately 3 acres of slope area in Canyon View to our District
is estimated to increase our annual assessment for the first year by $15 per home. Increases to
future annual assessments are not known. Canyon View is not part of BLC and was not
induded when the original District w~s formed. It is unfair to ask the residents of BLC or any
other District to assume the majority of the costs to maintain areas outside their D:,t.;r.l :md
subsidize homeowners in any other community. The fact that Canyon View is gated and only
residents can enjoy the amenities is further evidence of the inequity of this consolidation
proposal.
This proposed consolidation is contrary to established City policy and sets a dangerous
precedent. Earlier this year the Council denied a request to separate BLC's District into two
districts on the basis that "It has always been the goal of the City for open space areas not to
divide communities in the search for lesser ass<::ssmenrs." Ail <::arii<::r decisiolj was made to k<::ep
the gated Corona Vistas subdivision off Otay Lakes Road separate from the existing District 4.
Canyon View is not Dart of BLC. and we should not be responsible for sharin!! their
maintenance costs. Assessments for BLC should be decreasing since our open space is
established and "natural", not increasing to pay for establishment and maintenance of another
neighborhood's slopes.
We request the City Council abandon consideration of annexing Open Space District 24 (Canyon
View Homes) to Open Space District 1 (Bonita Long Canyon).
ADDRESS
N AME/SIGN A TURE
_______________________________ Tear here before mailing ---------
---~-
M? ,Q
.) 7~1 J -C-
",\\\q~ .
City of Chula Vista, City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
March 28, 1993
Deanna Berkowitz
no ~
=4:::;
-<-< ::0
no ~ fTI
r-""r1
/'Tl" (")
::0
x:7.: I fT1
_c - -
(..Ijr'.
o:ro> <
-r,<::-- > fT1
:2: v,: \0 0
0_ ~
m;t... ....,
To Whom it may concern;
Please make a note that I live on
CA. 91902 and received a notice concerning the open space district
Nos. 14 and 24. This is my written protest against this consolidation of
the land area.
~?-// - c...
'T~c;..\ 3(Z'-f 1Cf3
HM_n_____1/I.rh5 H'
~o w \...c "'-
,
J; ~ It>''''-~'',,,-,
~ rt~~.. -.~~. .~..-.-~~"'-GJLf-\JQ'4
--\-0 ~..,o \~ o~Q.."-.~S~ Q\..~vf- It:. II.{ "-4f
4' ........
~ - - - .._._~., -
~~~~ ~~S
'N..v<, Q c.-~ ~
b\A.~
v "?N '5'1l1 - 3"61. - "
d 7- /j....c.
March 27, 1993
Robert Hofstetter
Mayor Tim Nader - City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Consolidation of Open Space Districts 14 & 24
Dear Mayor Nader:
I am an original home owner in Bonita Long Canyon (Open Space District 14).
I have watched my open space assessment steadily rise (expect for last year).
I was informed last year that it would decrease in the future as more of the
open space reverts to natural state.
Now I am being asked to help pay for the open space in area 2~ - a gated
community. I find that consolidation inconsistent with City policy and against
the Landscape and Lighting Act. I urge you to either drop the consolidation
effort or vote against it.
c\\I\CY'"
.;; ?r,?--o - C
RE: PROTEST OF OSD #14 · OSD #24 CONSOLIDATION & AP"ESSMENT TAX INCREASE
City of Chula Vista
City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
RECEIVED
'93 lIR 15 AlO :19
em OF CHULA VIS1 A
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
March 10, 1993
I find it hard to believe that you plan to raise our open space assessment
TAX again and that you also plan to consolidate this district with another
district!
This is to protest the consolidation of Open Space District Nos. 14 & 24
(Bonita Long Canyon/Canyon Views). Year after year since we have lived in
OSD #14 our assessment has been raised considerably to take care of the
canyons maintenance. And year after year we have protested these
assessment TAX raises at the hearing and in the mails.
When we purchased our home 6 years ago the assessment TAX was well under
$100 per year. This year you propose to raise it to $360 which includes
an increase to assist in the maintenance of OSD #24. It doesn't matter
how much or how little of the consolidated new district's budget would be
designated to the new district consolidation this year; based on past
history it would probably just keep increasing year after year.
Not only do we pay for our own district (#14), but soon someone elses
('24) too, and of course a portion of our tax money must help pay the
Chula Vista city parks, golf course, medians, and other open space area
maintenance fees that are not funded by any assessment districts. Perhaps
its time all city of Chula Vista tax payers equally pay for all the open
space and park areas, etc., since all citizens benefit by them and green
areas are mandated in the cities master plan.
MQ~~' N&~Q t4\.-
Mike and Noel Keller
. A?N "0Cjl-\ -3Yz.. -1~
) - ~ /!- c.....
~
~ f2 ~ V:t,,-
:<7~ .p~-Ix-
~ W.sk- t4
qlCZ/D
RECEIVED
'93 tIAR 15 P3:47
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
3/;z /13
~/ ~krI~ EJ~r~.~
Alps I{.~ zf(/< . ~ ~/~
V~J rFilL ~DS- 0 IS- '4ll"31q~ - tr
'1J~~ir' IV-~ '~
~ J. a-wv ;ii- -::tk-. ,~ .
O~ ~ ' ~ M~ 14~ '2~ tK,L
~~~' ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ,t;-- ~~o, ;rLu
~f'~~~~~k
t~ ~ F-~~<':.;, M
~~ ~ '
~tu( I. 7z1 ~
Uff'~~.
q ZqD"Z-
IvtLJtJo:e.
MN 544 34~ 'l~
.) 7~ )..2--(.
;1 ~ 16 1f;;J
8jdM
8j !eMv~
(, ~'" r'F -# 05 - (J/S 1 r.t Uf (ff3
L. ~.L.~~7f ~~~A1~
4;~ .~ ~ (~~ /fu{;/~
NO Af".".( Z-v "" #-r r M- ~r r
~
.- <1:w
" 1-0
o ...,U:
o :>u...
.w EC 40
> .....Jr.,.,
0\ =>"
W .- X"'"
(.) uffi
w I ~d
ex: ~~
c:I ....-
P' GU
l-.
"-\ L\ 1<'1" \4- 6'- '(
/ A~N. 5'Fi -'?, '6\ - oS
) 7 - -.:23 - c_
-
March 17, 1993
,
.-.- ~. ~. -'
~ ~.. ?"",.~_.-..,.._~
.~"'i ;~:Fi::~.U,,-;"'-;::S~:'
.' 1 ' _
:~Nf~-lNt::'~~:!-~~J [,\;:-;:"...
l~ r.t (:" r; " ~..
!'. .
,
1';-'0 .
;; .- -. d9!'3 'MAR 22
.._-~ i
PM I: SS
Honorable Tim Nader, Mayor
Members of the city Council
,City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Proposed COnsolidation, of Open Space District 14
(Bonita Long canyon and Open Space District 24 (canyon
View BolleS)
t.....
, L.
Dear Councilmembers:
Recently residents of Bonita Long Canyon (BLe) were notified
that the City Council proposes to consolidate Open Space
District (OSD) 14, formed for the maintenance of open space
within Bonita Long canyon, and OSD 24, formed for maintenance of
the open space slope area for Canyon View Homes, located on East
H Street and Rutgers. Canyon View Homes consists of 40 homes
within a gated community outside the boundaries of BLC. The
purpose of the proposed consolidation is to reduce the
approximate $661/year assessment for Canyon View homeowners by
apportioning the cost of maintaining Canyon View slopes among
the 870 homeowners in BLe and increasing our assessments by
$15/year. Our vegetation is maturing, and maintenance costs are
going down. It's extremely unfair to attempt to increase our
assessments to pay for open space in another neighborhood.
The slopes in the gated Canyon View development do not provide
any benefit to residents of BLC. section 22572 (c) of the
Streets and Highways Code states "Assess the net amount upon all
assessable lots or parcels within the district by apportioning
that amount among the several lots or parcels in Dronortion to
the 'estimated benefits to be received by each lot or parcel from
the imDrovements II (emphasis added). Clearly, assessing BLe
homeowners for open space within another community, a gated
community, from which no benefits are derived, does not meet the
requirements of the law. Assessing all homes in BLC the same
amount, regardless of their proximity to the perceived benefit,
the canyon, similarly is not a fair application of the law.
When OSD 24 was formed, its sole purpOse was to finance
establishment and maintenance of the slopes within the Canyon
View development. The developer has apparently lobbied the City
and encouraged his homebuyers to do the same, seeking a
mechanism to lower their assessments. It is not BLe residents'
responsibility that such a small district. (only 40 homes) was
formed and that the assessments are so high. Perhaps this
should have been considered at the time the project was planned
and approved. Shouldn't financial feasibility studies have been
prepared which analyzed the viability of the various assessments
and special
Sl-\u.i2.S0N
I\PN Sqy - yz. 2.. - 50
-) 7 - .;; C; - c..
c.
.
"
. .~
:;>
districts? Now, because a few homeowners and a developer don't
want to pay the assessment they assumed when they purchased
their homes, BLC residents are forced to mount a majority
protest to defeat this unfair proposal.
Combining or splitting open space districts between developments
or neighborhoods to lower assessments is also contrary to past
city practice and policy. Earlier this year, the council denied
a request by BLC residents to separate District 14 into two
areas with different assessments with the statement "It has
always been the goal of the City for open space areas not to
divide communities in the aearch for lesser assessments".
Conversely, one would assume the city would not want to combine
open space areas solely to lower the assessments of a few. The
report also stated "... should Council decide to split the
existing Open Space District 14 (Bonita Long Canyon) this would
set a precedent inviting innumerable similar requests from the
9689 homeowners in all 19 City maintained landscape districts.
This could result in countless conflicts within existing Open
Space District communities...". still earlier, a proposal to
have the Corona vistas subdivision contribute to an existing
District was also denied. The consolidation proposal currently
before the Council certainly represents at attempt to .search
for lesser .assessments" and, if approved, would set a very
dangerous precedent for the city.
Over 150 signatures of BLe homeowners opposed to this proposal
have been collected in just a few days. We anticipate having
many more by the informational meeting on March 27. It is
unfortunate that we are forced to expend so much time and effort
to defend ourselves from an unfair proposal which benefits the
few at the expense of the many.
Sincerely,
~\'f $"-~~
Kate Shurson
,) 7-..,,2 s: L
OPPOSING CONSOLIDATION OF OPEN SPACE DISTRICT #24
TO OPEN SPACE DISTRICT #14
PROPERTY OWNERS
~:~~t~;~~:_::o .. /IV _u m - , -
Tina Fox, -- -. .
- - ...______........_. u______
Condetta Himan
Sluu Garcia,
Patti ,
Yasemin Roy,
Michael Gamin,
Betty J. curtis,
Maryellen Muldo
Grady Cabling,
John Hawkins,
Gloria Parra,
Kate Shurson,
Bob Forester,
Cory Humphries
Moxie uerdugo,
Ronnie Sanatan,
Gary W. Leggett
Paul D. Brink,
Teri Eustaquio,
J. Craig smit
Kerry smith,
Lisa K. Crickard,
catuinh E. Cricka
Patricia E. Hall
Kim N. cortina
Janice Fusco,
Michael R. Reppit
Kathleen Ruppert,
William Arias,
Michael Arias,
Shillerly Burlue,
Michael A. Cero,
Judy L. Peters
Sandra Jenkins,
Donald P. Eusais,
Carmen B. Arias,
Bernard
Rosa Maria Pr1es
Jack Backal,l
Joanne Hoffman,
Edward stopan,
Phillip Brownlee,
c?1 - /-b
"""'.~">'<"~ "!~':"F' ',~;..~. ~.; _~~,';I-:.:.:'i~ ':'~_ ...
. .:r:,'~." .1.:i/JJ?O.If'~..
..,~
:'~.:l!Il'
l"m;,
'->"-__J-q"~:-;.l:;"" ,-'c. "'.;":".i.,,....'~_,___._ ,...",
.~.~~' <
':'i:~
. ,,~.:" ,<~~~
.._....~';~~
., "='~~"':~
,." .._. _..~""_~r,;~~_
',". --''''''-,_.-.:-.,.~._- --"'~~!.y~
...,;'/,..'---:
,~
,~'.i_IIL"'",;'.
'....... '".,'.
"ltl:~~~1f-~'.a'
\,
, '~k"
".,
..
.':
'1''''
,~1;:~:t;';);
flf.,
W>A"'.,...,...,
'::!'.J:.?:!.'.
\ ..
~ '-.r:.:
i
~:
L2:__""..
~,--::::.~~!"~-
f
~.
" '
~
.
JiZ"':1
t*_.
;. ". ,~- -..-.
.
~li,
r._,:'(.,~~.~.
;, '.'- ..~~,. .:,'~c.
~,7!ft!'f:~
t_-,..
...~,... ..'
"""rr::,':^ :
+.;.~\..~.~-;~
.-.....'.............,~ :,~-'('.....'.~.'. '.'. '. .
" _.,~..it,;-l'i~ilIIIaIt
.' ..'" ,~". "'::"":".' '..
~~
._" ":".""~k,4-.~~
. ~~~~:.:....... .
.~q'.;',_.~"_~.t;.. . _ .,
:::c:;~:;:~."'..'~~
,. _.:"., .',7_" . '''.....'..:..".....'... ,".""'"
'8,,_.., '
';"'91~.'t.':\
:;:.~,;,~~".
it'~-'
J. R. Chantenyco,
Nell, 486 Cherry Hills Ln,
Brian Suggett,
David J. Wakef
Julia Sandave,
Rachael Well,
Miguel A. Cuce
. - -- -- ... ..
Elisa smisga,
Robert Hofstetter,
Carlos Mabalus,
Robert Clark,
Amelia Cacho,
Vernon Dresser,
Alirera & Valen~
J. Silvas,
Bob Avila,
Susan Dobber ee
Brian Campbell,
Bill M. villanveva,
Dennis Burlasn,
James L. Straw
Rey Hiregten,
Richard A. She
Monica Bargts,
. - -
- - ~- -~--- --
. --- -
2
Yoshie Smith,
Lellie Smith,
Natwarlal C
Al Asun,
N. Rill,
Ellen Adam
John WII,
Edna Addenbrooke
Daniel Mank,
Carol Chapelone,
Ialia Sevilla,
R. D. Asuncion,
Rasanio Cashmore,-
Canidad C. Morse,
Gayla Sorge,
Harold Lewis,
Anita Lewis,
I.J. Matacia,
Emily B. Matac~ ,
Josefina ortiz,
Miriam Casavante ,
James Brown Sr.
Karen S. Mentas
Austin Han
~ 7- cJ 7
E.E. Tiomeno,
. - - . .. ..
Roberto
Marilyn
E. Sawanlego,
Jaime Estada,
Clarice Fiar,
Mauano Galund ,
panci Going,
Wassdes,
Lynda Kent,
Anne Schaffer,
Gloria Sue Gon
Gener Coble,
Raymond A.
David Malone,
James R. McVeg
Salvador Islen
Gilda Juigue,
Virginia McClemmans
Rueman N. Lozan,
Maureen Mary DeK
Dale sutcliffe ,
Michael Oliver,
Al Williams,
Muhsin Iscan,
Benjamin Yor
John Rosen,
Nancy Contreras,
Antonia Manzano,
Kwang-Ae Cha,
Jack C. Ritchie
Patty Davis,
Linda Aszen,
Douglas A. Th m,
Sherree A. M'Ginley,
Geyco Espaya,
Luis Esperez,
Taffud Mohame
Les Goodman,
Jacobi Goodman,
Patty Eng,
Marilyn Jen
Jim Jenkins,
Cindy Helm,
Luis & Nora Ru ,
Andrea Dabrowski,
R. Aurfrose,
R.S. Mowry,
Mary Adosl,
~ -. ~ - - .
, - - ... - - -
,) )
)1
Corazon Benitez,
Jocelyn Tolenti
John SChurich,
Tory ,
Ricki Peders ,
Donald Hampton,
victoria Bautista,
Jose A. Ambas,
Dwight cum,
Chrishine Curtl ,
Taria Keepetoina
J.L. Guatio
Monan Ett,
Leo A. Maddela,
Thomara Maddela,
Elaine Segal,
Nancy Zumstein,
Yolanda Zermeno,
Mike Mccarthy,
Martha carpenter,
Charles smith,
James Mohave,
John Meaney,
Kenneth
.
.
~ .
2
o?- ,)7
Michael Jennings,
Ahmad Mottale,
Stanley Gabara,
Robert Rick,
Irma Mafong,
Malenet Gray,
Jess Sandoval,
Larry Cage,
James Aubun,
Mark Stanfut
D. Davis,
Dvid Lo,
Jamiklehme,
Bennie Laranang,
Ophelia Chavez Correa,
Barbara Spekelmeyr smit
Wayne R Harrison,
Ellen Frary,
Elsa Lopevena,
Beverly Regnida,
Kessler,
Jim Sole r,
Linda HOki,
Norman MAllen,
shirley Allen,
Jack Lentz,
Barbara Hunting on,
Fred Huntington,
3
E.J. Minchi,
Bob Olivier,
Georgia McCabe,
Cynthia Bustaman
2
Sam Delchad,
Rondald Bey,
. Hueng Kim Ocha,
Sukumen Baneza,
Catricia Mahoney,
R. Samtan,
Maria Mora,
Jeffrey Taylor,
Casey Westcoll,
Many Angulo,
Carlos Tortor
Keith Lenia,
Eduardo pamintevan,
Mr./Mrs. Walter willand,
~ 7 -3D
Mr./Mrs. Angel Lontor,
Mr./Mrs. Domingo Gustavo,
Mr./Mrs. Jovencio Festi'
J. Balagzi,
Mr./Mrs. I. antos,
Pastor J. Ellazar,
Mr./Mrs. John Gibson,
Mr./Mrs. Dan Plouf e,
Mr./Mrs. Swanson,
Mr./Mrs. J.P. Centers,
Cynthia R. Griego,
Lillian Hendrickson
Elaine GOldstein,
Freeda Schneeklth,
.);- 3/-
,a ~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I '3
Meeting Date 2/23/93
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution \, DO I Approving the initiation of
proceedings and describing the improvements for consolidating
Open Space District No s 14 and 24 (Bonita Long Canyon and
Canyon Views)
b) Resolution \ i 00 2- Filing and accepting report and
declaring the City's intention to consolidate Chula Vista Open
Space District No.s 14 and 24 (Bonita Long Canyon and Canyon
Views) and setting the time and place for hearings thereon
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public works#
Director of Parks and Recreation
a)
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_No.zj
Council Referral #2633
At the Council meeting of July 21, 1992, Council directed staff to initiate proceedings to combine
Open Space District No. 24, Canyon Views, with Open Space District No. 14, Bonita Long
Canyon. Approval of the resolutions begins that process.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolutions which:
1. Approve the Engineer's Report.
,\ '
2. Declare the Council's intention to consolidate the districts in accordance with
Section 17.07 of the Municipal Code and Section 22587 of the Streets and
Highways Code.
3. Direct the City Clerk to notice the public hearing in accordance with Sections
22556 and 22588 of the Streets and Highways Code.
4. Set April 13 and 20, 1993, at 6:00 p.m. as the dates and time for the public
hearings.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
At the July meeting, Council approved by Resolution 16723 the formation of Canyon Views
Open Space District No. 24. However, Council also directed staff to begin proceedings to
consolidate this district with Bonita Long Canyon Open Space District No. 14.
? ?- .? 2-
.__.."~,-_.."'":~......;;,,--"~,.. "
~/
~
4J
Page 2, ItemJ3
Meeting Date 2/23/9~
Consolidation of these districts and their maintenance would increase the assessments of Bonita
Long Canyon from $345 to $359 per residence and would decrease Canyon View's from $661
to $359 per residence. The budgets of each district as combined are shown in Table 1. It is
possible that the combined budget would actually be less than shown because staff anticipates
that there would be some administrative cost savings which have not been quantified. Table 1
presents the sum of the two budgets based on next year's proposed individual budgets.
The actual assessment is comprised of various other factors such as reserve requirements and
fund balances due to cost savings during the year. The impact of these factors would result in
an estimated assessment for Fiscal Year 1993/94 of $335 versus $359 as discussed above.
However, the Bonita Long Canyon residents can anticipate a permanent 5% increase to their
assessment due to annexation of Canyon Views which may not be apparent this year because of
other factors affecting the assessment.
To effect consolidation of the two districts, the following procedures would be required:
1. Council approve a Resolution of Intent to change the organization of the district
and approve an engineer's report reflecting the change in organization pursuant
to Section 22607 of the Streets and Highways Code. At this time, Council sets
the time and place for public hearings on the change. As of this year, Council is
required to conduct a public hearing prior to the public hearing at which a new
assessment or increase in an assessment is proposed.
2. After the Resolution of Intent is approved, notification of the public hearings is
required. This would entail mailing individual notices to all owners of assessed
parcels at least 45 days prior to the second public hearing pursuant to the new law
SB773, effective January 1993. The public hearing is also required to be noticed
in a local newspaper. .
3. After the appropriate notice is given, two public hearings are held to take
testimony on the proposed change in organization. U a majority protest, by land
area, exists, the Council cannot overrule the protests and shall abandon the
proceedings to change the organization of the district. SB 773 deleted the
provision in the code which previously allowed the Council to overrule a majority
protest. On the other hand, if no majority protest exists, Council may approve the
resolution changing the organization of the district. Presently, the majority protest
applies only to formation or change in organization of a district. It does not apply
to existing districts.
Staff anticipates that the Boniia Long Canyon owners will protest this change in organization
which would increase their assessments. Concern over any increase in assessments is exemplified
by the Hoffman request heard by Council on January 12, 1993 to divide the district into high and
low cost maintenance areas with corresponding high and low assessments. Staff anticipates that
proceeding to consolidate these districts will not go unopposed by the owners in Bonita Long
) J- 3 3
,?
.-
.I":.'
Page 3, ItemJ.3.
Meeting Date 2/23/93
Canyon. However, several of the 40 property owners in Canyon Views have expressed support
for the consolidation.
A copy of the Engineer's Report is attached for Council approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: It will cost approximately $3000 of General Fund money to process this
consolidation. However, normal annual staff and administration costs are included in the
assessment
DDS:RJeIOS015
WPC F~O_01l'lEiliV.OENDA\509.93
Attachments
Table 1 - Combined Costs
Engineer's Report with attachments A and B
Al13 dated 1112193 on Hoffman request
;:;7r3tj
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item J 8"
Meeting Date 7-21-92
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing to Form Chula Vista Open Space Maintenance
District No. 24, Canyon Views
Resolution 117.:J.;$ Ordering the improvements and the
formation of Open Space Maintenance District No. 24,
confirming the diagram and Levying Assessments for Fiscal Year
1992-93
Resolution I' 'l~1 Adopting the budget for Open Space
District No. 24
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~ 17
Director of Parks and Recreation~
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJG. '1)~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes....lLNo_>
On June 30, 1992, the City Council approved the Engi neer' s Report on the
proposed Open Space District No. 24, Canyon Views, and set July 21, 1992 as
the date for a publ ic hearing on the proposed formation. The boundaries of
the proposed district are as shown on Attachment "A".
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Hold the public hearin9; and
2. Adopt the resolution orderin9 the improvements, forming Open Space
Di stri ct No. 24, confi rmi ng the di agram and 1 evyi ng assessment for FY
1992-93.
3. Adopt the resolution approving the budget for Open Space District No. 24
in the amount of $27,210 for FY 1992-93 ($680.14 per unit for the fiscal
year).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1992-93 is $680.26 per unit. Although
it is anticipated that the district will not be accepted for maintenance by
the City until January 1993, the Council has approved the assessment of the
full fiscal year in order to build up a 50 percent reserve within the first
year and to avoid a large increase in assessment in the next fiscal year.
The hearing has been noticed by the City Clerk in accordance with Section
22556 and 22588 of the Streets and Highways Code. letters were sent to all
property owners informing them about the proposed assessment and the publ ic
hearing. After conducting the public hearing, the final step in the
proceedi ngs for the formation of the di strict requi res that Co unci 1 adopt a
'1 _. ~. ,,,..--
&?' r. :; )
Page 2, Item I~
Meeting Date 7/21/92
resolution which (1) orders the improvements, (2) forms the open space
maintenance district, (3) confirms the district diagram and (4) levy the
assessment either as originally approved in the Engineer's Report or as
modified by Council subsequent to the public hearing.
ODtions
There are four options that could be considered for this District.
1) Create the Open Space District as proposed with the first year assessment
of $680 per unit.
2) Include this District in a "Scenic Corridor" District.
At the Council meeting of July 23, 1991, Council also directed staff to
investigate the feasibility of creating an Open Space District for slopes
and medians along scenic corridors. Staff has done some prel iminary
research on this "Scenic Corridor" District for the eastern area and has
identified the following which need to be considered/answered:
a) How are irrigation and electrical systems set up? Are these systems
isolated from local open space systems? How much will it cost to
retrofit these systems to allow inclusion to an overall district?
b) How should the City handle areas in which an homeowners association
maintains the "Scenic" slopes, such as in EastLake?
c) How should the City handle the different levels of landscaping from
one area to another? One area might require more irrigation than
another due to the type of plantings.
d) Should the district include only slopes along the Scenic Corridor or
all slopes visible from the roadway, and how far from the road
right-of-way should the Scenic Corridor" District maintain? (Le.
100', 200', etc)
e) Should areas not included in any present Open Space district be
included and, if the answer is yes, what impact will that have on
the cost.
The complexity of the issues, the lack of staff to process the workload
during the last fiscal year, the potential size of such a district, and
ramifications due to shifting cost burdens to thousands of properties in
the eastern area have contributed to staff not having a proposal for
Council's review at this time for a .Scenic Corridor" District. As a
result, staff recommends that Open Space District No. 24 be processed at
this time and if a "Scenic Corridor" District is formed in the future,
that the slopes be included in that district. Staff anticipates
submitting a prel iminary report to the Council by the end of the fiscal
year with the follow-up work and implementation in the next fiscal year.
c37- 3 (.,
Page 3, Item If{'
Meeting Date 7/21/92
3) Do not include the area in a district and have the homeowners maintain
the slopes. The developer did not conduct a survey of all the property
owners to keep the area within the responsibil ity of the homeowners
association. Since he felt the costs were relatively similar, he'd
rather set up the district.
4) Annex to the Bonita Long Canyon Open Space District. This option would
require a hearing with property owners of the annexed area and the Bonita
Long Canyon District. Staff estimates that this action would lower the
assessments for Canyon View owners from $680.25/year to $338.92/year.
Bonita Long Canyon property assessments woul d increase from a proposed
$323.20/year to $338.92/year. However, the current year assessment for
Bonita Long Canyon is $369.38/year and would be lowered by $30.46/lot.
If this option were selected, staff would recommend that the developer
contribute to the District, by maintaining the slopes for a period of
time sufficient to keep the costs for Canyon Views equivalent to the
costs for Bonita Long Canyon or $323.20/unit. That would probably
require the developer to maintain the slopes for six months. Even though
this option would have a minimal impact on Bonita Long Canyon property
owners, it still might generate opposition from the Bonita Long Canyon
property owners.
A plat is available for Council viewing.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. Cost of district formation are paid for by the
developer through a deposit. Annual staff and administration costs are
included in the assessment. The budget for the district is in fund 574,
activity 5740. The budget is composed of the following items:
5251 Util ities
5253 Trash Collection & Disposal
5262 Service to Maintain Bldgs., Strcts & Grnds
5291 City Staff Services
5298 Other Contractual Services
5351 Landscape Supplies
5362 Materials to Maintain Bldgs., Strcts. & Grnds
$ 7,160
280
160
4,110
14,270
400
800
TOTAL $27,210
LdeT:kpj
WPC 6067E
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Open Space District No. 24 Boundaries
;) 7' 37
'Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 12
Councilman Moore questioned whether full cost recovery was being utilized for staff or actual costs.
Clifford Swanson, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer, responded that full cost recovery was
utilized for three people in the Parks Department and a small portion of the engineer's time that had to
prepare the reports. For that number of positions, the price did not appear to be too far out of line for full
cost recovery.
Councilman Moore felt that Council should review the policy. Maybe in such a case the City should not be
charging full cost recovery as there was a benefit to the entire City.
The public hearing was reopened by Mayor Nader.
Don Swanson, 187 Murray Street, Chula Vista, CA, recommended that Council take District 14 and break
it out. What they were liable to find was that the contract services went to a City employee.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved +1 with Nader opposed.
MS (Ma!co1m/Rindone) to direc:t staff to bring back a report regarding the line item of City staff services,
what they entail, breakdown, what they represent (how they were recovered).
Mayor Nader questioned whether the motion included any material that would explain or justify those costs
in relation to the costs given to Contract Services.
CoUJ1~i1man Malcolm agreed to add Contract Services.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
RESOLlmON 16722 ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE FAOUUES TO
BE MAINTAINED AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 FOR OPEN SPACE D1STRlCf
NUMBERS 1-10, 14, IS, 17, 18, 20; EAS11.AICE MAINTENANCE D1STRlCf NUMBER 1; TOWN CENTRE I
LANDSCAPING D1STRlCf, AND BAY BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING D1STRlCf
--:> 18. PUBUC HEARING FORMATION OF CJiULA VISTA OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE D1STRlCf
NUMBER 24, CANYON VIEWS - On 6/30/92, Council approved the Engineer's Report on the proposed Open
Space District Number 24, Canyon Views, and set 7/21192 as the date for a public hearing on the proposed
formation. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
John Uppitt, Director of Public Works, gave a brief review of the project.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Those speaking in opposition to the fee set and requesting that Council review the possibility of being
annexed to another district were:
Javier Casillas, 1829 Carolyn Drive, Chula Vista, CA
Hazel B. Collins, 1837 Carolyn Drive, Chula Vista, CA
Ray Ford, 1857 Carolyn Drive, Chula Vista, CA
Mark Kelton, 5109 Waring Road, Dan Diego, CA, representing Canyon View Homes, spoke in support of the
staff recommendation. He stated there were two issues with one being the type of ground cover.
7
~ 7- 3d
(
l---
Minutes
July 21, 1992
Page 13
Councilwoman Grasser Horton questioned whether the ground cover was a requirement from the City.
Mr. Kelton responded that it was a requirement from the City. He did not feel that the experiment had
worked well on their property. They would defer to the homeowners, i.e. weed like natural terrain versus
the ice plant and would bear the cost to replace with ice plant. The second issue was the formation of the
district. The developer had agreed last year to maintain the area one more year at their cost while staff tried
to pursue other alternatives that would reduce the assessment. They requested that Council form the district
and adopt the fee but give a high priority to looking at ways to bring it into line with existing open space
districts throughout the City.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilman Malcolm wanted to refer it back to staff last year because he felt it was a scenic corridor that
He personally supported annexation with Bonita Long Canyon which would result in an additional
$15/month. It was the Council's decision to make it a scenic corridor and to protect the slopes and to
burden those homeowners with a City-wide benefit was wrong. Bonita Long Canyon also benefited from
the area and should help to pay a portion. Council had ordered drought tolerant native species in the
district and he understood that Mr. Kelton would like the condition of "native" removed.
Mr. Kelton responded that they proposed to replace the basic ground covering with hydraseed mixture and
Disneyland Ice Plant which was the predominant landscaping seen throughout Bonita Long Canyon. They
would resist having to replace any of the trees or bushes.
Mayor Nader stated he had not had an opportunity to review the area and would like to continue the item
for one week to review and talk to homeowners. He also felt the assessments were excessive. lie requested
that staff provide information regarding the plants that were required by the City landscape architect.
Councilwoman Grasser Horton stated that if Item 4 was approved it would be inconsistent with what was
being done in EastLake. She agreed with Councilman Malcolm regarding the annexation to Bonita Long
Canyon.
Mr. Lippitt stated the procedure would be to establish the district, set the assessment at $339, work with
the developer, and have a public hearing for Bonita Long Canyon regarding annexation. He informed
Council that the assessments had to be at the Assessor's Office by 8/10/92. The latest he felt'the current
hearing could be held would be 7/28/92.
Assistant City Manager Morris questioned whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to establiSh the district
at the $680, knowing that was what the assessment was, have the hearing and make the adjustment. It was
his understanding that the staff had to work with the Assessor's Office. !
RESOLl.ITIONS 16723 AND 16724 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, reading of the ten was waived.
Mayor Nader stated that a continuation would allow him time to see the site first hand and talk to
homeowners. He felt he might be interested in exploring Option 3 which would turn the maintenance over
to the homeowners association.
Councilwoman Grasser Horton stated that the homeowners had stated that the costs would be similar as to
whether an assessment district was formed or if it was turned over to the homeowners association.
Mayor Nader stated he was supportive of exploring Option 4 but questioned whether Council could commit
themselves without holding a public hearing. Therefore, he was hesitant on voting for the motion on the
floor.
) 7' 3;
Minutes
July 21, 1992
.page 14
Councilman Moore felt that Council should approve the resolutions, work with the Bonita Long Canyon
district and the scenic corridor item simultaneously. It could always be changed at a later date.
VOTE ON RESOLtmONS 16723 AND 16724: approved +1 with Nader opposed.
MSUC (Malcolm/Grasser Horton) to direct staff to set for hearing Option 4, page 3 of the staff report, on
annezing the district to the larger Bonita Long Canyon District.
MS (Malcolm/Grasser Horton) to direct staff to work with the developer of the project regarding the
replanting. at the developer's ezpense, of drought tolerant plants.
Mayor Nader asked for a friendly amendment requesting a report from staff explaining the developer's
statement that staff required him to put in non-drought tolerant trees along with the drought tolerant ones
theteby negating the water conservation hoped to be achieved with the original motion.
Counci1members Malcolm/Grasser Horton agreed to include the friendly amendment into the motion.
Mr. Kelton informed Council that he had not been present at all the discussions between their landscape
architect and the City's landscape architect. There was some jurisdictional confusion as to whether the
landscape architects from Parks & Recreation were going to be responsible. He did not want to point
fmgers.
Mayor Nader felt the motion was clear that the developer had to work with staff regarding the replantings.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
A RESOUmON 16723 ORDERINGnlElMPROVEMENTSANDnlEFORMATIONOFOPENSPACE
MAIN"IENANCE DISTRlCf NUMBER 24, CONFlRMING nIE DIAGRAM AND LEVYING ASSESSMENfS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1992-93
B. RESOLtmON 16724 ADOPTING nIE BUDGET FOR OPEN SPACE DISTRlCf NUMBER 24
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Helen Cassel, 658 Dennis Avenue, Chula Vista, CA.,9191O, referred to a letterto the editor she had written
regarding the City's vehicle policy and the support she had received. She felt the taxpayers were unhappy
with the situation and that the Council had a duty to work out a contract with employees that was the best
deal for the taxpayers.
Mayor Nader, Assistant City Manager Morris, and City Attorney Boogaard left the dias at 10:26 p.m. and
returned at 10:30 p.m.
Councilman Malcolm stated the item had been referred to staff for a report back to Council which would
deal with every car in the City. The City Clerk's Department would notify Ms. Cassel when the report would
be heard by Council.
Assistant City Manager Morris felt the report would be brought back in approximately two weeks.
ACTION ITEMS
19. ORDINANCE 2524 AMENDING SECTION 2.30.020 OF nIE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
MEMBERSHIP ON nIE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (first readinlZ) - Ordinance 2380 creating
,) ?~ fO
RESOLUTION NO. 17002
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA FILING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND DECLARING THE
CITY'S INTENTION TO CONSOLIDATE CHULA VISTA OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT NOS. 14 AND 24 (BONITA LONG CANYON AND CANYON
VIEWS) AND SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARINGS
THEREON
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1992, the City Council directed staff to begin
proceedings to consolidate Open Space District No. 14 (Bonita Long Canyon) and
Open Space District No. 24 (Canyon View); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Streets and Highways Code Section
22590, pub 1 i c heari ngs are requi red to estab 1 i sh the proposed open space
district; and,
WHEREAS, an engineer's report was submitted by the City Engineer and the
Director of Parks and Recreation for the cost of maintaining the open space
di stri ct; and that sai d esti mated annual assessment to be charged for each
residential parcel is $360; and,
WHEREAS, thi s report was prepared by the City Engi neer or under hi s
direction and was presented to the City Council for approval in order to proceed
wi th the pub 1 i c heari ngs set for Apri 1 13 and 20, in accordance with the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby approve the Engineer's report for the FY 1993-94 spread of
assessments for Open Space District No. 14 which reflects the addition of Open
Space District No. 24's improvements and property owners.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City.Council does hereby set April 13 and
20, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California as the date and time for the public hearings on
said assessments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to notice the
public hearing in accordance with Sections 22556 and 22588 of the Streets and
Highways Code.
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. Contact Donna Snider @
691-5266 for further information.
Date: March 22, 1993
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
027-tj~
.
~V~
~
.....~~~
"",-- - --
,
em OF
CHUlA VISTA
February 26, 1993
File IIOS-015
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
TO:
Property Owner
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NOS. 14 AND 24 (BONITA LONG CANYON/CANYON
VIEWS)
On February 23, 1993, by Resolution 17002, the City Council
declared its intent to consolidate Open Space District Nos. 14 and
24 and set public hearings for Tuesday, April 13 and 20, 1993 at
6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, to
take testimony on the proposed consolidation.
It is anticipated that consolidation of these two districts will
cause a 5% increase in the assessments of Bonita Long Canyon owners
which is approximately $15 each year. Staff estimates the
assessment for Fiscal Year 1993/94 to be $360 per residence
contingent upon final budget, reserve requirement and fund balance.
The assessments will be used to maintain all open space lots (287
acres) previously maintained by the two separate districts (OSO 14
& 24).
Please be advised that protests on the Council's intent to
consolidate these districts may be filed during the public hearings
or filed by mail prior to the second hearing at City of Chula
Vista, City Clerk, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Existence of a majority protest, by land area, will cause
consolidation proceedings to be abandoned.
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 hearings described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to
the public hearings.
Should you have any questions, please call Donna Snider at 691-
5266.
aM'LIAN:E WIlH AM:Rlo.NS WIlH DISABILITIES ACT (ADo\)
Tbe City of Cbula Vista, in canplying witb tbe Americans witb
Disabilities Act, request individuals wbo require special
accoomodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity or service request sucb acccmnodation at least
fortv-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for
scheduled services and activities. Please contact Donna Snider for
information or to place your request at (619)619-5266. California
Relay Service is available for tbe hearing impaired at 476-5342
(lID) .
.(DDS3\Bo.lNGCN. NTC)
)7~L-/3
276 FOURTH AVE CHULA VISTA CALIFORN1A 91910 IE''? 69'-5CJ:"
v
~... ::.E ~ i":.. i...- -.,t"; i :.
: "-~-~;:L'" 'Vi,",,:.
-" C~" ....;~t"-:. :':iE.~'"
'eN ,,,,"'~" L 29
\9$3 ~R 12 PM ~
ar'f"? /ftl/3
I
.
.~ .
~ '5~~
~, ~l'}' .~, C(). flf/~ ~ )l/d.~V
( ~ / l.4-^-t>- ~ e: 0 foe... 'Space
.!;ll-6-A- ~: ~ "3 .~-i fi
,l..LJW lL4 ~
I Pi. 'L '. ~ ~ _
~' ~~ :rr;;;=-~ ~_'
'A,'_U' '~-'I ~ U ~""'~.yv _~~
.A-v ~ ~'''-~::h'.~ r'
' · . :c. 7:;.
~ (J ~.~ (j. ~ jn (> A-.-,..,,_
pdv--
#~r~ _
~/b"~ "q~ .4.~
-~~
/c:ui:J . t' c.cl'\~
c2 7~2/Lj
"
------
.-. "
April 8, 1993
c',:,,,,...
J;:j~' APrf /2
.," .
- ,.
.'.;;- ,-,.,,-
City of Chula Vista
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
PH /2: 29
Sir:
This is in response to your letter of 26 February 1993. regarding
the open space district Nos. 14 and 24 of Bonita Long Canyon/Canyon
Views. As a homeowner at Bonita Long Canyon I regret to say that
your proposals to consolidate the two district is not amenable on
my behalf due to the additional increase of payments on my part.
Suffice to say. I can hardly afford to stay in this community due
to exhorbitant increases of city facilities.
Please consider me against this proposal.
~
1- 7--1/5
TO : CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
FM : CANYON VIEW HOMEOWNERS
DATE: APRIL 13 1993
The homeowners of Canyon View homes, a small community of
homes in Chula Vista, would like to make known our situation to the
City Council as well as fellow taxpayers in our neighboring
communi ti es .
Canyon View homes are situated atop two large slopes at the
corner of Rutgers Ave and East "H" street. These hills have become
a point of concern for us, as the cost of maintaining them has been
placed upon us solely. This is a large burden on us, as the
additional cost, when added to the normal costs of owning a home,
have made being or becoming a homeowner in our community
prohibitive.
In addition to the house payment, we have Property taxes,
Homeowners association fees, Mello-Roos, and now the additional
$680.00 for open space maintenance. The total for all the
additional fees is approximately $525.00 per month on top
of the MortgageJ J
We sincerely want to pay our fair share to keep our
neighborhood looking great, but consider an open space district
maintenance fee of double, and in some cases triple that of other
taxpayers to be unfair.
We are currently requesting that we be allowed to participate
in the upkeep of our community on a larger scale. This would mean
becoming a part of the larger group represented by the Bonita Long
Canyon group. In this way, we can accept our responsibility as
community members, without unfair burden on a small community.
/!41flkl,Vt<rfa-- :t'hr 1-u~fiJ
(j ,
v
Sincerely,
Canyon View Homowners
YlAI-' ~l- - -l./P,.
~\~ {(k~~cw
~~r-tJf\~IN f _~~-~~_\tJ,t:\ pc.~~Al-
}C, f:. . - __==/ ~r3
~_..__.- . /~f'
r:J
"'n
,Q
1(
-n.
~~ .J' '(LIN.E . \
~v!l h .
.9kt~
'3
c2 7 "t(?
TO : CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
FM : CANYON VIEW HOMEOWNERS
DATE: APRIL 13 1993
The homeowners of Canyon View homes, a small community of
homes in Chula Vista, would like to make known our situation to the
City Council as well as fellow taxpayers in our neighboring
communities.
Canyon View homes are situated atop two large slopes at the
corner of Rutgers Ave and East "H" street. These hills have become
a point of concern for us, as the cost of maintaining them has been
placed upon us solely. This is a large burden on us, as the
additional cost, when added to the normal costs of owning a home,
have made being or becoming a homeowner in our community
prohibitive.
In addition to the house payment, we have Property taxes,
Homeowners association fees, Mello-Roos, and now the additional
$680.00 for open space maintenance. The total for all the
additional fees is approximately $525.00 per month on top
of the Mortgage!!
We sincerely want to pay our fair
neighborhood looking great, but consider an
maintenance fee of double, and in some cases
taxpayers to be unfair.
We are currently requesting that we be allowed to participate
in the upkeep of our community on a larger scale. This would mean
becoming a part of the larger group represented by the Bonita Long
Canyon group. In this way, we can accept our responsibility as
community members, without unfair burden on a small community.
share to keep our
open space district
triple that of other
Sincerely,
Canyon View Homowners
10
~
ARTOP-O
1 '5YL-Li /R V8.PSCO
9 a-JiW.
"d~ /b~
.....
d- 7 /t/?
,
TO
FM :
DATE:
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CANYON VIEW HOMEOWNERS
APRIL 13 1993
The homeowners of Canyon View homes, a small community of
homes in Chula Vista, would like to make known our situation to the
City Council as well as fellow taxpayers in our neighboring
communities.
Canyon view homes are situated atop two large slopes at the
corner of Rutgers Ave and East "H" street. These hills have become
a point of concern for us, as the cost of maintaining them has been
placed upon us solely. This is a large burden on us, as the
additional cost, when added to the normal costs of owning a home,
have made being or becoming a homeowner in our community
prohibitive.
In addition to the house payment, we have Property taxes,
Homeowners association fees, Mello-Roos, and now the additional
$680.00 for open space maintenance. The total for all the
additional fees is approximately $525.00 per month on top
of the Mortgage!!
We sincerely want to pay our fair
neighborhood looking great, but consider an
maintenance fee of double, and in some cases
taxpayers to be unfair.
share to keep our
open space district
triple that of other
We are currently requesting that we be allowed to participate
in the upkeep of our community on a larger scale. This would mean
becoming a part of the larger group represented by the Bonita Long
Canyon group. In this way, we can accept our responsibility as
community members, without unfair burden on a small community.
;pz- '..
/J;f {V( f1~J a2twlT' . . . .
J~'( Cj ~d.if
-:Efit<.'EtfJ'C"E -f' [,VI!:.;,quc: J/aw/€;J-
A L.<3..:I.Cfc '"i K,)..)i'\-::;? 0- s.s; vJ;l 0
" r-j
Ii \ \ hi:: v fr;:..,cyJ \'A L.~l>D
.;>
-r- L \ riA ""L
Sincerely,
Canyon View Homowners
'~ClJ \v';
:n1YL
'?
Oc~,:~
5L~J
f/l'j6ShirC
';27~1Jr
.4..
APR. 1 3 1995
Hon. Tim Nader ana City Council Members
276 4tn Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Nader ana Council Members:
Without strenuously intense policing, canoers, kayakers, and
wind-surfers, operaeing out of the $3 million (plus) proposed
Chula Visea Nautical Activity Center, will have a devastating
impact particularly on wintering flocks of diving Qucks.
I will reaa you the attached portion of a transcription of
San Diego Unified Port Districe Commissioner Robert Penner's
speech to the South Bay Group of ehe Sierra Club. Then you
should decide: Is the Nautical Activiey Center really
necessary just so Commissioner Penner and a few others don't
have to go to Mission Bay to go kayaking?
Attch.:Transcript of Penner
to SO. Bay Group,
Sierra Club, Feb. e, 1ge9
Si6~y \~~ .
\'f/;.~' Ciaycom
Socio-ecologise
Save Our Bay, Inc. (forming)
l-cT>-cc~1
,
d;1 ccV
~;1;o/
{j -
~:I,.!. C!fI,.!(lCtX-C..(""l\...-<)
...
TRANSCRIP'rION OFt CASSETTE TAPE SlUE B, INDEX 280) SAN UIEGCJ
UNIFIEU POR'r DISTRIC'l' COMlliISSIONER ROBEH'l' PENNEH' S speech to
the South Bay Group of the Sierra Club on Feb. 8, 1989
Penner: You wano my day dreams. I'm not much of a boater,
a big boater. I can sail, but I like little boats....
kayaks, things like ohat. Right now South Bay boats have
to go to Mission Beach, Mission Bay for a small boat
aq~aoic center (? ? ? ?)
A few years from now (? ? ? ) buo it's gonna be plenoY
busy with boaters coming in. By ohe way you have harbor
police here now. You didn't know that. You have a perma-
neno harbor police. It just happened. The Port put down
a permanent detachment. They've got a little house here
that they live in, keeping the bathroom here safe for
democracy. (? ??) There's a trailer over here. That'll probably
change. It'llprobably be_permanent. It's very nice having that detach-
ment there. It's gOOd for you except it kinda gets in
the way of people who want put boats in and out of the
water. And so, anyway, wouldn'o it be nice if we had our
own small boat aquatic area out there? : kayaking and wind
surfing and you name it. That to me would be a marvelous
thing. Buo i 0 will require, I think,building OUo. 1'here'll
be some kind of structure out here (? ? ?)
There will be something over . here which does not allow
access to big boats but will allow access to, ya know,
people just gonna be launching a kayak or what have uou,
kayak canoes wind-surfers, what have you.
Wilf Webb: Thao's not too far from the other wildlife preserve.
Uepending on how far you go out with that arm.
Penner: If you go straight out, you won't get into.....you
won't get into the wildlife (? ?) The wildlife is (? ?)
I'd love that.
o~~
- 2
~
~Vt-
--flJ-
~-1i:~
~~~~
mY OF
OIUA VISTA
JfeM ~ g
MEMORANDUM
April 8, 1993
TO
FROM
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manager ~
./7
Request for Joint Workshop Regarding Board of Ethics Work
Program
SUBJECT
Attached is a request from the Board of Ethics for Council direction regarding the
future work program of the Board. As with the Parks & Recreation Commission,
the Board is requesting a workshop session to discuss tasks or projects that help
set the agenda for the Board of Ethics. The Board suggests possible topics
including consideration of an update regarding the existing Code of Ethics and an
expanded coverage of that document to all City employees and consideration of a
series of workshops/seminar programs for the City Council and/or City employees
on current issues of ethic in government.
The purpose of this memo is to recommend an option for Council consideration to
the workshop requested by the Board of Ethics. That is, that Council direct staff
from the City Manager's and City Attorney's offices to meet with the Board to
assist in developing a future work program and report back to Council with the
results of that meeting.
B:\SID\,ETHICS.MEM
;2 <i5 --- 0
..
M E M 0 RAN DUM
March 10, 1993
TO:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BOARD OF ETHICS
Harriet Acton, Chair
Janet Richter, Vice-Chair
Susan Herney
Leo Kelley
Stephen Padilla
Donald Swanson
Jerry McNutt
RE: BOARD OF ETHICS WORK PROGRAM
The Board of Ethics seeks Council direction with regard
to the future work program of the Board. We therefore request to
meet with you in a workshop session.
BACKGROUND:
The adoption of the Code of Incompatible Activities for
city employees by the Council and Redevelopment Agency January 12,
1992, creates a new set of circumstances within which the tasks of
the Board of Ethics might be viewed. Additionally, the Board is
aware that three new Councilmembers have taken office since the
current Code of Ethics was adopted February, 1989.
In order to fulfill its mission and to use City resources
in the most efficient and advantageous manner, the Board of Ethics
wishes to proceed with a work program consistent with the direction
of City Council.
CURRENT ROLE:
As provided by Chapter 2.28 of the Municipal Code, the
Board of Ethics meets when called by the Chair to conduct a hearing
upon receipt of a complaint or information (sec. 2.28.090,
2.28.100, 2.28.150), or to consider an issue referred by the city
Council and/or City Attorney, or when presented with an issue by a
member of the public.
WORK PROGRAM OPTIONS:
~~
.
...
'.
The Board requests that City Council consider the tasks
or projects that follow, and help set the agenda for the Board of
Ethics.
(OPTION I) Update the existing Code of Ethics. The Code
of Ethics applies only to the Members of the City Council, Boards
and Commissions, City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk.
Questions for Consideration:
(a) Should the Code of Ethics be more inclusive in its
coverage?
(b) Is the City Council comfortable with the apparent
inconsistency inherent in the application of the
Incompatible Activities Code for other City
Employees, while the Code of Ethics applies to the
(elected and appointed) officials, or should there
be one consistent Code?
(c) Are there new "ethics in government" issues to be
included in the Code of Ethics that have evolved
since 1989 that the Board should research? Is so,
should the Board then report back to Council for
further direction before preparing revisions to the
current Code for consideration by the City Council?
(OPTION II) Recommend a series of workshop/seminar
programs for City Council and/or City employees on current issues
of ethics in government.
Members of the Board of Ethics are pleased to serve the
City of Chula Vista and are available to meet with city Council to
discuss and evaluate work program options.
Attachment: Ordinance No. 2297 (Code of Ethics)
C:\cdlics\Council.mem
d,~.2
Revised 2/15/89
ORDINANCE NO. 2297
~-~/-?'1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
CHAPTER 2.28 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
TO ADD A CODE OF ETHICS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain
as follows:
SECTION I: That Chapter 2.28 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.28.010
Establishment of Code of Ethics.
The respected operation of democratic government
emphasizes that pUblic officials be independent,
impartial, and re spon sible to the people. The public
judges its government by the way pUblic officials
conduct themselves in the posts to which they are
elected or appointed. All pUblic officials should
conduct themselves in a manner that will tend to
preserve PUblic confidence in, and respect for, the
government represented. Such confidence and respect can
best be promoted if every official, wnether paid or
unpaid, and whether elected or appointed, will seek to
carry out these goals.
The purpose of this Code is to establish ethical
standards of conduct by setting forth those acts or
actions that are incompatible with the best interests of
the City and by directing disclosure by such officials
of private financial or other conflict of interests in
matters affecting the City. Further, it is the purpose
of this Code to assist the aforementioned officials in
the task of judging themselves, so as to enable them to
properly carry out their responsibilities as trustees
and fiduciaries of the public interest.
Sec. 2.28.020
Application of Ordinance.
This chapter shall apply only to the City Council,
board members and commissioner s, the City Manager, the
City Attorney and the City Clerk.
-1- -2~".:1
Sec. 2.28.025
Responsibilities of Public Office.
Public officials are agents of public purpose and
hold office for the benefit of the public. They are
bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of this state and to carry out
impartially the laws of the nation, state and
municipali ty, and thus to foster respect for ~11
government. They are bound to observe in their official
acts a high standard of morality and to discharge
faithfully the duties of their office, recognizing that
the pUblic interest must be a primary concern.
Sec. 2.28.030
Loyalty.
Loyalty. AIII16ffltlaI6116fllt~l61IeltfI16~6~1~II~e
16falllt61It~ellp61ltltalI16~dettlle61Ie~pte66e~ll~fllt~e
elett6tatell~dlt~ell~v~qvam$/~~/~0/~/t~e6e
6~~ettl;e6i Elected and appointive officials should
adhere to the rules of work and performance established
as the standards for their position by the appropriate
authority. Officials should not exceed their authority
or breach the law or ask others to do so.
Sec. 2.28.040
Fair and ~qual Treatment.
Consistent with Charter Section 305, no official
shall grant or make available to any person any
con sidera tion, trea tment, advantage or fa vor beyond tha t
which is the general practice to grant or make available
to the pUblic at large.
(Refer to Civil Service Commission for the hiring rules)
Sec. 2.28.050
Unethical Conduct.
1. General Policy. One of the highest callings is
that of public service. With that service comes a
requirement to conduct oneself in a manner above
reproach, since the citizens of the community expect and
deserve a high standard of conduct and performance.
This Code of Ethics provides the following general
guidelines and specific prohibitions to which City
officials must conform in the pursuit of their assigned
duties and responsibilities.
-2-
.2~'r
a. All City officials should endeavor to fulfill
their obligations to the citizens of Chula Vista, city
management and fellow employees through respect and
cooperation. They should strive to protect and enhance
the image and reputation of the City, its elected and
appointed officials, and its employees. All citizens
conducting business with the City shall be treated
etjvallf with courte sy, efficiency and impartiality
and none shall receive special advantage beyond that
available to any others. Officials shall always be
mindful of the puolic trust and confidence in the daily
exercise of their assigned duties, striving to conserve
public funds through diligent and jUdicious management.
2. Specific Prohibitions. 111l~13e111 h'dtlildri~ Illate
te~tete~tititelllbKlllltI~ds611Iattsllll~~111~0~ttit~te
~~et~i~al/~0~0~~t'/~~tlite/~0tlillli~~I~tite'
City officials (including non paid commission, board and
committee members) shall be considered to have committed
unethical conduct if any of the following occur:
a. U sed one's po si tion or title for per sonal gain but
not found to be an act of illegality or conflict of
interest by the District Attorney, Grand Jury or
Fair Political Practices Commission.
b. Knowingly . divulge confidential information for
personal gain or for the gain of associates in a
manner disloyal to the City~
~, Z0Ii~ite01Idd/~/e~/e~tlk1~Lngllmeilt
e*tee~Lngllflft,II~011atslll$>>0i0011Ilnllwalk1ellft6~
an,IIUWd~iI~~/6tlldUg~iI~~t1i1rni/~6ing'llpY~UWgI6t
atte~~ti~glt6/~6/~vti~estlwlt~/t~eltitfi
c. Knowingly make false statements about members of
the City Councilor other City employees that tend
to discredit or embarrass, those persons.
d. Used or permitted the use of City time, personnel,
supplies, equipment, identification cards/badges or
facilities for unapproved non-City activities,
except when available to the general pUblic or
provided for by administrative regulations.
-3-
.). 2" :5'
e. Ex-City officers who were compensated for services
are barred for one year from directly representing
any per son, including themselves, for compensation,
in any matter before those units of the City
departments, boards, or commissions where they had
direct responsibilities, functions, and influence
during their public service.
f. Endorsed or recommended for compensation any
commercial product or service in the name of the
city or in the employee's official capacity within
the city without prior approval by a City Council
policy.
Sec. 2.28.060
Advisory Opinions.
When a Councilmember or other official has doubt as
to the applicability of a provision of this Code to a
particular situation, written inquiry should be made to
the Board of Ethics for an advisory opinion. Said
person should be guided by that opinion when given. The
Councilmembers or other officials shall have the
opportunity to present their interpretation of the facts
at issue and of the applicable provisions of the Code
before such adVisory decision is made.
Sec. 2.28.070
Creation of the Board of Ethics.
A Board of Ethics shall be created and appointed in
accordance with Section 600 of the City of Chula Vista
Charter and Chapter 2.28 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code.
Sec. 2.28.080
Purpose.
It is the purpose of this Board to advise the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on all matters
relating to potential unethical conduct and to make such
necessary and appropriate recommendations to the City
Council for the implementation of the Code of Ethics and
amendments thereto, which may become necessary from time
to time. This Board will serve as a hearing body on all
such matters and shall render impartial and objective
opinions and insure that those covered by this ordinance
are appropriately informed.
-4-
.;a--;"
Sec. 2.28.090
Duties of the Board.
It shall be the function of the Board of Ethics to
implement the Code of Ethics adopted by the Council for
public officers and employees. The duties of the Board
shall be:
1. To receive or initiate complaints of violations
of the Code of Ethics. All complaint s shall be
sworn under penalty of perjury and shall be in
writing, containing full allegation of facts
which would constitute a viola tion of the Code.
All alleged violations must be submitted within
sixty (60) days of occurrence or when it should
have been discovered with the exercise of
reasonable diligence. Justification for any
delay in filing complaints is the responsibility
of the complainant.
For board action; complaints concerning unethical
patterns of behavior must be received by the
Board within sixty (60) days of the most recent
event comprising the pattern of behavior
complained of, or within sixty (60) days of when
the last event should have been discovered with
the exercise of reasonable diligence.
The Soard will, in its discretion, limit the
pattern of behavior to those events the Board
feels are proximately related in time to oe a
part of the same pattern of behavior.
2.
To hear and investigate complaints
the findings and recommendations
Council.
and transmit
to the City
3. To render advisory opinions or interpretations
with respect to the application of the Code,
either on request or on its own initiative.
4. To propose revisions of the Code to assure its
continuing pertinence and effectiveness. The
affirmative vote of five (5) members of the board
shall be necessary for it to find conduct to be
unethical.
-5- c2B"'" 7
Sec. 2.28.100
Powers of the Board.
The Board of Ethics is authorized to receive complaints,
conduct inve stiga tions upon complaint s or information received,
hold hearings, swear witnesses, render advisory opinions and
adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its business.
Sec. 2.28.110
Organization.
1. The Board shall be composed of seven members
appointed by the Ci ty Council for a term of four
years, as prescribed by the provisions of the City
Charter and the Municipal Code of the City of Chula
Vista. The City Council shall be required to submit
the list of candidates to the Presiding Judge of the
South Bay Municipal Court Judicial District and seek
the judge's recommendation with regard to
appointments.
2. The Board shall elect from its membership a chairman
and a vice-chairman. The term of the chairman and
v ice-chairman shall be for the period of one year,
commencing on July 1 each year. The chairman shall
preside at all meetings. In the absence of the
chairman at any meeting, the vice-chairman shall
preside, and in the absence of both chairman and
vice-chairman, the Board members present shall elect
a chairman pro tempore for said meeting.
3. The City Attorney or an appointed representative
shall act as secretary to the Board. The secretary
shall cause notice of the meetings of the Board to be
kept and distributed. The secretary shall also give
appropriate and required written notice of all
meetings to all members and persons having business
before the Board.
Sec. 2.28.120
Meetings.
1. The Board of Ethics will hold meetings at the call of
the chairman or the vice-chairman or a majority of
the members of the Board. The Board shall hold at
least one meeting per year.
-6-
.2 fj"' Y
Sec. 2.28.130
Order of Business.
Tne following shall be the order of business for all
meetings:
1. Roll call of members.
2. Reading of minutes of previous meeting.
3. Amendment or approval of minutes of previous meeting.
4. Consideration of matters continued from previous
meeting.
5. Consideration of new complaints or requests.
6. Consideration of proposed or existing state
legislation in the field of ethics and amendments to
the Code of Ethics of the City of Chula Vista.
7. Other business.
8. Oral communication.
Sec. 2.28.150
Conduct of Hearing upon Complaint.
1. Upon receipt of a complaint or information as
prescribed by the Code of Ethics, the Board shall
determine by a majority vote if there is probable
cause to believe a violation has occurred. The Board
shall notify the officer alleged to have violated the
Code of Ethics of the charges contained in the
complaint or information immediately but shall not
reveal the identity of the complainant until and
unless it is determined that probable cause for such
complaint exi st s. The officer shall be enti tled to
submit a statement to the Board of Ethics for
consideration or may appear personally at such time
as "the issue of probable cause is to be discussed by
the Board. If no probable cause is determined, the
Board shall dismiss the matter summarily and notify
interested parties in writing. If probable cause is
determined, the Board shall take further
investigatory and procedural steps necessary to
resolve the matter.
-7-
~lr"
2. If, after appropriate investigation or hearing, the
Board shall find that a conflict of interest or a
breach of ethics, as prohibited by the Code of
Ethics, did or continues to exist, the Board shall
forward its findings to the City Council to correct
or rectify the condition that exists. Said
notification shall be accompanied by a statement of
facts and findings and recommendations.
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its second reading
and adoption.
Presented and Approved as to form by
Sl97a
-8-
~ 8"-'/ [)
CHULA VISTA
CODE OF ETHICS
As an elected or appointed pUblic official of the City of Chula
Vista, California:
1.
1 will not use the city
political solicitation,
governmental business.
or its resources for private gain,
or purposes other than official
2. 1 will avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of such
conflicts.
3. 1 will not divulge or use for personal benefit confidential
information obtained in the course of my duties.
4. 1 will not acci!pt use my city position to seek or receive
special favors for myself, family or friends.
5. 1 will re port suspec ted corruption,
Lni!ffLcLi!nc# wherever discovered.
6. I will be guided in all my activities by truth, fair
dealings, and good judgment.
iliitti!/ / / / /;Iri~
7. I will recognize and promote the good performance of others.
8. I will promote the City of Chula Vista, this Code of Ethics,
and be proud to have served as an elected or appointed pUblic
official.
4627a
..2~,; II
~{~
~
~~- --
.....-
J.- ft/n ~ t
mY OF
QUA VlSfA
MEMORANDUM
April 8, 1993
FROM
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Sid W. Morris, AssistantCity Manager ~)
....-:"
TO
SUBJECT
Request by the Parks & Recreation Commission for a Joint
Workshop with the City Council
Attached is a request from the Parks & Recreation Commission for a joint
workshop to discuss the goals and expectations for the new 1993/94 fiscal year
for the Parks & Recreation Commission. The purpose of this memo is to offer the
City Council potential alternatives as they relate to this request.
It is respectfully suggested that as an alternative to a joint workshop, the City
Council may wish to consider inviting the Commission to attend the fiscal year
93/94 budget overview session so as to provide a better understanding of the
major issues, projects and programs identified for the upcoming fiscal year. In
addition, this session would provide invaluable knowledge as to the fiscal
constraints that the City will be facing in the upcoming budget year. Further, as
with all boards and commissions, the Parks & Recreation Commission will be
notified of the date on which their Commission budget will be considered by the
City Council. This will also offer an excellent opportunity for communication
between the City Council and the Commission.
B:\SID\B&C.MEM
:21 ~ 0
March 17, 1993
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob lind, Chair ~ .
Parks and Recr~rc;K6ommission
SUBJECT: Request to Schedule a Joint Workshop
On behalf of the Parks and Recreation Commission, we respectfully request a joint
workshop to discuss the goals and expectations for the new 1993/94 fiscal year for the
Parks and Recreation Commission. This workshop approach was approved by the Parks
and Recreation Commission and supported by the California Association of Park and
Recreation Commission and Board Members (CAPRCBM) as an important approach to
communicating and coordinating future parks, recreation and community service
programs.
It is the Commission's desire to maintain our good working relationship with the Council
and insure that there is a unified vision for parks, recreation and community service
programs for our residents in the upcoming year. This workshop can be scheduled at
your desire but it is the interest of the Commission to conduct this workshop before the
new fiscal year begins.
The Commission envisions a very informal type setting that could be held during the
lunch hour or possibly the evening.
Please contact me if you have any questions about this proposed meeting.
cc: Parks and Recreation Commissioners
rJ.9'!
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item .3 P
Meeting Date 4/13/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution 17P 7,/ Approving an agreement with Rick
Engineering Company to prepare Topographic Maps along Interstate 805
north of Telegraph Canyon Road to south of Otay Valley Road.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public works#> p/
REVIEWED BY: City Managerjc.. .~~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ Nox)
The 1992-93 Capital Improvement Program includes a design study for four (4) 1-805
interchanges, Telegraph Canyon Road, East Palomar Street, East Orange Avenue and Otay
Valley Road. To determine what additional improvements will be necessary at these
interchanges to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated traffic growth from
continuing land developments in the eastern part of the City, Caltrans requires that a project
study report be prepared. The project study report will be performed by Caltrans since the
interchanges are within the jurisdiction of the State, Caltrans will produce a project study report
describing preferred future improvement needs and costs at the subject interchanges. To
perform the study, Caltrans requires topographic mapping illustrating existing land features, such
as buildings, structures, and elevations. In accordance with the CIP project scope of work, staff
requested proposals from qualified engineering firms. Staff received four (4) proposals and have
determined that Rick Engineering Company was the top candidate. Staff therefore recommend
that Rick Engineering be retained for a cost not-to-exceed $92,005.00. This amount is 26%
below our budget estimate.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution and authorize the Mayor to execute
said agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
I. Project Objectives
The objective of obtaining topographic maps is to determine what additional
improvements will be necessary along 1-805 at Telegraph Canyon Road, East Orange
Avenue, East Palomar Street, and Otay Valley Road interchanges. The additional
improvements are necessary to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated
traffic growth from the eastern part of the City. Caltrans is the lead agency to prepare
the project study report which identifies the additional improvements.
The topographic maps, which will have to be prepared in accordance with Caltrans
Standard Mapping Specifications for locally funded projects, May 1989, are a
requirement of the State in order to initiate the project study report which will identify
the additional improvements to handle any future traffic growth. Caltrans requires that
3~"'/
Page 2, Item ;JtJ
Meeting Date 4/13/93
the project area consist of a 20,500 foot strip averaging 1,500 feet in width along
Interstate 805. The mapping limit will include the ramps and the first row of houses
adjacent to both sides of the Interstate. The northerly project limit is the centerline of
East H Street. The southerly project limit is to the centerline of Palm Avenue. In
addition to the Interstate strip, four transverse strips average 1,500 foot in width and
extending 1,300 feet both easterly and westerly along Telegraph Canyon Road, East
Palomar Street, East Orange Avenue, and Otay Valley Road. The consultant will
provide topographic mapping of the project at a scale of 1" equals 50 feet with 2 foot
contour intervals. Additionally, Topographic Mapping of the interchange structures at
a scale of 1" equals 20 feet with 1 foot contour interval will be provided.
II. Analysis of City Staff Versus Outside Consultant
The end product of this contract requires the use of specialized equipment and
sophisticated electronic devices. As noted on Attachment A, "Cost Comparison
Worksheets - Contract Consultants vs. in-house staff," it is shown that staff does not
possess the capability nor the expertise to produce such products. While some of the
equipment could be rented, trained staff on the use of these equipments is required.
Some of the equipment required to perform these services are shown on the following
listing:
TOJ>Oi:raphic Mapoini: Equipment Listin~
Aerial ground control surveying equipment
Specialized aerial survey vehicles
Aircraft
Aerial camera
Point transfer device
Aerotriangulations software
Stereoplotters
Graphic edit stations
Photo lab
Translations intergraph computers and plotters
III. Proiect Selection Process
The Engineering Division followed the City Municipal Code Section 2.56, Ordinance
2517, and Council Policy 102-05 in the Consultant selection process. As required, a
Request for Proposal (RFP) was prepared by staff in accordance with the above
mentioned Municipal Code, ordinance, and policy. The Request for Proposal was sent
to 12 professional firms specializing in aerial photographic mapping and a notice was
published in the Star News and the San Diego Union.
The RFP (Attachment B) included a description of the project limits and the deliverables
to be provided. Each firm was also asked to provide: 1) a statement of general
qualifications; 2) names and qualifications of all key personnel to be used on the project,
including any sub-consultants; 3) the location of the office where the work is to be
3&"'~
Page 3, Item3 ()
Meeting Date 4/13/93
performed; 4) adequate documentation related to the firm's financial status and insurance;
5) experience in successfully managing a project of similar scope and magnitude, ability
to complete the project on schedule and within budget, and 6) ability to work with
agency input, review, and properly coordinate into the overall project completion.
The RFP also indicated that the City will rank the proposals based on the following
criteria. Criteria are listed in descending order of importance, with Criterion 1 being the
most important.
1. Past record or performance (Reference Evaluation).
2. Evaluation of personnel qualifications, including subconsultants if so indicated.
3. Capacity and resources to perform the work.
4. Proximity of office to San Diego County.
5. Fee proposal and pay schedule.
A copy of the City standard two-party agreement was also included in the RFP. The
deadline for responding to the Request for Proposal was October 23, 1992. Four firms
formally responded to the RFP. They are as follows:
Consultant Cost
Airborn Systems, Inc. (Anaheim) $ 86,750.00
ERB Engioeeriog, Inc. (poway) 97,877.50
Hirsh and Company (San Diego) 80,680.00
Rick Engineeriog Co. (San Diego) $102,510.00
IV. RFP Evaluation Process
The selection committee as appointed by the City Manager in accordance with the City
Municipal Code Section 2.56 consisted of the following three members:
Kenneth Goldkamp, Senior Civil Engineer
Zoubir Ouadah, Civil Engineer
Orval Nichols, Photogrammetry Manager, Caltrans District (11)
The committee members were provided with individual copies of each one of the four
responses. They met as a group to discuss and agree to the evaluation to be used during
the initial review. After reading the responses, each member was charged with rating
the response on:
3~~ ;J
Page 4, Item.Ja.
Meeting Date 4/13/93
. Past experience on similar projects with Caltrans.
. Evaluation of assigned personnel including subconsultants.
. Understanding of the scope of work.
. Ability of the consultant to complete the work on time.
. Consultant references.
. Cost.
Hirsh and Company and ERB Engineering, Inc. received a much lower rating than the
remaining two consultants because of: 1) lack of experience in similar projects with
Caltrans and 2) limited references. Hirsh and Company and ERB Engineering, Inc.
proposals showed no past experience in similar projects with Caltrans for both
companies. From past experience, Caltrans requirements are significantly different from
other agencies. Caltrans plans are much more detail oriented and shown in a very
specific way. It was the selection committee feeling that these two companies will not
complete the work on time or within budget.
The remaining two firms (Rick Engineering and Airborn Systems) were subsequently
invited to an oral interview.
The selection committee interviewed Rick Engineering and Airborn Systems. Each firm
had 45 minutes for the interview of which 5 minutes were for set-up and introduction,
20 minutes for the presentation, 15 minutes for questions and answers, and 5 minutes for
a closing statement.
At the conclusion of the interview, the committee ranked Rick Engineering as a higher
qualified firm than Airborn Systems, Inc. The selection of Rick Engineering as most
qualified firm for the job was based on their presentation in the interview, the firm's
personnel, proximity to Chula Vista, and their past experience with similar projects for
Caltrans. Rick Engineering has recently completed three projects for Caltrans: 2
interchanges along Route 74 in the City of Perris for the Riverside RCTC; Routes 86 and
111 in Imperial County. Rick Engineering has also done Topographic Mapping for the
City of Chula Vista on the 1-805 and Bonita interchange. Airborn Systems is currently
completing one project that is similar to the City's proposed project is their work for
Riverside RCTC along 1-215. A reference check was made by the committee for both
Rick Engineering and Airborn Systems. Rick Engineering received a higher ranking for
their past work with Caltrans. Specifically, Caltrans headquarters in Sacramento gave
an excellent rating for the topographic mapping recently completed by Rick Engineering
for Route 86 in the Imperial County area. Airborn Systems, currently working on a
similar project in the Los Angeles area, received a much lower rating from Caltrans
personnel in the Los Angeles district offices.
3~-i
Page S, Item.:J.t2
Meeting Date 4/13/93
After the Selection Committee determined that Rick Engineering was the most qualified
firm for the job, staff became concerned about the proposed cost of $102,510 which was
15 % greater than the proposal submitted by the second candidate, Airborn Systems.
After reviewing the Scope of Work and obtaining a better understanding of the work to
be performed by Rick Engineering, staff was instrumental in obtaining an agreement
from Rick Engineering to perform the work for $92,005. The initial limits of the
proposed work as required by Caltrans was a stripe of 1,500 feet wide along 1-805. The
1,500 foot wide stripe included around 10 rows of houses on each side of the freeway.
Staff questioned the need for 10 rows of houses and requested that Caltrans accept only
one row of houses on each side of the freeway, which they approved. Based on this
change and other smaller negotiated items, Rick Engineering reduced their fees from
$102,510 to $92,005 or 11 %. If given the opportunity to give a new price based on the
reduced width, it is likely that Airborn would have reduced their price.
Even though Airborn Systems, Inc. had a lower price, staff still recommends Rick
Engineering based on their overall quality, experience with Caltrans and their references.
Rick Engineering is also a local San Diego firm, has done much work in Chula Vista,
and is familiar with the City.
THE AGREEMENT
The proposed agreement (attached) with Rick Engineering, Inc. uses the City's standard two-
party agreement. Under this contract, Rick Engineering agrees to perform the Scope of Work
as outlined in Exhibit A for a fixed cost of $92,005. This section details what is required of the
firm. This section is extremely precise in order to insure that all of the City and Caltrans
requirements are included in the base fee. The detailed scope of work was carefully reviewed
by the City and Caltrans staff. Finally, the Engineering staff has worked closely with the City
Attorney's office to formulate the proposed agreement.
The final negotiated fee of $92,005 is lower than the quoted price in the firm's RFP response.
Payment will be in phased fixed fees at 40%,70%,90% and 100% completion.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the 1992-93 Capital Improvement Program accounts
No. TF147 - 1-805 Project Study Report ($69,005.00) and No. STM304 - I-805/Telegraph
Canyon Road Interchange Improvements Phase II ($23,000.00). One hundred thousand dollars
($100,000) in STM304 - I-805/Telegraph Canyon Road interchange improvements was approved
by Council for FY 93-94 for staff time and preliminary design. Before any preliminary design
began, Topographic Mapping will have to be obtained. This interchange is part of the
Topographic Mapping for 1-805 corridor.
File: HX-022
WPC F:\HOME\BNGINEER\AOBNDA \topomaps
3/)-.>/30-1-
RESOLUTION NO. /?tJ 71
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY TO PREPARE TOPOGRAPHIC
MAPS ALONG INTERSTATE 805 NORTH OF TELEGRAPH
CANYON ROAD TO SOUTH OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD
WHEREAS, the 1992-93 Capital Improvement Program includes
a design study for four (4) 1-805 interchanges, Telegraph Canyon
Road, East Palomar Street, East orange Avenue and Otay Valley Road;
and
WHEREAS, to determine what additional improvements will
be necessary at these interchanges to provide sufficient capacity
to accommodate anticipated traffic growth from continuing land
developments in the eastern part of the City, Caltrans requires
that a project study report be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the project study report will be performed by
Caltrans since the interchanges are within the jurisdiction of the
State, Caltrans will produce a project study report describing
preferred future improvement needs and costs at the subject
interchanges; and
WHEREAS, to perform the study,
topographic mapping illustrating existing land
buildings, structures, and elevations; and
Caltrans requires
features, such as
WHEREAS, in accordance with the CIP project scope of
work, staff requested four proposals from qualified engineering
firms as follows:
Consultant
Cost
Airborn Systems, Inc.
ERB Engineering, Inc.
Hirsh and Company
Rick Engineering Co.
$ 86,750.00
97,877.50
80,680.00
102,510.00
WHEREAS, staff determined that Rick Engineering Company was
the top candidate and recommended that Rick Engineering be retained
for a cost not-to-exceed $92,005.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby approve an agreement with Rick
Engineering Company to prepare Topographic Maps along Interstate
805 north of Telegraph Canyon Road to south of Otay Valley Road, a
copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
3tJ.. ?
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of Chula
vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement
for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~j
~th M. Fr~tsch, Assistant
City Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
P:\bome\allomeyl_
..JtJ'8'
., "J
\, \I)
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
Rick Engineering Company
for Topographic Maps along the 1-805 Corridor
in the City of Chula Vista
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated for the purposes of reference only,
and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A,
Paragraph I is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such
("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on
the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit
A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A,
paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City is desirous to prepare topographic maps along the I-80S corridor
within the City of Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, the City desires to retain a consultant engineer to prepare said topographic
maps and coordinate all activities and meetings with the California Department of Transportation;
and,
WHEREAS, Consultants warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in
a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of consultant to
City within the timeframes herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this agreement; and,
(End of Recitals. Next Page starts Obligatory Provisions.)
OBLIGATORY PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby
mutually agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Duties
A. General Duties
Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph
7, entitled "General Duties"; and,
B. Scope of Work and Schedule
In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also
perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and
Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set
forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this
agreement The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work
and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the
Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to
terminate this Agreement.
C. Reductions in Scope of Work
City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the
Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City
and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a
corresponding reduction in the compensation assOCiated with said reduction.
D. Additional Services
In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require
Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional
Services "), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by
Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in
the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise
agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed.
E. Standard of Care
Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Dermed Services
or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions
and in similar locations.
Page 2
WPC F:'home'algiDeet\S91.93
3() "'/ ()
F. Insurance
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in
connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the
following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies
of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better,
or shall meet with the approval of the City:
Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage
in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9.
Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied
separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City
and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant
in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage").
Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless
Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy.
G. Proof of Insurance Coverage.
(1) Certificates of Insurance.
Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the
commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of
Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled
without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured.
(2) Policy Endorsements Required.
In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and
Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance
Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall
be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager.
H. Performance Bond.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 9, indicates the need for Consultant to provide
a Performance Bond, which indication shall be made by checking the parenthetical space adjacent
to the term, "Performance Bond", then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond
by a surety and in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in an amount indicated in the space
adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 9, Exhibit A.
WPC F:'bome\mgineei\S91.93
Page 3
..1~")1
I. Business License
Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with
Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. Duties of the City
A. Consultation and Cooperation
City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of
the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to
achieve the objectives of this agreement The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files
and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement In addition thereto, City agrees
to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and
with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after
authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's
performance of this agreement.
B. Compensation
Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City
periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than
monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate
Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth
in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a
"checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, and shall compensate Consultant for out of
pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12.
All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety
of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper,
and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18
(C) to be charged upon making such payment.
3. Administration of Contract
Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A,
Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent
them in the routine administration of this agreement.
4. Term.
This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory
provisions hereof.
5. Liquidated Damages
The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 14.
WPC F:'bome\engiDea\591.93
Page 4
3P-I.2...
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this
Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in
performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to
compensate for delay.
Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this
Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of
the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the
consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated
Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate").
Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by
the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to
the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the
effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless
it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work.
6. Financial Interests of Consultant
A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer.
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant
is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest
and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required
Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of
Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney.
B. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not
make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence
a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a
financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement.
C. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and
represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's
economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political
Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's
knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this
agreement.
D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest
Page 5
WPC F:\bome\eogineer\591.93
.3~"/;J
during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by
the Fair Political Practices Act.
E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further
warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if
Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of
interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated
thereunder.
F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests.
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate
family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have
any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter
of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of
any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"),
other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15.
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment,
remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or
Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement.
Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of
this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest
within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement,
except with the written permission of City.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or
for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this
Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
Hold Harmless . V)1~ti'~ltlT ...,+-s.,cff4t"S AMJ
Ct-M.~m>t f, fhI3 ~
Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless th City, its elected an~ted
officers and employees, from and against all claims for ges, liability, cost and expense
(including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of th of the Consultant, or any
agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work
covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole
willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include
any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents,
or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not.
Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such
suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants'
indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the
Consultant.
7.
Page 6
WPC F:\bome\eogineei'691.93
3~"li
8. Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants,
agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective
date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all
finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other
materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City,
and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work
satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice
of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City
by Consultant's breach.
9. Errors and Omissions
In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence,
errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense
to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions,
Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein
is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement.
to. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City
City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific
written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least
thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and
unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City,
become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided
in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any
satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such
termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation
arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein.
11. Assignability
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any
interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment
or novation), without prior written consent of City, which City may not unreasonably deny. City
hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants".
12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems
and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and
exclusive property-of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under
this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the
Page 7
WPC F:\home\eogineel\591.93
3~"/,>
United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have
unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the
Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any
such 'reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this
Agreement.
13. Independent Contractor
City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an
independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services
required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's
work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are,
for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be
an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees
are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation
benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits.
14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City
unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the
City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by
this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in
the implementation of same.
Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the
purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
15. Attorney's Fees
Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the defense of the
claim, including costs and attorney's fees.
16. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the
preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include,
or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in
dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or
document.
17. Miscellaneous
A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City
WPC F:'home\engioeer'S91.93
Page 8
3~"j"
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to
act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals
is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or
salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are
licensed real estate brokers or salespersons.
C. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall
be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United
States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt
requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated
parties.
D. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated
herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the
subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended,
modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against
which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
E. Capacity of Parties
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it
has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and
that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this
Agreement.
F. Governing LawNenue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only
in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable,
the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and
performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
[End of page. Next page is signature page.]
Page 9
WPC F:\bome\eogiD~91.93
JIJ../'l
Signature Page
to
Agreement between City of Cbula Vista and Rick Engineering
for Topographic Maps along tbe I.8OS Corridor
in tbe City of Cbula Vista
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby
indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent
to its terms:
Dated:
City of Chula Vista
by:
Tim Nader, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Dated:
Rick Engineering
By:
:?-/,{.95
hir..5C'C,/~IT~ /1:'/ -(.'/,/7/9(..
Exhibit List to Agreement
( ) Exhibit A.
( ) Exhibit B.
Page 10
\\'PC F:\home\caSiDeet691.93
J~"lr
Exhibit A
to
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
Rick Engineering Company
1. Effective Date of Agreement: March 16, 1993
2. City-Related Entity:
(x) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California
( ) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the
State of California
()
Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a
*3
()
Other:
. a [insert business form]
("City")
3. Place of Business for City:
City of Chula Vista,
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
4. Consultant:
5. Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
(x) Corporation
6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant:
Rick Engineering Company
5620 Friars Road
San Diego, CA 92110-2596
Voice Phone: (619) 291-0707
Fax Phone: (619) 291-4165
Page 1
WPC F:'home\eDginem592.93
,3/)'19
7. General Duties:
Consultant is to prepare topographic maps along 1-805 Corridor north of Telegraph
Canyon Road to south of Otay Valley Road.
8. Scope of Work and Schedule:
A. Detailed Scope of Work:
Proiect Limits
The project area consists of a 20,500 foot strip averaging 1,500 feet in width
along Interstate 805. The mapping limits are designed to include the ramps and
the fIrst row of houses adjacent to both the Interstate and the mapped cross streets.
The southern Project Area limit is the centerline of the Palm Avenue. The
noithern Project Area limit is the East H Street overcrossing. In addition to the
Interstate strip, four transverse strips averaging 1,500 feet in width and extending
1,300 feet both easterly and westerly along these streets: Otay Valley Road,
Orange Avenue, East Palomar Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. The mapping
limits and Project Area limits are shown graphically on the enclosed 1 "=500 feet
scale reference map fIled with the City. Rick Engineering will provide control to
accommodate capability to furnish future supplemental mapping (at 1"=50' scale)
up to 1,500 feet wide along the seven flight lines shown.
Aerial Control Surveying
Consultant to make sure that control. placement will conform to CalTrans
specifIcations. Because of the four additional strips, the fIeld effort, thus cost has
increased. Approximately 44 horizontal/vertical and 52 vertical only points will
be required to control the photography. The reference map shows the approximate
location of these control plans. The points along the Interstate will be set in the
shoulder. CalTrans will establish the primary control framework in NAD83
horizontal and NA VD88 vertical datums. These points will be included in the
Rick Engineering survey and subsequent adjustment. All control will be
symbolized and labeled on a set of contract prints per CalTrans requirements.
Topo check profIles will be run every third model.
Aerial Photography for Mapping and Photo Mylars
Aerial photography for topographic mapping will be provided at a scale of 1 "=250
feet. Seven strips containing a total of 28 models will be required to cover the
approximately 20,500 feet along Interstate 805. Additionally, four cross flown
strips containing a total of 12 models will be required to cover 1,300 feet east and
1,300 feet west along each of these streets: Otay Valley Road, Orange Avenue,
East Palomar Street, and Telegraph Canyon Road. The flight line layout, mapping
limits and control locations are shown on the enclosed reference map.
WPC F:\bome'agineen592.93
Page 2
.J~ '.2.0
In addition to the mapping photography, four high altitude spot photos will be
taken as shown on the reference map. The three smaller crossed circles are
centers for black and white photos taken at a scale of 1"= 1 ,200 feet. 40" by 30"
screened photo mylars at a scale of 1 "=200 feet will be produced for each of the
areas shown by the rectangles on the reference map filed with the City. A single
color photo will be taken at a scale of I "=3,300 feet for 1 "= I ,000 feet scale color
photo enlargements. Five 20" by 24" mounted prints will be produced.
Aerial photography will follow the guidelines specified by CalTrans. Aerial
negatives will be appropriately labeled. A photo index, conforming to CalTrans
specifications, will be produced. A total of six sets of 44 contact prints will be
produced. Three sets will be produced for CalTrans. One of these CalTrans sets
will be used for control labelling. An additional two sets will be produced for the
City of Chula Vista and Rick Engineering (one set each). A sixth set will be
trimmed and used for the photo index.
Glass diaposities, as required for CalTrans, will be produced and used for
aerotriangulation and stereo compilation.
Aerotriangulation
The estimated 47 diapositives will be appropriately pugged and measured in one
of our two Zeiss fully analytical stereoplotters. These plate measurements will be
combined with the ground control provided and a simultaneous bundle adjustment
will be performed. Any control and/or plate measurement discrepancies will be
resolved. The aerotriangulation report showing results that meet CalTrans
specifications will be delivered.
Topographic Mapping
Mapping will be digitally compiled at a scale of 1"=50 feet with a two-foot
contour interval within the area bounded by the dashed line on the enclosed
reference map. Additionally, four 1,000 feet by 500 feet areas at the interchanges
shown on the reference map will be mapped at a scale of 1 "=20 feet with a one
foot contour interval. Topography will be verified by field prof11es run every third
model. The 3D topography data will be delivered as single sheets in both
Intergraph design fIles (.dgn) and AutoCAD drawing files (.dwg). In addition to
the digital files, ink-on-mylars plots will be submitted. Initially, two sets will go
to CalTrans headquarters and District 11 for review. Once accepted, one fmal set
will be produced. Preliminary design files, delivered as the work progresses, will
be available soon after stereo compilation commences. Preliminary files such as
these have been delivered on previous projects and were found to greatly facilitate
the design/study effort.
Page 3
WPC F:\bome\eogineer\S92.93
.3{)..2./
B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
(x) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
( ) Other:
C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Based upon receipt of Notice
to Proceed on April 1, 1993
Deliverable No.1: May 13, 1993
Deliverable No.2: June 24, 1993
Deliverable No.3: August 19, 1993
Deliverable No.4: September 30, 1993 dependent on CalTrans review
D. Date for completion of all Consultant services:
September 30, 1993
9. Insurance Requirements:
( ) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance
(x) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000.
( ) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000.
( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General
Liability coverage).
(x) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General
Liability coverage).
( ) Performance Bond, $
10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant:.
None.
11. Compensation:
A. (x) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City
shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables
set forth below:
WPC F:\bome\a1giDeci\592.93
Page 4
..31J'.2.2
Single Fixed Fee Amount: $92,005, payable as follows:
Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount of Percent of Fixed Fee
- 40% will be paid after aerial control $36,800 (40%)
survey, aerial photography and photo
products have been completed.
- 70% will be paid after $27,600 (70%)
aerotriangulation and stereo
compilation have been completed.
- 90% will be paid after CalTrans has $18,400 (90% )
given preliminary approval on the
plan during review process.
- 100% will be paid after Final Map $9,205 (100%)
approval by CalTrans and the final
delivery has been made to CalTrans.
B. () Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by Consultant as
are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of
Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant
shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for
a Phase, unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase.
Phase Fee for Said Phase
1.
2
3.
c. ( ) Hourly Rate Arrangement
For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay
Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said
Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule hereinbelow according to the
following terms and conditions:
(1) () Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement
WPC F:\bome\eDgineef..S92.93
3""'~:J
Page 5
Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in
excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that
Consultant will perform all of the Defmed Services herein required of Consultant
for $ including all Materials, and other "reimburseables" ("Maximum
Compensation").
(2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials
Arrangement
At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal
to ("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any
additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and
approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing
additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense.
RATE SCHEDULE
Category of Employee or Name Hourly Rate
Consultant
( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after
. 19_, if delay in providing services is caused by City.
12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement
For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of
services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below:
(X) None, the compensation includes all costs.
Cost or Rate
() Reports, not to exceed
() Copies, not to exceed
() Travel, not to exceed
() Printing, not to exceed
() Postage, not to exceed
() Delivery, not to exceed
() Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed
() Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs:
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
WPC F:\bome\a!;ginea'\S92.93
.3tJ...2,/
Page 6
13. Contract Administrators:
City: City of Chula Vista
Consultant: Rick Engineering Company
14. Liquidated Damages Rate: $0 per day.
15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of
Interest Code:
(x) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.
( ) FPPC Filer
( ) Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income.
( ) Category No.2. Interests in real property.
( ) Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of
income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the
department.
( ) Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income
which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale
of real property.
( ) Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income
of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the
City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services,
supplies, materials, machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income
of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the
designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials,
machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No.7. Business positions.
( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial
miles of Project Property, if any:
16. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
WPC F:\bome'eogiD~92.93
J~">>
Page 7
17. Pennitted Subconsultants: No
18 Bill Processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time:
[ ] Monthly
[ ] Quarter! y
[ x ] Other: After reaching each milestone.
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing:
[ ] First of the month
[ x] 15th day of each month
[ ] End of the month
[ ] Other:
c.
City's Account Number:
621-621O-TF 147
621-6210-S~304
Amount
Amount
Total
$69,005.00
$23.000.00
$92,005.00
WPC F:'home\mgin~92.93
:J () .. .2~
Page 8
. RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
~.,....,~
Hourly Rates
Office Personnel
Administrative Personnel
Expert Witness
Principal Consultant (Special Projects)
Principal
~ociate~anager
Principal Project Engineer~anager
Associate Project Engineer~anager
Assistant Project Engineer~anager
Principal Survey Analyst'
Associate Survey Analyst'
Assistant Survey Analyst'
GPS Analyst
Mapping Coordinator
Systems Manager
Cad System Operator
Cad System (High Speed Color Work Station Only)
Principal Engineering Designer/Planning Designer
Associate Engineering DesignerlPlanning Designer
Assistant Engineering Designer/Planning Designer
Principal Water Resources Designer
Associate Water Resources Designer
Assistant Water Resources Designer
Photogrammetrist
Assistant Photogrammetrist
Photo Lab Technician
Principal Computer Graphics Editor
Assistant Computer Graphics Editor
Principal Engineering Drafter
Associate Engineering Drafter
Assistant Engineering Drafter
Principal Project Planner
Associate Project Planner
~istant Project Planner
Principal Planning Delineator
Associate Planning Delineator
Assistant Planning Delineator
$250.00
125.00
95.00
90.00
87.50
80.00
72.50
82.50
77.50
67.50
67.50
47.50
82.50
67.50
52.50
62.50
57.50
52.50
62.50
57.50
52.50
72.50
57.50
47.50
57.50
52.50
54.50
50.00
44.50
87.50
75.00
62.50
54.50
49.50
44.50
~ociate Project Administrator
~istant Project Administrator
Adminitrative Assistant
Secretary (special assignment)
$ 47.00
30.00
38.00
25.00
Field Personnel
Field Supervisor
One-man Survey Party
Two-man Survey Party
Three-man Survey Party
$ 75.00
62.50
125.00
180.00
Prevailing Wage
One-man Survey Party
Two-man Survey Party
Three-man Survey Party
Four-man Survey Party
$70.00
140.00
205.00
270.00
'Above rates include electronic data gathering equipment.
Global Positioning System Survey
Pre-planning
GPS Crew
Post -processing
$ 75.00
62.50/man/hour
75.00
'Includes cost of computer time
Unless otherwise agreed upon, we shall charge, at cost, for
blueprinting and reproduction desired by the client or public
agencies, deliveries, transportation, expenses and telephone
calls.
A ten (10) percent fee for administration, coordination and
handling will be added to all subcontracted services.
Rates current through August 27, 1993
.:itJ ;,2 7 /3()-28
February 27. 1993
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT A
COST COMPARISON WORKSHEETS
CONTRACT CONSULTANTS VS. IN-HOUSE STAFF
The following forms are to be used for comparisons of the cost of hiring consultants to the cost
of using in-house staff. Please answer the following questions and complete the attached Cost
Comparison Worksheet. If you have any questions regarding these forms, please contact the
Revenue Manager.
GENERAL:
1. Describe the task(s) to be performed.
See Attachment "A".
2. What is the expected duration of the project/task (number of weeks. months. etc.)?
6 months.
3.
How frequently does the City need to do this project (times per month or year. times per
development. etc.)?
Rarely. In the past 3 years, we have not needed to obtain this type of product and
generally only major interchange improvements will require this type of product.
4a. Are there any in-house employees who could perform the task? What classification of
employee(s)?
No. Currently, the City does not have the staff nor the equipment to perform this type
of work. This project requires highly specialized equipment (aerial ground control
equipment and aerotriangulation software) and knowledge of aerial survey and
aerotriangulation.
4b. If there are such employees. why shouldn't they be utilized for this project?
N/A.
4c. If such employees would not be used due to workload. what work would be displaced if
the task were to be performed in-house?
N/A.
WPC F:'bome~ginea\718.93
.30-~1
Pagel
A-I
\
4d.
If workload is a factor, could staff of lower classification be hired to handle extra work
.0 that staff of higher classification could concentrate their time on the project? Explain.
---
N/A.
5. Would the project take more or less time for in "house staff versus a consultant (e.g.,
consultant has pre"prepared boiler plate materials, software, etc.)?
It cannot be done in"house.
6. Are there any qualitative reasons to choose either a consultant or in-house staff (e.g.,
special expertise, knowledge of City operations)? Explain.
Yes, the City does not possess the equipment, the expertise or special staff to perform the
services required of the consultant. Also, the need for this type of service is so infrequent
that in-house expenise cannot be developed and is not cost effective since this type of
work is not routinely required.
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT:
7. Base Contract Cost:
Fixed Fee of $92,055.
8.
Applicable rates (including travel, word processing, hourly or daily charges, clerical
support, meeting attendance, sales tax, etc.), estimated units per rate, and resultant costs
(e.g., five trips from LA @ $50/trip = $250).
-.,
Type of Charge
Rate
Estimated Units
Total Cost
Respondents to the RFP provided staff hourly base rates and the cost of reirnbursables.
However, the base contract cost covers any work necessary to accomplish the job, as
outlined in the scope of work, regardless of the hours required. (Fixed Fee)
9. Method and Terms of Payment.
Phased fixed fee arrangement.
10. Performance guarantees (e.g., withholding of payment for unsatisfactory work,
termination of contract, etc.).
Ten percent retention of fees until completion and acceptance of project. $1,000,000 in
errors and omissions insurance.
--
WPC F:\bome\engioeen718.93
~
;?t?rJO
Page 2
.
.
.
11.
Is consultant licensed to do business in the City?
Yes.
Note: If a draft agreement is available, please attach a copy.
Agreement will be based upon the City's Standard Two-Party Agreement and on the
Scope of Work called for in the RFP (attached).
WPC F:'home'engioeel\718.93
Page 3
~
:3 tJ'" J (
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CONSULTAr-;T COST COMPARISON WORKSHEET
CONSULTANT COST IN-HOUSE COST
Base Contract Cost $92,005.00 Full-Time Equivalent N/A(1)
Employee Hourly Wage
Consultant Hourly Rate N/A Estimated Actual Hours
Estimated Actual Hours N/A Total Base Cost
Additional Rates N/A
(Aggregate Cost)
Total Base Cost $92,005.00
FCR BASED COSTS* FCR BASED COSTS
. Division
Contract
Monitoring/Support Costs FCR Factor
Subtotal Subtotal
(Base + Support Costs) (Base x FCR Factor)
OTHER OTHER
Supplies, Furniture, and Supplies, Furniture, and
Equipment Equipment
Business License Tax
Other Applicable Tax Other Applicable Tax
TOTAL COST $92,005.00 N/A
see note (I)
*For monitoring and support costs, see attached worksheet.
(1) Currently, the City does not possess the staff or the equipment to perform this type
work. In order to perform such work in-house, the City will have to engage additional
professional staff with very specialized skill in the area of photogrametry. The City
will also have to purchase equipment such as airplane, very sophisticated camera that
takes photos from 20,000 ft. elevation, computer equipment, and digitizers. Because
the City engages in this type of work seldomly, it is not cost effective to the City to
perform this work in-house.
WPC F:\bome\eogineer\718.93
~ Jt/'J:2-
Page 4
-,
---.
.-..
.
.
.
EXHmIT A
Proiect Limits
The project area consists of a 20,500 foot strip averaging 1,500 feet in width along Interstate 805.
The mapping limits are designed to include the ramps and the fIrst row of houses adjacent to
both the Interstate and the mapped cross streets. The southern Project Area limit is the centerline
of the Palm Avenue. The northern Project Area limit is the East H Street overcrossing. In
addition to the Interstate strip, four transverse strips averaging 1,500 feet in width and extending
1,300 feet both easterly and westerly along these streets: Otay Valley Road, Orange Avenue, East
Palomar Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. The mapping limits and Project Area limits are
shown graphically on the enclosed 1 "=500 feet scale reference map med with the City. Rick
Engineering will provide control to accommodate capability to furnish future supplemental
mapping (at 1 "=50' scale) up to 1,500 feet wide along the seven flight lines shown.
Aerial Control Surveying
Consultant to make sure that control placement will conform to CalTrans specifications. Because
of the four additional strips, the field effort, thus cost has increased. Approximately 44
horizontal/vertical and 52 vertical only points will be required to control the photography. The
reference map shows the approximate location of these control plans. The points along the
Interstate will be set in the shoulder. CalTrans will establish the primary control framework in
NAD83 horizontal and NA VD88 vertical datums. These points will be included in the Rick
Engineering survey and subsequent adjustment. All control will be symbolized and labeled on
a set of contract prints per CalTrans requirements. Topo check profiles will be run every third
model.
Aerial Photography for Mapping and Photo Mylars
Aerial photography for topographic mapping will be proyided at a scale of 1 "=250 feet. Seven
strips containing a total of 28 models will be required to cover the approximately 20,500 feet
along Interstate 805. Additionally, four cross flown strips containing a total of 12 models will
be required to cover 1,300 feet east and 1,300 feet west along each of these streetS: Otay Valley
Road, Orange A venue, East Palomar Street, and Telegraph Canyon Road. The flight line layout,
mapping limits and control locations are shown on the enclosed reference map.
In addition to the mapping photography, four high altitude spot photos will be taken as shown
on the reference map. The three smaller crossed circles are centers for black and white photos
taken at a scale of 1"=1,200 feet. 40" by 30" screened photo rnylars at a scale of 1"=200 feet
will be produced for each of the areas shown by the rectangles on the reference map fIled with
the City. A single color photo will be taken at a scale of 1 "=3,300 feet for 1 "=1,000 feet scale
color photo enlargements. Five 20" by 24" mounted prints will be produced.
Aerial photography will follow the gnidelines specifIed by CalTrans. Aerial negatives will be
appropriately labeled. A photo index, conforming to CalTrans specifications, will be produced.
A total of six sets of 44 contact prints will be produced. Three sets will be produced for
CalTrans. One of these CalTrans sets will be used for contro11abelling. An additional two sets
WPC F:\bome'algiDees\719.93
Page 1
~r--:-
/' - ;..,
(--.
3iJ<:J;J
will be produced for the City of Chula Vista and Rick Engineering (one set each). A sixth set
will be trimmed and used for the photo index. """
Glass diaposities, as required for CalTrans, will be produced and used for aerotriangulation and
stereo compilation.
Aerotriangulation
The estimated 47 diapositives will be appropriately pugged and measured in one of our two Zeiss
fully analytical stereoplotters. These plate measurements will be combined with the ground
control provided and a simultaneous bundle adjustment will be performed. Any control and/or
plate measurement discrepancies will be resolved. The aerotriangulation report showing results
that meet CalTrans specifications will be delivered.
Topographic Mapping
Mapping will be digitally compiled at a scale of 1 "=50 feet with a two-foot contour interval
within the area bounded by the dashed line on the enclosed reference map. Additionally, four
1,000 feet by 500 feet areas at the interchanges shown on the reference map will be mapped at
a scale of 1 "=20 feet with a one foot contour interval. Topography will be verified by field
profIles run every third model. The 3D topography data will be delivered as single sheets in both
Intergraph design files (.dgn) and AutoCAD drawing files (.dwg). In addition to the digital files,
ink-on-mylars plots will be submitted. Initially, two sets will go to CalTrans headquarters and
District 11 for review. Once accepted, one final set will be produced. Preliminary design files, . ""'\
delivered as the work progresses, will be available soon after stereo compilation commences.
Preliminary files such as these have been delivered on previous projects and were found to
greatly facilitate the design/study effort.
.-.,
WPC F:'home\eogineer\719.93
~ JO~3LI
Page 2
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT B
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
For the Preparation of Topographic Maps
along 1-805 Corridor
within the City of Chula Vista
The City of Chula Vista is seeking proposals from consultant to prepare Topographic
maps along the 1-805 corridor from north of Telegraph Canyon Road to Palm Avenue
(City of San Diego) in the City of Chula Vista,
This letter, together with its attachments, comprises the RFP. Responses to this request
should be submitted in accordance with the instructions stated herein and in the
attachments,
Your attention is directed to the attached "STANDARD AGREEMENT." The successful
proposer will be required to execute the agreement. Any proposed waiver or change in
the agreement must be identified in your proposal and will be subject to City approval.
. Please also pay special attention to the insurance provisions contained in Section 15 of
the "STANDARD AGREEMENT." The successful proposer will be required to comply with
these provisions. Any proposed waiver or change to these provisions must also be
spelled out in your proposal and the impacts of the proposed waiver or change on you
costs must also be clearly identified.
Your attention is directed to the proposal instructions which describe more fully the
required scope of work, the format, and the content of the proposal. Proposers should
submit their proposal in conformance with the requirements indicated therein.
"
The calendar of events for the RFP process is expected to follow the schedule shown
below:
Date
September 28, 1992
October 23, 1992
November 2, 1992
November 24, 1992
Event
City issues RFP
Project proposals due to City
Consultant inteNiews
City awards contract
Selection Process
The City will rank the proposal based on the following criteria. Criteria are listed in
descending order of importance, with Criterion 1 being the most important.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
MAlHX-022
WPC F:\h0lll8\engineer\148,92
Page 1
~
70~3S-
1.
Past record of performance (Reference Evaluation).
~
2. Evaluation of personnel qualifications, including subconsultants if so indicated.
3. Capacity and resources to perform the work.
4. Proximity of office to San Diego County.
5. Fee proposal and pay schedule.
The City will solicit Request for Proposals (RFP's) from the top six ranked firms. Upon
review of the RFP's the City will interview a minimum of three consultants.
Point of Contact
Zoubir Ouadah, Civil Engineer, or his designated representative(s), will be the sole point
of contact for this solicitation. Questions on the Request for LOI'sISOQ's should be in
writing. Proposers are directed not to contact the City staff or City Council in conjunction
with this Request. Noncompliance with the Request may result in your firm's proposal
being considered nonresponsive.
Proiect Schedules
It is anticipated that work on the project will begin in December 1992. It is envisioned that
the services will have a three-month duration.
-."
Submittals should be prepared in the format specified below:
I. Cover Paae. Include name of firm and address, title and date. "Topographic
maps along the 1-805 corridor north of Telegraph Canyon Road to Palm Avenue.
Proposal"
II. Statement of Qualifications. Include specific information requested as indicated
below, including names, address and phone numbers of referenced clients. (Up
to 10 pages)
III. Oraanization Chart. Provide a hierarchical chart indicating distribution of work by
task. Include identification of key personnel and subconsultants assigned to tasks.
IV. Professional Staff. State experience of key personnel who would be assigned to
this project. (1-2 pages each)
V. Work Location. State proposed location where a majority of the work will be
. performed. (1 page)
-."
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
MA'HY -22
WPC F:\home\engine8f\148.92
~JOc-J?
Page 2
Statement of Qualifications Format
. The Statement of Qualifications should include the following:
. Experience in successfully managing a project of similar scope and
magnitude.
. Demonstrated ability to complete the project on schedule and within
budget.
. Demonstrated ability to work with agency input, review, and properly
coordinate into the overall project completion.
. Include a contact name and telephone number of the owner's project
manager for at least one project.
Closina Date
Five (5) copies of the proposal must be received by the City of Chula Vista Engineering
Department no later than 4:00 p.m. PDT on Friday, October 23, 1992. All proposals shall
be delivered to 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
.
If you have any questions regarding the Caltrans specification, please contact Caltrans
(Dan Martin) at (619) 688-3211. If you have questions regarding this request, please
contact Zoubir Ouadah, Chula Vista Traffic Engineering at (619) 691-5180.
Attachment:
Vicinity Map
Area Plat
1000 Scale Map showing the limit of the project area
Caltrans specifications for locally funded projects
Standard Agreement
.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
MAlflX-022
WPC F:'Nxno\anginooo\l48.92
~ Jf}~J7
Page 3
SCOPE OF WORK
......,
Preparation of aerial topographic maps in the vicinity of:
1-805rrelegraph Canyon Road
1-805/E3st Orange Avenue
I-80S/East Palomar Street
1-805/Otay Valley Road
Including both southbound and northbound on-off ramps at the above interchange in the
City of Chula Vista, California, in accordance with CalTrans specifications (copy attached).
Deliverables include:
50 scale topographic mapping with 2-foot contours
1000 scale aerial photography (overview map)
200 scale aerial photography (overview map)
Cross sections at 50-foot intervals
A vicinity map is attached showing the limits of the project area (approximately 2,000 feet
wide and 17,000 feet long). Also enclosed in a 1,000 scale map showing the limits of the
project area more precisely. Pre marking and/or surveying may be required for the
topographic mapping. Please include that in the bid price submitted to the City for that
item.
~
SCOPE OF WORK
MAiHX-022
WPC F:lhome\enginesr\147.92
Page 1
.-.
~ 3t9ryr
--
"
'-"
" J
.--...........
"
\,
----_.--
~t;.._:_:~:'.__~-.... \
4"- ~
.p"""& ....~:-
,~~.
...
"-
J/
!~
t., .,';:::..
.: "l.: )J I
... "".uJ
au
~
,--'
111-;'
.~~;:..,~:
v
,.,.-
/
LOCATION OF PROJECT
e
_....,~
-'
VICINITY .M_A~
~:~;-. .~~~f(~-~ :~;~~(:.
..........
)
;O:;'!3D-1ff
//./
'-...
~
--
r~
,
%.
~~
__ r.~'~ l'~
if. lJf~~4 ~Bi.
.' 1.11;. r.
"" ?' ,r t .:~'
Nj " ..~'
~ \. '" ( .
\ "
~.~,
rr'. 11 '~
1/ SU~E&'
INTERSECTIONS
. Pt. ~~~:.,~.,.~
"11I\ ] \ .
....i- '\\1\ Cut" P
.Q .-;;,.. '.".. 4 ~_\ '
~ '0 ..- \
~. \. .0 __-' .
,~ '. '. ~ k.~; I: ,..
'~.1 ,~ ',-" it;
.._ _ ~.. I'..., ,~~:..., HI i
--:-:
" ,
'. i
,
~~I~(
")
, "11~
:;"-~
,
~ ._~
~ ../ '~
.' ~
",- <<--,' .
, ." .........
X'. ,~ ~ ....
.~ ~~.:! . J: .,
,. ...f"l: .-:,:.- I.......\.i
.-.>~, f:.~;' .i8
~ j~ ~1\ __.
'r. )~ .; :l~~iJ .--3
, , '. ~ . 1\\ 7r1J..~ ;
. . ,;.. ~'.:, . .1;.fJ. ( 1
-:.;.0" ,...
. '1""\ iiiI-
,,\ i. 'I,;-
~ ;-.'
.,
;~\
. ~~.~"-'
\, ,
J";'~\.
. ,
\ .
.
.\
.
1._
?
~j' ,
) ".' .' .
.-
.'" ,-:co#-
. ..
-
IE..
1\'
.....
IW
I J
[
(
:i.'
I" ;,.
ri \ LJ,..
..........
s
r
I
,..
~\.
.,.
.r;;.
....Jl~
L:..i' . ~;~
~.,~ ~'~:: \
-J.-;~":
, 'ill: "- ...(~::~
~. _ N. '\t~"i'7"l
:~,...4.~ ;.>..:~
'-:: Nf;.I'l-."""'.
..V". '\ " .-.
. .
~6';:)~'"""C';
I .~, . .. .
r'^~. '
. . ' . _ r
. .
')
,
I,
_~ I ~
;~ '~,"C~--:', 1 ~~-, '. . ?'> ,; / ~ :
. I. .I.JHUJ II'" 1 {:I, ".
;'1~ ..;.'" ';'" ;(!. -'
~, I.... . .......... I r
a. . ._
o ..;; ... .:
23 .~o.. A.y ':. ';.;.'
~-:. ~":f~~ .~ :: . l ":~... .'
~ \ ...t.~~oo"~ ~::,,;'~''''- -,""".
'. ....~~ \ # -- _.' . - ,-.- oo'tG
_~_" .0\.'- ,'.
i=--'~':' ~ ~ ..._~-~... .-------~,. -
! . I r(" --.- ~....
~ '\I "'~ ''':.'.,. ..-'I....."" ~
. ~ " '/1:,. .- ~
:;I ...-- J
: ~ \-
~., '/\,
~
.
tI ·
"~
7
t. I J"
".
-.
I i.ft
I ~
I '""..
~~,'
. ,
I
,
'J.:.oi
'-"",.
Ii'
~~"~-"
.~..jj('. . -'---~.
.~.... .
.." ~.
;~:~- '. ...;J.,....:.c.: '.~
, ./ . "'" '.
o. .. - _:.iI',
. ..~T..'J-- :-.~ ..1
_ L~
I.
i(
\~..)
.'.,..,.... ....'r.... .~- l~.
. .~.~
::. Y--1i~. _9. _0:::
.~.. -- '\. . ~
.- .-...... j .
-:::::-. ..
.- "!.. ". .....
:~... ----... '
. . CITY --.~
. ,..-.,.. 0".' J. ~
. -,- ,--,.' ~
~. '~.:- /.... ,-' -::::.:\
.:l..!.-,.; .. '__....-.,J~.. :-. ',"
. - . ~.. .--!"\,.... '.',",
~ ~ ~[f?;'~~J '.{'~ '(-~"I'
, -./::., !Ii ;,A -"/~..
.: .,,~,. I. ~.. ....1 .;~ '.'
.....- .- ,..' lit . ',,, L'
'"
-.
'1
. - "7i ,
')
Il ~"'WH BT
MA
TIT L E
5P~q~R~A~
..:-
---
-----
I PLAT
'--"
"
i"
-------~---
DAn 8-25-92
!
m
)>
-c I
I
r- ,
,
I
~ i
,
I
I
~
::IJ
0 2
:J: 5
I :-4
... r-
0 i
~ ."1\
Col ::j
m
o
.
...
.
..
.
I
~
t ~.
~
--..,
--..
--..
MA
--;Y-
OAn' '8-25-92
AR~~t/_~LA T
,
;
-------..;...---
-- -.------
-
,-
;::s-
QR j\WH BT
MA
TITL~
DAn' 8-25-92
AREA
PLAT
y
i
-------~---
-- _._-----
1) - q3c:J~t/;S
File #: HX-D22
...........,
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
For the Preparation of Topographic Maps
Along I-80S Corridor
within the City of Chula Vista
September 30, 1992
ADDENDUM #1
ITEM
The following changes are hereby effective as through issued with the bid package:
Chan~es to Scove of Work
Add additional deliverable, a 5 1/2" digital format in the form of DXF File. The attached '.-,
Bidder's DBE form must also be completed and submitted with the bid.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY
Bidder's Signature
~
o /: "i
~~ (./fd.2 /x;.;;P:..
ubir 0 adah 7-
Civil Engineer
This Addendum must be signed and submitted with the bid.
MA:RFP
...........,
WPC F:\home\engineer\171.92
.$--iO :3 tJ ~I-/f
.
.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR THE PREPARATION OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
ALONG THE 1-805 CORRIDOR
WITHIN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
OCTOBER 8. 1992
ADDENDUM 12
ITEM
The following changes are hereby effective as though issued with the bid package:
CHANGE TO SCOPE OF WORK
Delete cross sections at 50-foot intervals.
Add additional 20 scale bridge site for undercrossing only (East H St.. East Palomar.
and East Orange bridges over 1-805) topographic map with I-foot contours.
All deliverables shall be in the following format:
A - Reproducible mylars
B - 5-1/2" digital format in the form of DFX file
C - Intergraph file format on magnetic tape
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
~ /1 .~
I/u~ d2..1 /'
ubir 0 adah. CMI Engi er
Bidder's Signature
This Addendum must be signed and submitted with the bid.
. WPCF:\home\engtneer\211.92
%:1\' JP-tf5
\)
Flle #HX-022 .-..
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
For the preparation of Topographic Maps
Along 1-805 Corridor
Within the City of Chula Vista
October 21, 1992
ADDENDUM #3
Item
The following changes are hereby effective as through issued with the bid package:
Chanl!e to Scope of Work
Delete the DBE (Disadvantage Business Enterprise) requirement from this bid.
-...
ACKNOWLEDGED BY
Bidder's Signature
~( O~~'7d4
ubir 6tadah
Civil Engineer
This addendum must be signed and submitted wlththe bid.
.-..
WPC F:\home\engtneeT\259.92
~ J(/~I/"
STANDARD AGREEMENT
. SECTION 1
.
.
Scope of Work
"SEE ATTACHMENT"
SECTION 2
,
Authorization. proaress and Completion
Upon execution of this agreement by both parties hereto
Consultant will be authorized and directed to proceed with the
preparation and completion of tasks as provided in Section 1
of the Agreement. Consultant shall proceed with the work
immediately upon authorization and prosecute the work
diligently to completion.
The above tasks shall be completed within ( ) weeks
of authorization including review by governmental agencies.
It is estimated that governmental review for this project will
take a total of ( ) weeks. Should the
governmental review time extend- over this amount, the
specified consultant design time period shall be extended.
SECTION 3
Liauidated Damaaes
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence
in completion of this contract. It is difficult to estimate
the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance.
The parties have used their best judgement to arrive at a
reasonable amount to compensate for delay.
Failure to complete the tasks specified in Section 1 within
the allotted time period specified in Section 2 shall result
in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day
in excess of the time specified for the completion of the
work, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld
from monies due, the sum of $100.00.
Time extensions for delays beyond the consultants control,
other than delays caused by the city, shall be requested in
writing to the City Engineer prior to the expiration of the
specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be
based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be
granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be
shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the
work.
~
3o~tf7
SECTION 4
~
Comoensation
The Consultant shall perform the engineering and related
services as set forth in Section 1 for a not to exceed fee of
calculated in accordance with the fee schedule
attached. The above fee shall include Ail expenses required
to complete the tasks set forth in Section 1 which may include
but is not limited to: reproduction and printing; telephone
charges; and automobile mileage.
Consultant will periodically submit invoices to City pursuant
to the attached fee schedule and invoice schedule below.
Periodic payments shall not exceed the percentage of the not
to exceed fee as listed below. Upon completion of
construction of the project, the consultant may invoice for
additional expenses incurred during each phase. Total
compensation for the project shall not exceed the above fee.
Invoices will show hours and charges for each fee schedule
classification pursuant to the fee schedule attached.
Payment is due upon presentation of invoice and is past due
thirty (30) days from invoice date. Ci ty agrees to pay a
serv~ce charge on any past-due balance of 1. 5 percent per
month to cover additional handling and carrying costs. Any
attorney's fees or other cost incurred in collecting a
delinquent account will be paid by City.
~
SECTION 5
Services bv City
City further agrees to furnish to the Consultant, in a timely
manner, such maps, records and other documents and
proceedings, or certified copies thereof, as are available
from City offices and may be reasonably required by the
Consultant in the performance of these services.
SECTION 6
Conflict of Interest
The Consultant presently has and shall acquire no interest
whatsoever in the subject matter of this Agreement, direct or
indirect, which would constitute a conflict of interest or
give the appearance of such conflict. No person having any
such conflict of interest shall be employed or retained by the
Consultant under this Agreement. The Consultant shall also be
required to execute the attached statement of disclosul 9 of
certain ownership interests.
~
~
3v~L/!S'
.
.
.
The Consultant may not conduct business for third parties
which may be in conflict with the Consultant's
responsibilities under this Agreement. The Consultant may not
solicit any business during the term of this Agreement which
conflict with his or her responsibilities under this
Agreement.
SECTION 7
Termination of Aqreement for Cause
If, through any cause, the Consultant shall fail to fulfill in
a timely and proper manner his obligations under this
Agreement, or if the Consultant shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements, or stipulations of the agreement, City
shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving
written notice to Consultant of such termination and
specifying the effective date thereof, at least five (5) days
before the effective date of such termination. In that event,
all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, survey,
drawings, maps, reports, and other materials prepared by the
Consultant shall, at the option of City, become the property
of City and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and
equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed
on such documents and other materials up to the effective date
of notice of termination, not to exceed the amounts payable
under Section 4, hereinabove.
SECTION 8
Termination for Convenience of Citv
ci ty may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any
reason by giving written notice to the Consultant of such
termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at
least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such
termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished
documents and other materials described in Section 7,
hereinabove, shall, at the option of the City, become City's
sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated
by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be
entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any
satisfactory work completed on such documents and other
materials to the effective date of such termination.
Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for
damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as
set forth in section 4, hereinabove, in the event of such
termination.
~ 3v/}/i
SECTION 9
--.
Assianabil i tv
Consultant shall not assign any interest in the Agreement, and
shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by
assignment or renovation), without prior written consent of
Ci ty; provided, however, that claims for money due or to
become due to the Consultant from City under this Agreement
may be assigned to a bank, ~rust company, or other financial
institution without such approval. Notice of such assignment
or transfer shall be furnished promptly to City. Any
assignment requiring approval may not be further assigned
without City approval.
SECTION 10
Ownershio. Publication. Reoroduction and Use of Material
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms,
designs, plans, procedures, systems, and any other materials or
properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and
exclusive property of the City. No such materials or
properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement .~
shall be subject to private use, copyrights, or patent right
by the Consultant in the United States or in any country
without the express written consent to the City. City shall
have unrestricted authority to pUbliSh, disclose (as may be
limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act),
distribute and otherwise, use copyright or patent in whole or
in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or
other materials or properties produced under this Agreement.
SECTION 11
Indeoendent Contractor
Ci ty is interested only in the resul ts obtained, and
Consul tant shall perform as an independent contractor with
sole control of the manner and means of performing the
services required under the Agreement. City maintains the
right only to reject or accept Consultant's final work product
as is completed. Consul tant and any of Consultant's
employees, or representatives are, for all purposes under this
Agreement, an independent contractor, and shall not be deemed
to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled
to any benefits to which City employees are entitled,
including, but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits,
worker's compensation benefits, injury leave, or other leave
benefits.
......."
r~ 3?J--5-zJ
. SECTION 12
Chanqes
City may from time to time require changes in the scope of the
services by the Consultant to be performed under this
Agreement. Such changes, incl uding any increase or decrease
in the amount of Consultant's compensation, which are mutually
agreed upon by City and Consultant shall be effective as
amendments to this agreement.only when in writing.
SECTION 13
Indemnitv
.
Consul tant agrees to indemni fy and save City and its agents
and employees harmless from any and all liabili ty, claims,
damages or injuries to any person, including injury to
Consultant's employees and all claims which arise from or are
connected with the negligent performance of or failure to
perform the work or other obligations of this agreement, or
are caused or claimed to be caused by the negligent acts of
Consultant, his agents or employees, and all expenses of
investigation and defending against same; provided, however
that this indemnification and hold harmless shall not include
any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of the City, its agents or employees.
SECTION 14
Standard of Care
Service performed by the Consultant under this Agreement will
be conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care
and skill ordinary exercised by members of the profession
currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar
locations.
Consul tant will be reporting the findings actually observed
and will not render a professional opinion concerning site
conditions other t~n those actually observed.
SECTION 15
Insurance
.
Consul tant represents and warrants that it and its agents,
staff and consultants employed by it is and are protected by
worker's compensation insurance and that Consultant has such
coverage under public liability and property damage ins~r~nce
policies which the Consultant deems adequate. In add~t~on,
the Consultant will provide the following certificates of
insurance to the City crior to beginning work:
~ 3t/~1
~
Evidence of Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus
$1 million Employers liability coverage.
Evidence in the form of a Certificate of Insurance A!ll!
Policy Endorsement, or General and Automobile Liability
coverage to $1 million combined single limits which names
the City of Chula Vista as additional insured.
Evidence in the form of a Certificate of Insurance of
Errors and Omissions insurance to $500,000, unless Errors
and Omissions coverage is included in General Liability.
All insurance carriers shall comply with the items listed
below:
A. Listing by the State Insurance Commission as a
company authorized to transact the business of
insurance in the State of California.
B. A Best's Rating of "A", Class V, or better.
C.
Where a company is not included in Best's, it must
show by convincing evidence that its financial
responsibility is equal to or better than the rating
set forth in 'b' above.
~
Said pOlicies shall contain a provision that the
same cannot be cancelled without at least thirty
(30) days notice to the City.
SECTION 16
Disputes
In the event that a dispute should arise relating to the.
performance of the services to be provided under this
Agreement, payment shall be as later determined by
arbitration, if the City and the Consultant agree thereto, or
as fixed in a court of law. Should that dispute result in
litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the
defense of the claim, including court costs and attorney's
fees.
(A: \STDAGREE. DOC1)
""""
$-tr J t9,-.5cJ-
.
. .
.
.
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
. . .
DISTRICT .11
Standard Mapping Specifications
.
.
for
Locally Funded Projects
May 19~9 ..
-
...-.
.
.
~ JO~5J
. .'
STANDARD MAPPING SPEC~FICATIONS FOR LOCAL FUNDED PROJECTS
-c,
A. Responsibility of Local Agency
The local agency shall be responsible for all surveys,
including mapping, necessary to complete the design of the
project. This will include, but ,not be limited to, 50 scale
topographic mapping (with two-foot contours), 20 scale
topographic mapping for all bridge sites (with one-foot
contours), aerial photography (including a 1000-scale overview
of area), and cross sections (at 50' intervals, plus
appropriate landmarks; i.e., driveways, drainage units, etc.)
All surveys must be done in the following manner.
1.
Standards
.........
All surveys shall be performed in accordance with the
current Department of Transportation (Caltrans) "Survey
Manual" and its revisions. Work not covered by the
manual shall be performed in accordance with accepted
professional surveying standards as approved by the
State.
In addition to the requirements herein, photogrammetric
mapping shall conform to requirements of Appendix PM.
Surveys performed by the Contractor shall conform to the
requirements of the Land Surveyors Act. In accordance
with the Act, "responsible charge" for the work shall .........
.
~' 30'S-t(
.
,,'
-2-
reside with a pre-January '1, 1982, Registered Civil
Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor, in the State of
California,
The minimum standard of survey quality shall be that of
similar surveys performed by the State.
2. Basis of Contractor's Surveys
The State will designate the existing horizontal and
vertical control monuments that are to be the basis of
all Contractor-performed surveys. The State will provide
the California Coordinate System values and/or elevation
values for these monuments. The Contractor shall adjust
all contractor-performed surveys to the designated
control monuments and their values.
.
3.
.
Surveys Safety
The contractor shall comply with OSHA regulations
regarding safety equipment and procedures, safety
instructions issued by the state, and the safety
provisions included in the Caltrans Surveys Manual.
Contractor's surveying personnel shall wear white hard
hats and orange safety vests at all times while working
in the field. The Contractor shall provide' safety
training for all Contractor's surveying personnel,
.
~ :;Jj;l---fY-
. ...
-3-
--.,
including the training required for surveying on and near
highways. Personal safety equipment shall be provided
by the Contractor. An encroachment permit must be
obtained from Caltrans prior to the contractor beginning
work within the State right of way.
4. Monument Markings
The Contractor shall identify Contractor-established
monuments by tagging or stamping the monuments with the
license or registration number of the Contractor's
surveyor who is in "responsible charge" of the work.
--.
5. Deliverables
a. Survey points, lines, and monuments shall be
established, marked, identified and referenced, as
required to complete the design of the project, in
accordance with the Caltrans Surveys Manual and the
requirements herein.
b. Survey notes, drawings, calculations and other
documents/materials shall be completed as required
to complete the design of the project, in accordance
with the Caltrans Surveys Manual and the
requirements herein.
--.
· ~ J{/~~
. ..
.
c.
d.
.
.
-4-
A copy, except as otherwise . specified in
Appendix PH, of all oriqinal survey documents
resultinq from this contract (includinq oriqinal
field data, adjustment calculations, final results,
and appropriate intermediate documents) ahall be
delivered to the state and shall become the property
of the State. The oriqinal (or a copy, if the
oriqinal is to be provided to the State) survey
documents shall be retained by the Contractor for
future reference.
The final results of all surveys shall be delivered
to the State in the format specified below.
1) Horizontal Control - Alpha/numeric hard copy
point listinq with adjusted California
Coordinate System northinqs and eastinqs and
appropriate descriptions. The State will
desiqnate whether the '27 or 'S3 datum is to
be used.
2) Vertical Control - Alpha/numeric hardcopy
listinq with adjusted elevations on the 1929
NAVD.
· ~ 3tJrS)
.
-5-
--
3) Topography, including Photogrammetr ic Mapping _
Alpha/numeric hard copy listing (not required
for photogrammetric mapping) , hard copy
drawing, and ~DD digital drawing. The CADD
drawing shall be provided on magnetic tape
using Intergraph IGDS version 8.8 file format
or Intergraph Standard Interchange Format (SIP)
version 8.8.2 format. Topography symbology
shall conform to the Caltrans "Drafting and
Plans Manual". eADD leveling conventions shall
conform to the Caltrans "Cadd Users Manual".
4)
Terrain For each cross-section:
alpha/numeric listing, hard copy drawing, and
an EDP format compatible wi th Cal trans
computerized earthwork design systems. EDP-
formatted cross-sections shall be provided on
magnetic tapes compatible with Caltrans
computer systems.
---
5) Photogrammetric Mapping Related Materials - See
Appendix PM.
6) Others - As directed by the State.
---
.
~ 3tJ --S-g--
. ..
APPENDIX PM
.
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING STANDARDS
Table of Contents
SECTION
1.00 Scope of Work
2.00 Field Surveys and Premarking
3.00 Aerial Photography
. 4.00 Aerotriangulation
5.00 Map Compilation
6.00 Map Accuracy
.
.
~ ?tJr5J
.
1.00 SCOPE OF WORK
--
1.01 Work shall consist of furnishing all photogrammetric mapping
necessary to complete the design of this project.
1.02 The work will include planning, photo-control surveys,
premarking, aerial photography, aerotriangu1ation, digital map
compilation, drafting, and reproductions.
2.00 FIELD SURVEYS AND PREMARKING
2.10 Project Control - Project Control shall be established by the
state. Supplemental photo control shall be provided by the
contractor.
-,
2.20 SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTO CONTROL
2.21 Vertical control shall be established at the four corners of
the photography for each flight line, outside the mapping
limits. In addition, vertical control shall be located along
the wing point lines, outside the mapping limits, at
approximately 2500-foot intervals on alternate sides of the
models.
2.22 Vertical control points shall also be located along the
center1ines (t 250 feet) of all flight lines at intervals not
to exceed 500 feet.
"""
.
~ .3 C;J---d,. tJ
.
.
2.23 Horizontal control points shall be located at the beginnings
and ends of all flight lines and at intervals not to exceed
2500 feet along the flight lines.
2.24 There shall be a minimum of three well-distributed horizontal
control points per flight line.
2.25 Supplemental photo control shall be .stablished to third-order
accuracy.
2.26 Any alternate control plans that do not meet these
specifications must be approved in advance, by the State.
2.30
PREMARKING
2.31 All control points,. both proj ect and supplemental photo
control points, shall be premarked. Project control points
outside of the photo coverage will not have to be premarked.
2.32 Premarks shall be centered exactly on the survey point and
shall not deviate from the point by more than 0.02 foot.
2.33 premarks shall be of a pattern used by Caltrans for similar
mapping.
. 2.34 It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to obtain
.
~ JbJr6/
. "
permission to premark and to dispose of the premarks in a
-.
satisfactory manner,
2.35 Photo identification of control points will not be allowed
unless permission is specifically granted by the State,
3.00 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
3.10 CAMERAS - Aerial photography shall be taken with one of the
following types of cameras or equivalent:
wild RC 8 or RC 10 with a 6-inch Aviogon lens
Zeiss RMK 15/23 with a Pleogon lens
Zeiss LMK 15/2323 with a Pleogon lens.
3.11 CAMERA CALIBRATION - A calibration report shall be provided
.-,
for the camera used.
The report shall be prepared by
United States Geological Survey (USGS) or the camera
manufacturer within the last two years.
3.20 FLIGHT HEIGHT AND PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE
3.21 The nominal photography Bcale to be used for mapping shall
range from 1"-250' to 1"-400',
3.22 The minimum and maximum flight height above average terrain
shall be 1500 feet and 2400 feet respectively. Within that
range, flight heights above average terrain shall not exceed -.
six times the relief ranee for the flight line.
.
~ Jt// tf:,,;L
. .. .
.
3.23
Any deviations in flight heights from these specifications
must be approved, in advance, by the state.
3.30 FLIGHT TOLERANCES - Flight tolerances shall be as follows:
3.31 Coverage - The mapping limits and control for the flight shall
fall within the central 7 inches of the photography.
3.32 Forward Overlap - Forward overlap shall not exceed 65 percent
or be less than 55 percent and shall average 60 percent.
.
3.33 Crab - Crabbing measured from the line of flight through the
principal points shall not exceed 10 degrees between any two
consecutive photographs and shall not average more than 5
degrees for any single flight line.
3.34 Tilt - Tilt defined as the depa~ture of the optical axis of
the camera from a plumb line shall not exceed 5 degrees on a
single photograph and shall not average more than one degree
for a single flight line. Relative tilt between two
successive exposures shall not exceed 6 degrees.
3.35 Time of Photography - Photography shall be taken when the
ground is not obscured by haze, smoke, dust, clouds or cloud
shadows, or snow. Photography shall be taken only when the
. sun angle is greater than 30 degrees above the horizon.
.
0r 3// ~ ':3
~
3.40 AERIAL NEGATIVES Fine grain aerial negative film on
polyester base such as Estar or equal shall be used. Exposing
and processing shall be done in conformance with the
manufacturer's recommendations and with accepted photographic
practice. Negatives shall be clear and sharp in detail with
normal density and contrast. Negatives shall show no streaks,
static marks, chemical stains, or other defects which would
interfere with their intended use. There shall be a 3-foot
leader and trailer on all aerial film used for mapping.
3.50 EDITING - Aerial negatives and control photographs shall be
edited according to standards adopted by Caltrans. This
information is available from the Caltrans Photogrammetry
Section in Sacramento.
'-..
3.60 CONTACT PRINTS - Three sets of contact prints on resin-coated
paper shall be furnished to the State, one showing control and
two extra sets.
3.70 DIAPOSITIVES - Diapositives shall be on 0.13-inch thick glass,
printed emulsion to emulsion. One set of diapositives shall
be furnished to the State.
3.80 PHOTO-INDEXES - Photo-indexes shall conform to the standards
adopted by Caltrans. These standards are available from the
Caltrans Photogrammetry Section in Sacramento. Photo-index
-..
.
~ 3iJ--t?'1
.
.
.
.
.
negatives and two prints of each photo-index shall be
furnished to the State.
3.90 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY NEGATIVES - The original negatives of all
photography shall be furnished to the State.
4.00 AEROTRIANGULATION
4.10 IMAGE RESIDUALS - The standard deviation of "unit weight"
shall not exceed to.0075 millimeter.
4.20 HORIZONTAL CONTROL RESIDUALS - The root-mean-square-error of
the xy vector shall not exceed to.085 foot and no single point
shall deviate more than 0.24 foot.
4.30 VERTICAL CONTROL RESIDUALS - The root-mean-square-error of z
shall not exceed to.15 foot and no single point shall deviate
more than 0.36 foot.
4.40 POINT TRANSFER HOLES - The maximum drill hole size shall be
0.050 millimeter for marking points on the diapositives.
4.50 RESIDUAL LISTINGS - A compiled listing of resultant residuals
for the final aerotriangulation shall be furnished to the
State.
-
:3 tJ--&5
~
,,'
5.00 MAP COMPILATION
......."
5,10 MAPPING LIMITS - The mapping limits shall adequately cover the
project as required to complete the the design of this
project.
5.20 CONTOUR INTERVAL - The contour interval shall be two feet for
SO-scale mapping, one foot for 20-scale mapping.
5.30 MAP CONTENTS - Map contents, symbols, grid system, title
blocks, and editing style shall conform to the standards
adopted by Cal trans. These standards are available from
Caltrans Photogrammetry Section in Sacramento.
"-,
5.40 STEREO-PLOTTERS - Optical train type photogrammetric plotters
shall be used for map compilation. Projection-type plotters
will not be allowed.
6.00 MAP ACCURACY
6.10 MAP GRIDS - The position of all grid ticks and all monuments
shall not vary more than 0.01 inch from their coorcUnated
position.
6.20 PLANIMETRY At least 90 percent of all well-defined
planimetric features shall be within 0.025 inch of their true
posi tion, and all shall be wi thin 0.050 inch of their tr'~e
--.,
.
~ 30---t??
.
.
."
.
6.30
6.31
"
ground position.
CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS
At least 90 percent of all contours shall be within 1/2
contour interval of true elevations, and all contours shall
be within one contour interval of true elevation, except as
follows:
In densely wood areas where the ground is obscured by
dense brush or tree cover, contours shall be plotted as
accurately as possible while making maximum use of spot
elevations obtained from the stereoscopic model in places
where the ground is visible. In those areas where spot
elevations can be obtained photogrammetrically, at least
90 percent of all contours shall be within one contour
interval or one half the average height of the ground
cover, whichever is greater, of true elevation. All
contours shall be within two contour intervals or the
average height of the ground cover, whichever is the
greater of true elevation. Contours in such areas shall
be shown with dashed lines.
OrChards, vineyards, and other areas devoted to crops
will be considered as open areas and are therefore not
subject to larger tolerances in vertical accuracy.
.
~ ;J~~~l
. ."
6.32 Contours shall reflect the crown or cross slope of all paved ~.
areas including paved ditches, and the accuracy tolerance
allowed for contours shall not affect this requirement.
6.33 In areas not obscured by qrass, weeds, or brush, at least
90 percent of all spot elevations shall be within 0.25 contour
interval of true elevation and all shall be within 0.50
contour interval of true elevation.
6.34 In addition to the accuracy specified above for contours and
spot elevations, the following shall apply:
The arithmetic mean of contours and spot elevations in
open areas shall not exceed plus or minus the following
,.values for the points tested on each map sheet.
~
No. of Points Tested
20
40
60 or more
Max. Arithmetic Mean
to.20 contour interval
to.15 contour interval
to.10 contour interval
6.35 Any contour which can be brought within the specified vertical
tolerance by shifting its position 0.025 inch shall be
accepted as correctly compiled.
-
.
~ Jt/~~Y
~
'--, I ' k ",,'
RJCJ\. E\JGJ \:EEI Zl \:(; 0)\ Ill, \:\ '1'
....". II
l '
I., ~.'" I), ."," .
;,,! ~J:,
f \ \ r ]... :c,: ...;: ~.~
April 20, 1993
City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Via Overnight Delivery
City Attorney
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
SUBJECT: 1992/1993 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I-80S INTERCHANGES (TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD, EAST
PALOMAR STREET, EAST ORANGE AVE., OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
Dear Mssrs.:
On April 13, 1993, the City Council for the City of Chula Vista voted against a resolution
approving an agreement between Rick Engineering Company and the City of Chula Vista
to prepare topographic maps along Interstate 80S, North of Telegraph Canyon Road to the
South of Otay Valley Road. It has come to Rick Engineering Company's attention based
upon that council hearing, that the reason for the refusal to approve that contract was due
to the fact that the City Council wanted the City staff to go back to Airborn Systems, Inc.
to request a price quote based upon the fact that the price quoted by Airborn, as set forth
on page 3 of the Staff Report to the City Council, indicates Airborn Systems with a lower
amount than Rick Engineering Company.
As you know, professional services in the State of California must be selected by state or
local agencies on the basis of a demonstrated competency and the professional qualifications
necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. This requirement is set
forth in Government Code Section 4526 ("Mini Brooks Act"). Essentially, this means that
cost or price is not to be a factor in the selection of a design consultant. Local public
agencies, in addition to the State of California, must discuss and negotiate an agreement on
fees after the selection of the design consultant. Rick Engineering Company fulfilled the
requirements of the Request for Proposal, and was selected as the engineering firm to
provide the professional services requested. Thereafter, the only change with regards to fees
concerning this matter was a change in the scope of services as presented by City Staff to
30-b/
City Manager
City Attorney
City of Chula Vista
April 20, 1993
Page 2
Rick Engineering Company. At no time, has there been any discussion or negotiations on
the fees for this project. As such, the City's request and instructions to go to an engineering
firm with a lower quoted price for the services is inappropriate.
Furthermore, it is rather surprising to Rick Engineering Company and others in the
engineering field to observe cities and other local agencies considering cost proposals in
their determination for hiring qualified engineering firms. The criteria listed in their
descending order of importance with regards to deciding which engineering firm would be
utilized by the City of Chula Vista included, as one of it criteria, fee proposal and pay
schedule. The State statute clearly indicates that price is not to be considered for
determining whether or not an engineering firm should be selected to provide professional
services.
Based upon a review of the City Council action, it appears that the City Council has violated
the State law by utilizing cost as a criteria in its determination of an engineering firm.
The City of Chula Vista could have simply stated that it conditionally approved its
agreement with Rick Engineering Company, provided that the City and Rick Engineering
Company could come to a mutually acceptable agreement on fees. However, no negotiation
or discussion of fees with Rick Engineering Company has been undertaken at all. Based
upon this, it appears that the City of Chula Vista's selection process of professionals for
engineering and surveying services, as currently established, or which has been established
for this contract violates the State law. Additionally, it appears that the City Council has
violated State law in instructing staff to negotiate with an engineering firm other than Rick
Engineering Company with regards to a fee proposal prior to determining that the
engineering firm designated as ranking the highest of the firms submitting responses to the
Request For Proposal (Rick Engineering Company) and the City could not agree on a
contract cost after good faith negotiations. and that the City Council was aware of the lower
fee. It is incorrect to use fee price as a criteria in selecting professionals for supplying
services to the City.
Where significant issues of health and safety are involved, it is not only misleading but
dangerous to make the selection of a professional on the basis of the lowest cost proposal.
After procurement of design consultants, competitive bidding can and is an acceptable
vehicle for construction of a project. This is because there then exists a detailed set of plans
and specifications on which a contractor can base its cost estimates. However, at the stage
of design procurement or at the studies phase, no plans and specifications can exist, as the
scope of services have not yet adequately been defined. It is possible that "competitive bids"
.30---;0
City Manager
City Attorney
City of Chula Vista
April 20, 1993
Page 3
from design professionals will be based on very different sets of assumptions regardless of
the information set forth in the Request For Proposal. Another basis for the statutory
change is that there typically is a strong tendency for agencies to look quickly at bottom line
figures as opposed to the ability of a consultant to adequately respond to the Request For
Proposal and possess the necessary qualifications and experience for completing the services
set forth in the Proposal. Such use of cost may not be in the best interest for the health and
safety of the public at large. This is one of the reasons for the passage of Government
Code Section 4526, that requires selection of qualified professionals be done without the use
of cost as a factor.
Rick Engineering Company urges the City Council to reevaluate its action with regards to
this contract immediately. If, in fact, the City Council determines it will continue to violate
the law with regards to this RFP and others, Rick Engineering Company will take all legal
action necessary to insure that its legal rights are not violated and to insure that the City of
Chula Vista, in its selection of professional services, complies with the State law in order
to maintain the highest standards of public safety for the citizens of the City of Chula Vista.
Sincerely,
ennis J. Stryker
General Counsel
DJS:eb
cc: Mr. William B. Rick
Mr. Lyle Gabrielson
Mr. Robert Leger
Mr. Jas Arnold
Jc~7!
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item :1 )
Meeting Date 4/13/93
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution 1?()?5 Approving design concept for the
improvement of Orange Avenue and Fourth Avenue along the frontage of
the South Chula Vista Library
Director of Public WOrk~ ~
City Manager JGt ~ ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No...K.)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
Engineering Design staff is now in the process of preparing construction plans, specifications and
cost estimate for street improvements along the frontage of the South Chula Vista Library. The
construction plans will include landscaped medians, bus stops, curb, gutters and sidewalks.
Concept plans are hereby presented to Council for approval prior to the preparation of final
construction plans.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Council approve the preliminary concept plan along with the landscaped medians
layout.
2. Staff be directed to proceed with the [mal design plan.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On February 26, 1993, the Safety
Commission reviewed the proposed improvements along the frontage of the South Chula Vista
Library. The Safety Commission recommended by 6-0-1 vote (Koester absent) the installation
of median islands as a part of the project for the purpose of enhancing the safety and
performance on Orange Avenue and Fourth Avenue. The Safety Commission recommended one
modification to the staff proposal regarding the median island on Orange Avenue. This
modification recommends revising the plans to prevent left turns out onto westbound Orange
Avenue out of the main driveway entrance to the Library. Attached is a copy of the Safety
Commission meeting minutes.
On March 24, 1993, the Library Board of Directors reviewed the proposed improvements
including the Safety Commission modification to the median opening on Orange Avenue. The
Library Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve the concept plan as modified to
accommodate the Safety Commission recommendations. Attached is a copy of the Library Board
of Director's meeting minutes.
31-/
L,
,
Page 2, Item .3 I
Meeting Date 4/13/93
DISCUSSION:
The construction of street improvements along the frontage of the south Chula Vista Library was
approved in the FY 92-93 Capital Improvement Program (ST -151). The proposed improvements
include landscaped medians, two bus turn-outs, sidewalks, pavement widening and/or
reconstruction and traffic safety improvements adjacent to the Library's Orange Avenue and
Fourth Avenue frontage.
On February 23, 1993, a meeting was held with area residents whose property fronts on
Quintard Street, and El Lugar Street and along Orange Avenue to review our conceptual
improvement plans and to discuss the proposed medians which may affect Quintard Street access
from Orange Avenue. There were 17 property owners present at this meeting. Their response
to our Plan was generally favorable as the proposed median along Orange Avenue will restrict
access to Quintard Street via Orange Avenue. Furthermore, most property owners wanted to
eliminate Quintard Street access from Orange Avenue by the installation of a cul-de-sac at the
western end of Quintard Street. All property owners comments are attached as Exhibit "A".
Additionally, concerned property owners circulated a petition signed by 30 property owners or
tenants requesting closing of Quintard Street in conjunction with the construction of the Library
frontage the improvements. This issue was further discussed at the February 26, 1993 Safety
Commission meeting where there were 12 property owners in attendance.
The cul-de-sacing of Quintard Street at its intersection with Orange Avenue has some merit.
Staff recommends that this decision be deferred until the improvements on the north side of
Orange Avenue are designed. This will provide adequate time (about 2 years) for staff to study
the impacts/benefits of this action. By postponing this action, the study will more accurately
assess the impacts to other area residents and businesses after the South Chula Vista Library is
in operation.
The improvements we propose have been modified to accommodate area resident concerns
(except the cul-de-sacing of Quintard Street) and the Safety Commission modification. The
Library Board of Directors at its March 24, 1993 meeting, approved this modified concept plan
after hearing testimony from 3 property owners and a presentation from staff. We, therefore,
request Council's approval of this concept.
Large scale maps and plans showing our proposal will be available for viewing by the City
Council. The area property owners have been invited to attend the Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City will maintain the proposed improvements upon their construction.
The medians along the library frontage will be maintained by the Parks & Recreation
Department along with the library site maintenance. Both the library and medians will have the
same irrigation system. The Parks & Recreation Department has estimated the annual
maintenance cost for the medians is $1,000. The total cost to construct the medians, including
the curbs and gutters, decorative slabwork, and irrigation landscaping is estimated to cost
$57,800. However, if the medians were not included, it would cost $14,100 to do the necessary
pavement construction instead, leaving a new cost of $43,700 for the median work.
Aaacbmcatl:
A... Plat N
Bxlubh A OT SCANN~ 'f'
MinulCl Safety CommiukD dated 2/26/93 (Draft) (.. ~'..' , ~ "' ~~;'.I
Min.... Lob"", BoonI of DUecton datccI 3nA193 l~ U! :"Cf1NN ED
SAcAX-12S-A NOT SC'JHI1,...i!.D
WPC F'\HOME\ENGlNEERIAOENDA\D~mn.IJl . .J / - ..2..
RESOLUTION NO. /7~75
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING DESIGN CONCEPT FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF ORANGE AVENUE AND FOURTH AVENUE
ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE SOUTH CHULA VISTA
LIBRARY
WHEREAS, Engineering Design staff is now in the process
of preparing construction plans, specifications and cost estimate
for street improvements along the frontage of the South Chula vista
Library; and
WHEREAS, the construction plans will include landscaped
medians, bus stops, curb, gutters and sidewalks. Concept plans are
hereby presented to Council for approval prior to the preparation
of final construction plans; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 1993, the Safety commission
reviewed the proposed improvements along the frontage of the South
Chula vista Library and recommended by 6-0-1 vote (Koester absent)
the installation of median islands as a part of the project for the
purpose of enhancing the safety and performance on Orange Avenue
and Fourth Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Commission recommended one
modification to the staff proposal regarding the median island on
Orange Avenue revising the plans to prevent left turns out onto
westbound Orange Avenue out of the main driveway entrance to the
Library.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the preliminary concept
plan along with the landscaped medians layout for the improvements
of Orange Avenue and Fourth Avenue along the frontage of the South
Chula vista Library.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff be directed to proceed
with the final design plan.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~
/ u\
Ruth M. ritsch, Assistant
City Attorney
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F: \home\attomey\design.lib
31- 3 /~/-'f
-:;;?
n~
. " "
. n s
'" ~ III 8i
g . . .
Sf t::: _ .
r-.' i ;
-^...;~.. -, ~~ ~
-~~ ~'"
"':
~,
,"'
S!
=:Ii
~I
.....
)~
'I :
,~,
o 0
· ~ i
n d~ f
i~g~n~
n~nh
~..?--..-~
...----;,-~
J
lJ
, ,--
, ,
_.._.._..~
I
-~'~." - '~~.
" , .
,- , ~
. '.. '0 '..." \ t
J",' / ~.~ LIl'
a., .~ __ ,
...... .' c. .~ ",\ ,
r'~ 'J.' ri . ~~ ~l/{:, ;:
" , 'L.-- : ____ ' . ':' : ;
._.....0:1 ~- ~...-
r I"" _'~"," i:
': ~""LIJ~~.\ 1',: "
!i'\l~.~ ~_/'" ,;
.. c:~ r'Qp-;:<'t:. ~J;V'i
'-H' 0 :1: ;,il:!~: do. -,; ~ i
:" I _ _"\,,, ,..\-,
I, 'u _ '....."..._, .
-, O'O~'_' '" I' .' 'I
a . ",IL n ~\-.'~)' I ,{~., I,
'... " i . "'to I
..' '/" -- - h j 'I i,~~., '''':1
i " ,- "''' >,{ {:.o..;;:
t ,I .)~ -t:c... I, .
' ' l I ...... I:; ;~ ,
' ' ru : :, :t...~,~, ~...:;, ,~ ~~L."'; i
' : '-= --~. I '..", I '
1: L. -., '" I'.' I:
'-:-r . . J: ., I! S.:~;...~, i~ ~L...., 1
. . ~ .. ,~L_)_~......, , ,
.. . . I " , [I'. ;,," ,;
, : . 1" ;, 'i .". ,~ '< L..
'I : n:.L ..J, : I ;-,_~-t.(. _:; i:
I I rTT1 ~ n . l . .'.' '-1,
; , ~.~~ I'---rj , ". ,
': .. , '. . '-..~,< ,.. ,
'I I , " 'I: ---= '- ....
'I ~ 'C.. .
ii" : !Iu~~ _iuJl'"
{t':~--:~:~:~:::~~~~:~-:-~- - - - -,- _
, ,
'.,
ii/
r:
, ,
l.LJ
=>
:z:
l.LJ
:>
<<:
l.LJ
'"
:z:
<<:
0::
o
J
3nN3~Y HHI,pO~r
.3)-.5'
L
i~ ~
~:',~.
~-~~:! I ~
~. ~'
' ~... it ..
- "
~'i--.I_-'---,o'
"-;:'-,2~-
(J)
Z
<t
-
C
LU
~
z
<( '.
-'
8 ... c.
,
c,
w
...
'"
j
I
I
!
;
I
,
o
i
,
I
j
i
,
II
I,
..
Ii
il
I!
II
I:
II
"
.,
0,
I'
,I
\:
'.
I;
:1
,
II
"
".... fl
<( - ~ -' Illl
. I : I I d
~.. :;)., II 1;
Cf) ~ 0 : ~.t: I~
":""'jl
>... . 1-
0(:111,1
" . I'
<:;;; : .1
-' ;; o(:~ i;1
"1>-'-.
~ ~ w:~ lj
:I::t. a:: , I:
U a; i!
U 'I
o :1
'" 'I
W II
~ II
"
II
"
~I
I,
Ii
t:
:i
!!
"
ii
"
"
,I
I
I
I
.
i
!
.
I
,
i
!
,
.
>-
a;
'"
a;
II>
"
o
>-
<.>
-'
W
J:
...
::>
o
'"
EXHIBIT A
SOUTH CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LffiRARY
Public Meeting Comments of Tuesday, 2/23/93
I. Fourth Avenue
A. Allow southbound left turn access into library driveway.
B. Remove raised median.
C. Shift median cost savings to provide for traffic signal left turn phasing on Orange
A venue at Third Avenue.
D. Provide a plat of the area with distances between intersections.
II. Orange Avenue
A. Left turn phasing for eastbound/westbound traffic at the signalized intersection of
Orange Avenue and Third Avenue.
B. No westbound to eastbound U-turn at Orange Avenue and Fourth Avenue.
C. Reduce the 40 MPH speed limit.
D. Provide for a pedestrian crossing at main entrance.
E. Signalize pedestrian crossing with a flashing yellow signal.
F. ClP project for north curbline of Orange Avenue to include a cul-de-sac for
Quintard Street.
III. Quintard Street
A. Left turn phasing for eastbound/westbound traffic at the signalized intersection of
Quintard Street and Third Avenue.
B. Provide an access lane for southbound to westbound motorists at Quintard Street
and Orange Avenue.
C. Add "no trucks" or Truck Route sign.
D. Cul-de-sac west end of street so there is less traffic impacts at the intersection of
Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue.
WPC F:\bome\qineer\626.93
:3)" t,
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE CHULA VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION
Friday, February 26, 1993
6:10 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call:
Present:
Chair Thomas (arrived at 6:35 pm), Vice Chair Padilla, Commissioners
Braden, Chidester, Matacia, and Pitts
Excused Absence:
Commissioner Koester
Also Present:
Frank Rivera, Associate Traffic Engineer; Shirley Buxton, Recording
Secretary; Roberto Saucedo, Senior Civil Engineer, and Alex AI-Agha,
Civil Engineer
2. Pledoe of Alleeiance/Silent Praver
3. Ooenine Statement Rea.d by Vice Chair Padilla
4. Aooroval of Minutes August 13, 1992
No action taken.
MEETING AGENDA
5. REPORT Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue Street Improvements
Frank Rivera reported that the proposed South Chula Vista Library was to be located on the southeast
corner of Fourth and Orange Avenues. The library was designed to be 37,000 square feet with parking
around the perimeter. Staff was looking for a recommendation from the Safety Commission regarding
the street improvements needed in this area. The traffic volumes on Orange Avenue and Quintard
Street were reviewed. Mr. Rivera said that staff reviewed several design proposals for this area.
The first design proposal was a single left turn lane from westbound Orange Avenue to southbound
Fourth Avenue. The proposed median would allow access in and out of the library from Orange
Avenue. Currently, the north side of Orange Avenue did not contain street improvements in most
areas, but was asphalt berm.
The second alternative staff reviewed was also a single left turn lane at Fourth Avenue, but the median
proposal was changed to allow for U turns on Orange A venue at the access driveway to the library.
Staff did not recommend this proposal because of the awkwardness of a U-turn at this mid-block
intersection.
The last alternative reviewed by staff involved dual left turn lanes at Fourth Avenue. The median and
all other improvements would be moved to the south to allow for five lanes on westbound Orange
A venue which would narrow the eastbound lanes on Orange A venue and U-turns would be prohibited.
Mr. Rivera reported that staff preferred the first design proposal, the single left turn lane at Fourth
A venue. He then reviewed the Chula Vista Design Standards regarding four lane major streets and the
comments from area residents during a meeting held between staff and residents on February 23,
1993.
DB/mis McKIBSky, 347 Ouintard SUBBt. Chulll Vista, CA 97971, said he and his neighbor discussed
the letter received from the City which stated the library might affect traffic in the area. He said he
.:J J- ')
U"\r~.""r"QC"I' r... n
: ~1'~..:JC" ....: ,..JI .. I! "'\ ~
~,,":''''''-J!J ~t.;'ii...~U!ci
, "! ""'''U-~tf.''
,iii~&~ M r;;;.~
Safety Commission Minutes
February 26, 1993
Page 2
polled the neighbors on Ouintard Street and EI Lugar about making the west end of Ouintard Street a
cul-de-sac. He said it was almost unanimous to make Ouintard Street a cul-de-sac. It would eliminate
the awkwardness of the intersection of Ouintard Street and Orange A venue. It would make Orange
Avenue a through street for Third Avenue to Fourth Avenue. Mr. McKlesky reviewed the traffic
volumes and commented that there was more traffic westbound on Quintard Street, which was a
residential street, than there was on westbound Orange Avenue. The proposal made by staff to put
a median on Orange Avenue would cut off truck traffic travelling from Third Avenue to Fourth Avenue.
Rosemary Contr",as, 330 Orange Avenue, Chula Vislll, CA 91911 said when she tried to exit her
driveway, it was dangerous because the street was narrow and residents of the neighboring apartment
complex parked their vehicles on the street. She said she would like to see Orange Avenue widened.
She said there was nothing to provide safe walking means for the children from lauderbach School.
She said there would be more traffic and pedestrians from lauderbach School crossing Orange A venue
and felt it should be widened.
Brad Lanier, 366 Quintard Street, Chula Vista, CA 91911 said there had been two accidents in front
of his home. One was a hit and run accident and another damaged his property. This was a residential
street and not a four lane major street which Orange Avenue was. Southbound traffic on Third Avenue
used Ouintard Street to shortcut to Orange A venue and created a heavy traffic flow. There was more
traffic from 5:00 pm to 7:00 am on Ouintard Street than between the hours of 7:00 am to 5:00 pm.
Traffic was heaviest during the time when children were outside. He said he had taken walks and said
"range Avenue was treacherous. Improvements on the north side Orange Avenue needed to make
conjunction with the library as well as making Ouintard Street a cul-de-sac. If improvements were
made to wait, Orange Avenue would be a safety hazardous. If Ouintard were made a cul-de-sac, it
would cut down the majority of traffic that headed west. It was his understanding that whenever the
City wanted to cul-de-sac a street, there was great opposition, but that the residents in this area were
united.
Clifford Gonzalves, 1369 EILugar Street, Chula Vista, CA 91911 was concerned about the speed limit
on Orange Avenue and said staff had indiciated that if the speed limit were lowered, this area would
be considered a speed trap. He said that there would be many children going to the library and
crossing a newly widened street, but yet staff did not want to lower the speed limit.. . He said that a
car dealership on Broadway had a yellow flashing crosswalk, but there was nothing provided for
children trying to access a library. He said originally, he was not for making Ouintard Street a cul-de-
sac, but now he felt this would improve the area. His biggest concern was the speed limit on Orange
Avenue, especially since the north side of Orange Avenue was all residential.
Mr. McKlesky returned to the podium and said that one block south of the library was Montgomery
Elementary School and on Palomar Street and Fourth A venue was lauderbach School. He felt as soon
as the library was completed, it would be a popular field trip for students. The pedestrian
accommodations on the east side of Fourth Avenue between Lauderbach School and Orange Avenue
were inadeQuate or non-existent in most places. He felt that this could not be ignored and the problem
should be addressed at this time, not later.
Mrs. Contreras returned to the podium and said that Orange Avenue had different speed limits. She
said in the area of the library the speed limit should be lowered because she had difficulty backing out
of her driveway on Orange Avenue.
vice Chair Padilla closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Matacia said that staff was asking the Commission to address several issues, and
wanted to take one issue and address it through to resolution. He asked staff to discuss the cul-de-sac .3 J - r
issue on Ouintard Street. " ~- ''''''''-''_''''': ",.. ," - ... C ,,"" '"f. ''"":!'~1''
~..'.~ '--'c..- ...'~..J..-.~~_..~_:-=. L .,;t.:.~u'~..;:...:'; ,~~
Safety Commission Minutes
February 26, 1993
Page 3
Frank Rivera said at this time, Ouintard Street was not part of the library improvement project. The
improvement project was limited to the centerline of Orange A venue south and also the centerline of
Fourth Avenue east. The residents requested the City to consider a cul-de-sac as part of the library
improvements or the north curb line street improvements on Orange A venue which would be
completed ir a few years. The funding for the project wa.s limited to the library improvements and did
not include the north curbline. Staff would not ignore the residents request regarding Ouintard Street,
but it was not part of the library improvements. Staff requested the Safety Commission make a
recommendation regarding Ouintard Street.
Commissioner Matacia said that if Ouintard Street were made a cul-de-sac, then the design that staff
presented allowing a U-turn mid-block would be unnecessary. He asked if this was a project that could
be considered now.
Roberto Saucedo, Senior Civil Engineer, said what was before the Commission were the improvements
of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. He said the Engineering Division would look at possibility of
addressing Ouintard Street in the future. Ouintard Street was categorized a major street and had a
potential to impact many other motorists. Staff was not prepared to present pros and cons for making
Ouintard Street a cul-de-sac. Staff was committed to look at preparing a study on this issue.
Chair Braden said if Ouintard Street was made a cul-de-sac, then vehicles would then be pushed onto
Third Avenue and would cause congestion. She then asked if Orange Avenue would be widened.
Mr. Rivera said that staff had not prepared a traffic study of the Third Avenue corridor, but that all
traffic factors would be included in a study. Orange Avenue would be widened to 80' including street
improvements.
Commissioner Pitts asked if ,making Ouintard Street a cul-de-sac would affect Orange Avenue.
Alex AI.Agha, Civil Engineer, said staff was designing improvements for Ouintard Street that would
match the north side of Orange Avenue. Staff was constructing the southerly half of the improve-
ments and in the future would install improvements on the north side of Orange Avenue. At that point,
staff would look at the feasibility of making Ouintard Street a cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Pitts asked speed limit information for the surrounding areas. He said he traveled
Ouintard Street and had seen commercial trucks use this street to access Third A venue. He felt speed
limits on Orange Avenue needed to be reduced. On Fourth Avenue in this area, there were no
improvements to be used by pedestrians. Children would be traveling to the library and the speed
needed to be reduced for the safety of pedestrians in the area. He said students in the various school
districts were already talking of the new library and he anticipated that this would be a high volume
area where traffic needed to be slowed down. He requested an explanation of the median design and
justifications.
Frank Rivera reviewed the medians designs and their traffic flows.
Commissioner Pitts asked if a motorist existing the library could make a left had turn across Orange
Avenue and head west toward Fourth Avenue.
Mr. Rivera said that this would be an allowed maneuver.
Vice Chair Padilla verified that there was controlled pedestrian crossings at Fourth Avenue and Orange
Avenue. He then said that if staff were to look at a mid-block crossing, would it change the
recommendafon of the southern improvements.
- ..-.- ~.-
,
~ ,"'
t.". r r ,..-;:c::-r.
. )" .
: '_"':" L ;......;;..
J 1-- ~
Safety Commission Minutes
February 26, 1993
Page 4
Mr. AI-Agha said a mid-block crossing would not be recommended because there were no street
improvements on the north side and the road was narrow with no sidewalk and would not want
pedestrian traffic on the north side of Orange Avenue. In the future, when the north side was
improved, this crossing could be reviewed.
Chair Thomas asked if pedestrian traffic to the library was considered as an issue when the library was
proposed.
Mr. Rivera said the pedestrian traffic was expected to use the intersections of Fourth Avenue and
Orange Avenue, and Third Avenue and Orange Avenue.
Mr. Saucedo informed the Commission that the City would be addressing the improvements on Fourth
Avenue from Maln Street to L Street through a CIP project. In the next fiscal year, staff hoped to
improve Fourth Avenue between Oel Rey High School to Main Street which would address the
pedestrian issue on Fourth Avenue. The library would not be in operation until August 1994. By that
time, staff should have a majority of the improvements installed since it was pertinent to the library
construction.
Chair Thomas presented to the Commission the idea of constructing a modified left turn median on
Orange Avenue allowing left turns into the library, but not out of the library. He said if the median
were left open, there would be enough room for a vehicle to sit in the middle of the street waiting to
make a left hand turn. Vehicles would have to make sure they were out of both lanes of traffic flow.
If motorists were turning left into the library, vehicles trying to exit the library trying to make a left
lnd turn out of the library would bottleneck the opening in the median. He suggested a median that
,ould allow dual left hand turns at Fourth Avenue from Orange Avenue and allowed U-turns.
Commissioner Pitts said he preferred to prohibit left turns out of the library, but left hand turns into
the library would be acceptable. He said if a left turn was allowed from Orange Avenue into the
library, then there would not be a need for a U-turn at Fourth Avenue.
Mr. Rivera said that staff could not provide a U-turn with dual left turn lanes at Fourth Avenue because
of the width of the street and the median. If a single left turn was installed, a U-turn could still be
allowed. He also informed the Commission that staff was mandated by the State to re-evaluate the
speed of any street which was widened or modified, therefore, staff would be reviewing the speed on
Orange A venue in the future.
MSC (Chidester/Pitts) to install a modified left turn median on Orange Avenue In front of the library,
thus prohibiting left turns from the library to westbound Orange, install a single left hand turn lana from
Orange Avenue to Fourth Avenue. and prohibit U-turns at the intersection. Approved 6-0-' with
Commissioner Koester absent.
Commissioner Pitts asked staff why they requested a median extension on Fourth Avenue which
prohibited left hand turns into the library parking lot.
Mr. Rivera said if a motorist was travelling south on Fourth Avenue, they could make a left turn onto
Orange Avenue and access the library from Orange Avenue. If a motorist wanted to exit the library
and head south on Fourth Avenue, the motorist could use the west exit and go north on Fourth Avenue
and make a U-turn at Orange Avenue to travel south on Fourth Avenue. Mr. Rivera said that there
"'as not enough room on Fourth Avenue to allow for a left turn lane.
MSC (ChidesterfThomasl to install a full raised median on Fourth Avenue south of Orange Avenue.
prohibiting left turns in and out of the library. Approved 6-0-' with Commissioner Koester absent.
u~:o:~ ,.",;>"':,r.-,,\ " ..,
.... ' .. .....~. . .
"\i~':.J W l..-:;:;~L--'..._i.i:.;;:
"'''''I!NUr-
; .. _ ~ I'. -. . ,
hic,l:1i i
.31-/0
Safety Commission Minutes
February 26, 1993
Page 5
MSC (MatacialThomasl to recommend that staff look at the possibility of making Ouintard Street a cul-
de-sac in conjunction with the Orange Avenue north line improvements CIP project.
Commissioner Pitts asked about the residents concern for left turn phasing on Ouintard Street at Third
Avenue.
Mr. Rivera reported that if a motorist was on Ouintard Street and desired to make a left turn to Third
Avenue, there was no green arrow and the residents reQuested separate left turn phasing. The only
modification needed would be to the signal itself, no additional striping would be needed.
Commissioner Pitts said that if Ouintard Street were made a cul-de-sac, the traffic through the area
would be reduced.
Mr. Rivera stated that if this intersection were evaluated for left turn phasing, staff would most likely
find that the demand for this function would be decreased if a cul-de-sac was present.
Commissioner Pitts asked when funds could be available to make Ouintard Street a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Saucedo said if a study showed that a cul-de-sac should be constructed, it would be approximately
a few years before it would happen.
VOTE ON MOTION: Approved 6-0-1 with Commissioner Koester absent.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None.
STAFF REPORTS
7. Written Communications - None
OTHER BUSINESS
8. Commissioner Comments None.
9. RECESS to Regular Monthly Workshop Session (If necessary)
AQJOURNMENT
Vice Chair Padilla adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
/1
'i~Ul .b(1-~
irley Buxton, ecording Secretary
u ~"~~ ~
.__ ~~,... .--:- ""; r. "
~ re, ~'l..~U-~
",,, r r
L...... _;.;~ ;.
.:J) - J / 0303.3
$8:SAFETYI022113.MlN
_- iii ..~"".:.r--...:..;;..
DRAFT MINUTES
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MARCH 24, 1993
LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM
3:35 PM
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Viesca,
Trustees Donovan, Lathers, Williams
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
wilson (excused)
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Alex Al-Agha, Associate civil Engineer;
David Palmer, Acting Library Director;
Frank Rivera, Assoc. Traffic Engineer;
Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer;
Roberto Saucedo, Sr. civil Engineer;
OTHERS PRESENT:
William S. Burton, Burton Associates;
Luis Carreira, citizen; Robert Coye,
citizen; Gustavo Garcia, citizen; Isabel
Garcia, Chula vista High School; Maria
Lopez, Chula vista High School, Maria
Garcia Marshall, citizen; John Mattox,
LPA, Inc.; Betty Roche, Friends Liaison;
Joe Yee, LPA, Inc.; Cristina Zamora,
Chula vista High School.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of February 24, 1993
MSC (AlexanderjViesca) that the minutes of the February 24,
1993 meeting be approved with the following corrections:
Page six, paragraph two, line four be corrected to read "an
interest in fiscal responsibility", and page three, section A,
paragraph two, be changed to read, "The Act, which recently
went into effect,". Approved 4-0-1 with Trustee Wilson
absent.
II. CONTINUED MATTERS
A. South Chula vista Library
1. Fourth and Orange Street Improvement
JJ-J.2-
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 2 -
MARCH 24, 1993
Acting Director Palmer introduced members of the
City's Design and Traffic Engineering Divisions to
discuss the street widening project. Alex AI-Agha,
proj ect Engineer, explained that the street
improvements portion of the Library proj ect is
limited to Library frontage along Fourth and Orange
Avenues. Orange Avenue will be widened
approximately 50% with all the improvements
occurring on the south side, while sidewalks and
curbs will be installed along Fourth Avenue.
The Safety Commission, a group of citizens whose
primary concern is traffic safety, reviewed and
approved on February 26, 1993 the City's plans for
street widening with the addition of a center
median on Orange Avenue that would allow a left
turn into the Library grounds, but prevent a left
turn out of the library going west on Orange
Avenue. In addition, the center median on Fourth
Avenue would prevent left turns into and out of the
Library property. The Library Board had received
the minutes of the February 26th Safety Commission
meeting in their packet.
Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer, reported that
Fourth and Orange Avenues are major, high-volume
streets designed to carry 25,000 to 30,000 cars per
day. with the continued build-out of the city and
further commercialization within the area, traffic
volume will increase. The construction of islands
on the streets are necessary to control and channel
traffic.
3/-/3
,.
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 3 -
MARCH 24, 1993
Chairman Alexander asked if the center median would
have a fence to prevent children from crossing
Orange Avenue. Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic
Engineer, answered that the median is primarily to
provide a delineation for the cars and would not
prevent pedestrians from crossing mid-block. He
explained that City policy is to educate the public
not to cross mid-block, which in this case would be
illegal. Landscaping planned for the median that
may discourage casual crossing.
Acting Director Palmer reported that the issue of
preventing a left turn from Orange Avenue had been
discussed by the Safety Commission and at the town
meeting at the Otay Community Center in January. A
number of residents attending these meetings
expressed concern that.traffic would increase along
Quintard and El Lugar Streets. The center median
configuration approved by the Safety Commission
would prevent individuals from making a left turn
out of the library lot on Orange Avenue onto
Quintard. Mr. Palmer stated he was originally
opposed to this configuration but learned that it
is not uncommon to find a one way exit at large
facilities, shopping centers and the post office.
At certain times of the day traffic on Quintard is
a high as on Orange Avenue. He recommended that
the Library Board support the Safety commission's
recommendation.
Chairman Alexander opened the meeting to members of
the public for comment.
Maria Garcia Marshall asked:
JI'IL-j
.
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 4 -
MARCH 24, 1993
(1) How graffiti would be controlled at the new
library;
(2) The street setback for houses that would be
affected with the widening of Fourth Avenue;
(3) What would happen to the duplex at the corner
of Fourth and Orange; and
(4) How much parking would be accommodated at the
new library.
Mr. AI-Agha stated that Fourth Avenue would be
widened only in front of the new library. Property
north of Orange Avenue will not be affected. The
zoning setback is 20-25 feet between the driving
lane and existing houses.
Acting Director Palmer stated that the new library
would have 175 parking spaces, 20 more than the
library at 365 F Street.
John Mattox, LPA, Inc., answered that graffiti had
been a concern at every public meeting held for the
South Chula vista Library. Some preventative
measures to be incorporated in the new building
would be an adequate setback from the street,
lighting, thorny landscaping, and graffiti-proof
paint.
Mr. Carreira questioned whether Library users would
be able to make a left turn from Orange onto
Quintard. Mr. AI-Agha explained that a center
median would prevent a left turn onto Quintard.
City Traffic Engineer
during meetings with
Rosenberg reported
representatives of
that
the
.3/'15
.'
.
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 5 -
MARCH 24, 1993
neighborhood, residents petitioned the City to
design the project making Quintard a cuI de sac.
This may occur during the next phase of street
improvements to Orange Avenue, but is not a part 0
the current project.
MSC (ViescajDonovan) that the median at Orange be
effectuated as stated for the ingress and egress
from the Library at Orange and Fourth. Approved 4-
0-1 with Trustee Wilson absent.
J)-//P
. . . . . . . . . . . ) ) .. " . . io . . .. .
;; c
~
~ c
~ ~
'" c
m ~
~ ~
~ c ~
~ '" z
~ , e:. ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~
~ , ~ ~ e
'" ~ ~
~ ~ e'
~ s ~
~ e ~
, ~ ~
.. c ~ ~
'" ~. ~
ez e~ em e e
~~ ~- " ~ '^
.om o~ . ~~ ~ O~
~ '" .o ~ u
oc ; o~ oz 0 o~
~~ j ~~ ~~ ~ H
~> t ~~ ~ ~~
1 ~c I ~~ > H
~'" ~~ ~ ~o
"''-' "'~ ;, .:IZ D DD
-. ...4jo"'0I~. i"~~--
1 c
E ~
, . :!!
. ,
~ m Z C
~ . L
~ ~ . ..
~ , . ~ E " , .
z ~ m ~ , "
~ ~ ~
Z
"
>
,
~
" ~
,,~
0 00
~ ~~
~ ~
" ,,~
~ n
, ,~
~ ~o
~ 'z
.o "'c
, ;;
~
E
0 .
z '!; .
.
~ ~ ~ ~
~ z .
~ , z <> ~
, . . , ,
~ ~ ~
~ c
~ , e .
. s l . ~
, '" c ~
. '" . ,
.;.::~~ ~ '" -
~
_.;<\~ o. 0"
". o.
"'. m
~-*-~-. c"l"..",~ .~ ~.
0 oc
.. :.~A{ '''' ~~ ~~
, .,~ ~~
~*,i'''''''"'iii.+; ,'~;i; ~. ~,
~o ~~
"'S DO
"< < <, .. " <f'~"'= cr . ~ .",
~
~ ~ u
i ~ . ~ c
~ ~ ~ ..
c . ~ ~
c '" ~ ~
c . ~ L ~ ~
~ , , ~ ~
~ . , , ~
~ c " .
, ~ 0 li ':: ~
. .. i ,
~ . ~ :; ~
. c ze
u C~ ~ Z ~
~ . ~o c . ~
. c ~o . ~ . 0;;:
om o. e ~ 0 e~ co
0 0, e~o 00 0 e", 00
~'" ~c ~~o ~~ ~c ~~ ~o
~~ ~ ~~o .o~ .oe .o ~
,,~ o~ ~~ .. ~. ~~ ~..
..- ~c ~~- ..c ..- ..~ ..~
~. ~- ~. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
... ~~ ..~~ ~~ ..~ ~.. ~~
~'" ~. ~~~ 'c ~~ ,. ~-
.o~ .o, .o'~ .o~ .oL .oL .o,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ ..< . -'-- ,~ .,..
~ }
, 3) ...) ?
,
.>~. :..~~~ Ji:':';.-~J."~;.;<i"- -------,~,~
~ ,
-It -
. ..", ,
,'If(' ,~ ..", ., 'i,'; ,
t~ 1'"' lit
J .
, & J '* ~
f It,
$
\ J j
i . " J
j
..
~ .." i f 1f
"'~' ~ 'fI t
.:. .~ "
i , .
, g
.~ 'f .~ '. J "
, )
j " , j
,~ ~, ;t,'
, , I
It
"'" i ,
,
,#'
\, t: f
f '4
if ~1 r
''', ~ '- {'>
. t' ~ f
i 1 i.
" ! ;', ,
'~ ~
1 & , , i
1 I
4'
1{ l' ~
4f l' f. <If .,
r ,
~ 1 '" r ;:,l
i:
& t
w ~. "
I J ~!..
,
loo' ',f ~ 1 J.l
i J 1 i .. "
. , j. ~.,
) ) ) ) t . , , t
~ '" ~
~ e
~ %
0
% ~
~ , ~ ~
0 e ~
~ 0
0 0 e
~ ~
~ -' e 0
~ > -'
-' ~ 0 0 e
u ~ -' ~ ~
0 o~ oe 0 o~
,~ 0' >z >.~ ,~
O~ ..~ ~o ~e ~
h D 0" O~ ~~
0-' 0% 0 Ow 0-'
~e "" ..~ U <=>
~~ ~~ 00 O~ 0%
n ~U ~Z ~% ~~
~O ~W ~e ~O ~~
,,~ OZ U .o;.J. h
~
'" ~ ~
~ % ~
. ..
:;; e ~ ..,
~ .
. e "
'" ~ . ,
, ~ ::> ~ -'
U " ~ U
~ % % ~
.. > . 0
. % %
, , % Z
U ~ ~ ~
" U
~ ~ % ~
o~ O~ 0 ::>~ o'
00 O~ ou Ow Ow
~~ ~. "~ ". ,
~ ~-' ON O~ 0%
", " ,. 0.. ,::>
.~ .~ a <u ~~
'" ,'" , OU n
..0 ... ~~ ~ ~%
~z ~% NO "u '"
". ,,~ ,,~ "'" ,,~
;:
u ~~ "
..u
~ 0 ,. ::
. ~~ ~
'" .. .~ z 0
~ u e 0 0 0
E U ~ 0.. E ~
U ~ ~ , ~ ;:: .. 0: ~ ~
e ~ E ~~ ~ ~ ~
, % 0 <:
~ 0 0 u .
~ u ~
u ~. .. , ~.
~ , %0 ~ ': ~
u " ,. .
0 ~o ~ . '"
z uu ,
0- 0 ~ 0::> O~ 0%
O. O~o "u ~z 0"
..~ "w~ ~ M ..~
,. I;I"'~ "" ~ ~..,
0'" O~ 0% o. ~~
~ ~~- <.. <Z
~~ NU O~ ".. O~
..~ .3'-,,)'" ~~ ~u ~z
~::> ~u~ ~. NW N::>
DL .o~...J, "u ou U
~~
>u E
e Ie
~ ~ -' ~~ ..
::> ~~ ~ ..,
. ~ 0 "
. ! "w ~ ::
u ~ ,,~
w ~ e ~
% ~~ ~
, ~~ 0 ::>
u >0 0 ~ ~
~.., ~ ~
0 -~ . ~
" e ::> u "
~ ~ ~'" 0
e U w ~ uz
0 ou O~ 0 0_.. 0 u_
0 0_ 00 0 OE O~ o~ oe,
" ~~ ~" ~ ".U N. "0 ~.
" ~ ~ ~ O~- ~~ ~" ~
u o. o~ 0 0 ~ u.. u U~
.. "N ..w .. <~% U ..w ~e
N N_ ~u ~ ou o~ ou o~
.. ... ..u .. ~..o ~% ~% ~~
~ ~~ ~- ~ ~~, NO N~ N.
" ,,IJ.. "'" " ,,~u "u ,,~ ".
(; 0 C 0 0 0 :' I') , ) ) ) t . . . )
---~-----
_."f;- -:--~
",:_~ -Ir'
f' 31
-~..
~'L-
-
.....
..,. 1f'
'" e ..,
'fit ~ ~ t
"
t
'\j'
,
I ,
" .~ 1 ,
~ ,j'J I 'i
:i J , 1 t
j j , ,
j .~ j
.. ..
""
t{' ~'
.,. 'Ii , ' ~ ~
J
~, 1~ I'- 1 ~
w
"~' '.; ',1
, "'. , ~
1
I t ) ., '1
;\, ~ "
J ~ "
r:l; , r,
" j "l
J .~ '. " :.
,'~' J j ,i 11
, j J ,
"
,
"
f .. 'f{ -<'
'1,. " '" l' - 1
\',: - ..", -:
f , .~
~ ~ ,
, ;;;i i; t l,I ,':
. J "*: }>
j t .~ ~~ ;., ~
;1
iJ' \l i~ ,I ~ " J
i j , "'$.
i .~ J J J ,
" ~
., .", ,
'1If' "
\. ." "! 'f
"~ .,
.. . ,
t~
\. 'I
,,:ji ','
.ilI . ;~ l i
.
If. J
I~ .<11 j 'I
, ~4 ~. f: ~
j III .- J I
,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item .3.2.
Meeting Date04/13/93
ITEM TITLE:
Report Requesting Approval in Concept of
Granting a Franchise for Multi-family Recycling
Collection Services to Laidlaw
SUBMITTED BY:
Conservation coord~ator~
City Manager.J~~X~A (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
U Referral #2720
REVIEWED BY:
At the January 26, 1993 City Council meeting (meeting minutes are
contained in Attachment A) , . staff brought forward recommendations for
expansion of City recycling programs to include residential
yardwaste, commercial and mUlti-family, in accordance with the city's
goals to meet the requirements of the California Integrated Waste
Management Act (AB 939) and the County of San Diego's Mandatory
Recycling Ordinance. At that time, Council directed staff to
negotiate with Laidlaw Waste systems, Inc. for the exclusive
franchise to collect recyclables from mUlti-family residences.
Laidlaw's proposal for mUlti-family recycling is contained in
Attachment B. The proposal meets satisfactorily with staff's
concerns and staff recommends that Council accept the proposal in
concept for the purposes of negotiating a franchise with Laidlaw for
the multi-family recycling program. The proposal is discussed in
this report.
Conceptual approval is being recommended in advance of a draft
franchise because of Council's expressed concern about the potential
impact to Chula vista rate payers. with Council approval, staff will
return with the proposed franchise and begin the Charter required
process of giving the notice of intention to grant the franchise for
multi-family recycling collection services, followed by a public
hearing on the first reading of the proposed franchise ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the report and direct staff to draft the
franchise and a resolution giving notice of intention to consider
granting to Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. a franchise for Citywide
residential multi-family recycling collection services.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation
commission discussed this report at their March 22 meeting and
unanimously (4-0-2 absent) supported staff's recommendations to
Council. Minutes of the meeting are contained in Attachment C.
3~-J
DISCUSSION:
Approximately 40 percent of the housing in Chula vista is multi-
family dwellings of five units or more. The Citywide multi-family
recycling program would provide cOllection services to approximately
22,000 residences.
Neootiation process
staff was directed by Council to negotiate a resolution to address
concerns with Laidlaw's ability to adequately perform the needed
services in terms of program design expertise, appropriate and
adequate staffing, program promotion to residents, customer service
and satisfactory program implementation. These concerns were
developed into a detailed list of design and implementation
specifications for the mUlti-family recycling program contained in
Attachment D.
This information was presented to Laidlaw and later discussed in a
series of meetings. staff is now comfortable that the proposal has
been developed into a comprehensive plan that will meet the City's
needs well; all concerns have been addressed and the proposed cost
appears reasonable based upon rates charged in other cities.
Summarv of Laidlaw's proposal
. A Laidlaw staff member will be assigned to the mUlti-family
recycling program, not less than half-time.
All materials designated under the mandatory recycling
ordinance will be collected on a weekly basis.
A pilot program will commence prior to July with phased
citywide implementation by October 1, 1993 (to meet the
requirements of the mandatory recycling ordinance).
Each mUlti-family unit will receive a 6-gallon "apartment
recycler" bin; complexes will be provided with an appropriate
number of three-yard bins and/or 90 gallon carts, depending on
space constraints. It should be noted that the exact exterior
container configuration has not yet been determined and Laidlaw
and city staff may decide to exclusively use 90 gallon carts.
. $.10 per unit (i.e., individual multi-family residence) per
month has been allocated for ongoing promotional activities.
Replacement of bins for new tenants (estimated at 20 percent per
year) has been built into the estimated program costs. Laidlaw
will conduct the promotional activities under direction of
staff.
2
J;J.~~
Term of Franchise
similar to the franchise agreement for the curbside recycling
program, the proposed length of franchise will be until the year
2002. However, this term would include a two year notice of intent
to cancel the franchise that may be given at any time by the city
without cause, following the initial three year term of the program.
Laidlaw has asked, however, that if the City decides for some reason
to abandon completely its source-separated recycling program (e.g.,
to go to a mixed-waste system where recyclables are not separated for
collection at the curb, but are instead taken to a facility and
sorted) prior to the tenth year of program operation, that an
appropriate rate adjustment provision be included in the franchise to
provide for any unamortized vehicle costs.
Because the vehicles to be used for the multi-family program cost
considerably more that those used for the curbside program
(approximately $100,000 per vehicle), Laidlaw is proposing to
amortize the vehicles for a period of 10 years, even though they
understand that staff is recommending that a five year notice could
be given. staff will explore with Laidlaw an appropriate rate
adjustment clause that could be included in the franchise which would
be activated if the city abandons a source-separated program in less
than 10 years. This clause would be brought to Council with the
proposed franchise along with an assessment of the potential monetary
impact on the City should we abandon source separated recycling as
well as an assessment of the charge to rate payers if the vehicles
are not amortized over 10 years.
Estimated charae per unit
The estimated net charge per apartment unit (i.e., individual
residence) for the proposed mUlti-family recycling program is $1.50.
Currently, the single-family residential recycling fee is $1.10. The
difference in costs are reasonable and justified because of the
higher costs associated with mUlti-family recycling. This includes
the need for both exterior and interior (household) bins for multi-
family recycling, whereas single-family only requires one bin; and,
lower volume and value of the recyclables anticipated to be generated
from the mUlti-family recycling program. principally, this is due to
the fact that more multi-family residents tend to recycle the higher
valued commodities ("California Redeemables"--aluminum cans and soda
bottles) on their own at buy-back centers or redemption vending
machines.
Additionally, because of the high turnover in mUlti-family residences
and the diverse population, participation tends to be lower, thus
generating fewer recyclables per residence, as compared to single-
family. Moreover, although both Laidlaw and City staff will work
closely with property manager's and tenant organizations to encourage
participation, enforcement of participation will be difficult.
Material contamination is also usually higher (e.g., disposing of
3
3';"3
trash or nonrecyclables in the recycling bins), leading to higher
processing fees.
The proposed fee also includes an 8 percent franchise fee (same as
single-family), amounting to approximately $0.12 per unit per month.
As with the single-family curbside program, the rates for multi-
family recycling will be reviewed on an annual basis. If the actual
costs for operating the program are under what they are estimated,
the fee would be adjusted accordingly in the subsequent rate period.
The cost of the mUlti-family program has been derived using the same
formula used for the single-family program, where program
participants get the benefit of revenues from the sale of materials
and credit for the amount of recyclables not going to the landfill.
The estimated cost breakdown is contained in the chart below, with a
comparison to the single-family recycling program. (NOTE: Estimated
single-family material sales and landfill diversion credits were
established during the rate review last conducted in August 1992.
These components should not be compared directly to the multifamily
rate components, which have been estimated based upon expected
participation. These estimates would be reviewed yearly based upon
actual program data.)
sinq1e Family Multi-family
Total Service Cost $1. 88 $2.00
Est. Materials Sales (0.31) (0.20)
Est. Landfill Diversion (0.45) (0.30)
County Grants (0.02) (0)
Net Resident Cost $1.10 $1.50
Attachment E contains an updated rate survey for mUlti-family
recycling in the San Diego County region. Unfortunately, most of the
cities have not set a rate yet for mUlti-family recycling as they are
waiting for the annual landfill tipping fee increases to go into
effect in order to implement all fees at the same time. As these
cities are in North County, they were required to implement multi-
family recycling last fall and thus these programs were implemented
after the annual tipping fee increases.
Chula vista will be required to implement mUlti-family recycling
between July and October, thus in order to have only one annual rate
increase, the recycling rate charge can be instituted in July when it
is expected that the landfill tipping fees will be raised. (staff is
moving forward with this report, and the franchise if approved, in
order that pilot programs may be implemented prior to July. Laidlaw
will not charge for the pilot programs.)
4
.3.2-J-j
staff has contacted several haulers in the area who feel that $1.50
is approximately the rate that it costs to operate mUlti-family
recycling programs. staff also contacted a few other cities in the
state that have citywide mUlti-family recycling to get fee
information: West Hollywood charges $1.48 per unit and Santa Monica
charges $1.80 per unit.
senior and Low-income discount
The discount given to seniors and low income individuals receiving
single family curbside recycling is conceptually different from the
services necessary for mUlti-family recycling, as multi-family
residents do not pay for refuse disposal directly. In the single
family curbside program, seniors are either billed directly at the
reduced rate or pay the reduced rate when purchasing trash bags
through the "yellow bag" program.
All billing for the mUlti-family recycling program will be done
through property managers or building owners. If a discount for
seniors and low income families is desired by Council, a plan would
need to be devised that would ensure that the property owner actually
only charges the discounted fee to the resident or establishes a
system to reimburse applicants directly. Staff recommends against
considering a senior/low income discount due to the complexities
involved and the concern about the City's inability to ensure a fair
process in a cost-effective manner.
Mobile Home Parks
To conform with the mandatory recycling ordinance, it is necessary to
begin offering services to residents at mobile home parks, to be
phased in with the mUlti-family recycling program. Because of the
nature of mobile home parks, collection would be either similar to
single family curbside collection or multi-family, bulk-bin
collection, depending on the type of refuse collection services
received at the respective mobile home park and space limitations.
The cost per unit would be $1.10 for those mobile home parks that
receive curbside collection and $1.50 per unit for those that receive
bulk bin pick-up. Staff will work with Laidlaw to determine on a
case-by-case basis the particular services necessary.
Conclusion
Staff chose to bring this report to Council for conceptual approval
of the proposed mUlti-family recycling program in Chula vista in
light of the potential impact upon the multi-family residents ("rate
payers"). Again, staff feels that due to the complexities of the
program, the proposed rate is reasonable and is the lowest rate that
the city would receive. Eventually, as the landfill tipping fees
continue to increase, multi-family residents will realize cost
savings through recycling because mUlti-family complexes are charged
on a per volume basis for refuse.
5
:J';~ S'
F:ISCAL :IMPACT: There is no impact because of this report. The
proposed service charges to be included in the franchise will be paid
by the rate payers and there will be no direct City cost. The rate
includes a proposed 8 percent franchise to be paid to the City, and
additional franchise fees to the city can be anticipated at
approximately $31,600 per year.
IITTI9t.IIN€AJrS
NOT SCANNED
6
J,,2't,
Attachment A
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 6
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
11. REPORT PROPOSFD COMMERaAL, INDUSTRIAL MULTI-FAMILY AND YARDWASrn
RECYCLING PROGRAMS IN TI-IE orr - State law (AB 939) requires all cities and counties to divert 25%
of the "waste stream" from landfills by January, 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. The County's mandatory
recycling ordinance is more restrictive and prohibits certain designated recyclables from being disposed at
County owned landfills under a phased implementation timeline (March 1992 through July 1993). The City
has already partially complied with these laws and ordinances. Staff believes that the City needs to move
toward compliance with the State and County laws regarding recycling, and seeks Council's conceptual
approval to institute a yard waste recycling program, and a commercial and multi-family recycling program
development. Staff recommends Council accept the report. (Administration)
Councilman Fox questioned why Laidlaw could not handle a pricing variation for the commercial collection
when they were able to handle the variation in the yard waste collection.
Athena Bradley, Conservation Coordinator, responded that the stickers would be a set price for yard waste
which would be utilized by the owner as per their need. Commercial went beyond the billing and included
the services staff felt the businesses would need regarding frequency of pick-up, design and space, etc. There
were currently haulers in the City that were doing commercial hauling for free or for a very low rate. She
felt that Laidlaw or any single hauler could haul from all commercial establishments in the City but was
uncertain that it would be cost effective. Single family dwellings could have a landscape service that would
serve the same purpose. For a City-wide program of yard waste it was a matter of economies of scale. Yard
waste had no marketability currently whereas commercial recyclables did.
Councilman Rindone felt the structure of the bid was an effort to force the single family resident to seek a
different alternative than to utilize the prescribed the franchise hauler or haul it yourself. He expressed
concern that it would add more vehicles to the streets. He could not agree with the staff conclusion and
would not support the highest rate in San Diego County. He then reviewed the options listed in the staff
report and felt competition was the City's best option. He also felt there should be further discussion on
geographically breaking up the City into quadrants for competition for the commercial and industrial
recyclables.
Councilman Moore questioned what the maximum number of containers allowed on one sticker.
Ms. Bradley responded that it had not been discussed but believed that it would be one sticker for all the
containers utilized.
Alan Purves, 180 Dtay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA, representing Laidlaw, informed Council that for trash
collection it was unlimited service. The original proposal to the City was approximately eight months old
and Laidlaw had not received any response or feedback in that time frame. The original proposal was a pay
as you use system for yard waste and one sticker would apply to one container or one measured i>undle of
tree limbs.
Councilman Moore felt that a sticker should be more than one container and less than unlimited. He also
felt there should be a back-up system if the City was divided up in quadrants to ensure that all areas of the
City were being serviced.
.3:< ~ 7
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 7
Councilman Fox questioned how the number of quadrants was decided and the economic feasibility of
getting four haulers that could make a profit.
Ms. Bradley responded that four would allow for economies of scale to entice a hauler to collect from the
City. She felt that through her recommendation of a request for an RFQ it could be determined whether
there was interest in the proposal to collect recyclables from multi-family dwellings. In terms of whether
a hauler would not be able to fulfill their obligation, that risk would be with any project. Through the RFP
staff would look at the financial stability of a company and past performance.
Mr. Purvis stated they had raised objections to the staff report and recommendations. All of the materials
included in the staff report were already in an exclusive franchise granted to Laidlaw and they did not
believe the Council had any ability to put the services out to bid. Staff had been directed to obtain
information on the alternate recycling measures being imposed by the state and county and to meet and
confer with Laidlaw. They felt staff had not met that requirement. Their yard waste proposal had been
submitted on 12/10/91 and other than clarifying questions shortly after the submittal there had been no
further conference and nothing that was close to meeting the definitions of negotiations with Laidlaw which
was a prerequirement before putting the services out to bid. Another objection they had was that if Council
did proceed, Laidlaw would be in the position of competing with other haulers while their proposal was laid
out in the staff report including their prices. They did not feel that would foster free and open competition
as it was a disadvantage to Laidlaw.
Councilwoman Horton questioned whether the proposal included a universal rate charge.
Mr. Purvis stated they had responded to what they felt was staff direction which was the pay as you go
system. They had informed staff that they had looked at the option of providing a monthly fee where
everyone paid.
Mayor Nader requested a staff response to Mr. Purvis' allegation that there had not been an adequate meet
and confer prior to the meeting.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that Section 210) of the franchise gave the Council the right to go out
for competitive bidding on recycling after the City had met and conferred with the grantee with regard to
their intent to do so. Part of what was being done at the meeting was to see if the Council felt they wanted
to go out for competitive bid. Part of the recommendation was that the City had met and conferred to the
extent of getting the proposal. If the Council felt they wanted to go out to bid now they would have to
direct the staff by saying they wanted to go out to bid and meet and confer with Laidlaw, fmishing up the
process staff had started, regarding the intent of the City to go out to bid.
Mayor Nader questioned why, if the City allowed individual business owners to make their own
arrangements with individual haulers, was a permitting system required. He also questioned why a system,
with or without, permits result in an increase in traffic on City streets.
Ms. Bradley responded that a permit would allow the City to charge a permit application fee that would
potentially help to cover staff costs for monitoring the program or additional materials for commercial
recycling or a franchise fee. Through the permit process, staff could track the businesses that were being
served in order to get tonnages from the haulers and whether all the businesses required to recycle were in
compliance. Additionally, staff could assess the impact if there were too many haulers servicing a particular
area.
Mr. Purvis stated a permitting system would allow more haulers, as each business would be making their
own arrangements, so the efficiency of one hauler would be lost. Before the advent of AB939 and recycling
.3.2- rr
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 8
Laidlaw was already doing it for the City and had proven they could pick up all the material generated in
the City.
Ms. Bradley stated that Laidlaw could potentially service the City but whether that would be the best service
for businesses was her concern. She did not feel it would be as cost effective for the businesses if the City
awarded it to any single hauler.
Councilwoman Horton felt the City should go out to competitive bids and also looking at a universal rate
charge.
Councilman Rindone suggested that the City go out to bid two ways: 1) single hauler with an exclusive
franchise for all the City but would also provide the option for self-hauling, composting, etc.; 2) a universal
rate charge that would not allow the flexabilities but a greatly reduced charge to all residents. Council
would then have solid information on which to base their judgements.
Mayor Nader stated he wanted to make clear that included in the RFP would be a specification for an
appropriate rate differential for low-income.
Councilman Fox stated Council also wanted assurance that the City would not be fined by the County.
Mayor Nader stated he hoped, on a universal charge, there would be some way of voiding the charge to low-
income seniors altogether. He requested that a lener be obtained from the County regarding the charging
of penalties.
Councilman Moore stated he could not support a City-wide rate charge and expressed concern regarding the
sticker process.
City Anorney Boogaard requested that the maker of a motion incorporate into it the proposal to fmish up
the duty under the franchise agreement, which in Section I states the City had to meet and confer with
Laidlaw with regards to their intent to do so. The motion should be structured around yard waste which
was staff recommendation on page 11-1. The City would go out to bid and the concept of exclusivity would
be Council's intent City.wide but after going out to bid.
Mayor Nader stated that was consistent with his understanding of current Council direction but he did not
feel the City should be bound 100% by low bid.
City Anorney Boogaard recommended that it be a negotiated bid. The City would solicit bids and the City
would have the right to negotiate with the various bidders after that.
Councilman Rindone stated Council had not discussed the viable life of the franchise. He was not
comfortable with five years with an option for an additional five years.
Mayor Nader stated the RFP could request a response on a franchise of a five to ten year period and the
length of the franchise would be one of the factors staff and Council would take into account in evaluating
the responses. He felt a factor to consider when evaluating responses would be the extent of traffic and
expected wear and tear on the City. The RFP should be designed to evaluate those responses.
City Attorney Boogaard recommended Council consider: 1) On the condition the county will, in writing,
waive the fines for not recycling yard waste on or after 4/1/93, the City Council will adopt a policy that the
recyclable known as yard waste, which is tendered at curl> side throughout the City should be franchised
to a single hauler selected by an RFP process subject to subsequent negotiation as to terms and conditions.
3:l*'?
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 9
2) As a result of adopting the policy, Council direct staff to meet and confer with Laidlaw with regard to its
intent to go to bid, thereby sat:i:;fying the condition of the franchise. 3) Indicate an interest in receiving
RFP's regarding the following terms and conditions: a) a term of five years, or such other period that
minimizes the rates charged to either the City or its residents and include such options as the proposer
wishes to have the City consider; b) rates, both on a universal rate basis and a pay as you use basis; and
c) consider such discounts as may be made available to low income seniors. 4) Direct staff to solicit such
RFP's and if the County does not otherwise submit in writing to waive the fines for failing to recycle yard
waste, report back to the Council as soon as possible but not later than two weeks.
MS (Nader/Rindone) to approve the recommendation presented by City Attorney Boogaard.
Ms. Bradley questioned whether the alternative fees option that allowed back yard composting and the other
options proposed would be included in the RFP.
Mayor Nader stated that would be allowed under one of the options in the RFP but not under the second.
He felt the sticker system proposed by staff would be included in Option 1. He questioned whether the bid
would allow consideration of any and all other items pertinent to the bid.
City Anorney Boogaard responded that was correct.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
Mayor Nader requested that a copy of the RFP be given to Council in their information packets.
Councilman Moore questioned whether it was staffs intent to clarify in the RFP what a sticker covered, i.e.
single container or a CAP.
Ms. Bradley responded that Councilman Moore was correct.
Councilman Rindone questioned what guarantee there was that there would be weekly pick.ups.
Ms. Bradley responded she did not foresee a problem as the haulers were in the business to offer a service.
If a problem did arise staff would return to Council with a possible recommendation of a single hauler. She
stated the RCC had expressed concern over the number of permits that would be issued. There were
currently a number of haulers servicing the City and they had not negatively impacted the City.
MS (Nader/Moore) to accept staff recommendation regarding commercial recycling.
Councilman Rindone questioned what the staff recommendation would be to curb the unlimited number of
potential haulers. He also questioned how the City would ensure that all areas of the City would receive
sernce.
Ms. Bradley responded that a range of limitations could be placed on the permits, i.e. ten to fifteen small
haulers and five large haulers. The City could build into the permit process, if there was a charge for the
permits, a reduced fee for haulers that would collect from the smaller establishments or areas of the City
that did not have as much commercial development. She did not perceive a problem.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (RindoneIFox) to set a CAP of twenty on the number of permits issued.
Mayor Nader expressed concern that a CAP would close competition. It was his inclination to go with the
staff recommendation and if it did not work it could be brought back to Council for review.
32"'/0
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 10
Ms. Bradley responded that a CAP did place a limit on some of the competition as staff did not know
everyone in the business. The City could start with twenty haulers and request at a later date an increase
in permits if there were other haulers that wished to serve the City.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
Mayor Nader stated he had not seen the proposed commercial rates by Laidlaw included in the report.
Ms. Bradley responded that they had not been included in the summary.
Mayor Nader questioned whether there was a way the rate information could be provided confidentially.
He felt that if it developed that the system the Council was about to vote for was costing more than on the
average of what Laidlaw proposed, Council may want to reconsider.
City Attorney Boogaard stated if the Council was advised through a confidential memo there would be a
serious question as to whether the confidential memo constituted a public record of the City.
Mayor Nader questioned whether staff could take it upon themselves to monitor the rates being charged for
commercial hauling if the system was implemented and to advise the Council, if it would appear to be
prudent to reconsider the issue.
City Attorney Boogaard stated he would have to research the City's ability to cancel prior to five years if a
recyclable permit was issued. There was a state law incorporated into the Waste Management Act which
required five year notice of cancellation of solid waste handling enterprises. There was a risk that if the City
wanted to extricate from the permit system it could take time. He would research the issue and report back
to Council.
Councilman Rindone felt it advisable, if the motion passed, that staff return and address annual permits and
fee Structure.
Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate Councilman Rindone's request for a report on an annual permit
and fee structure into the motion as a friendly amendment.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: approved unanimously.
MS (Nader/Fox) to approve the staff recommendation for multi-family recycling.
Councilman Rindone questioned how the competitive sub.areas would be determined.
Ms. Bradley responded that staff would work with the Planning Department to ensure the sub-areas were
equitable. The proposed sub-areas were somewhat arbitrary and based on population and economies of
scale.
Councilwoman Horton questioned the rationale of four companies and why it would be more competitive
than going out to bid for one hauler.
Ms. Bradley responded there would be four different rates with four different haulers. The alternative option
from staff was to go out to bid for a single hauler.
J;L ,/ /
Minutes
January 26, 1993
Page 11
Mayor Nader questioned whether the bidding process could contain two different alternatives: 1) a sub-
quadrant of the City; and 2) City-wide. He did not feel the sub-areas would be competitive as they were not
competing with three other haulers because they had a monopoly within their sub-area of the City.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Nader/Moore) the process be bid alternatively: 1) the staff recommendation;
and 2) City-wide. The bids are to be brought back to Council for evaluation.
Councilman Rindone stated he did not accept the staff recommendation of rejecting Laidlaw as he felt it
should be accepted. He questioned staffs reasoning for the rejection.
Ms. Bradley responded there were two issues: 1) staff was working to meet with Council's direction to go
out to bid for additional recycling programs; and 2) staff had concern with the issues of Laidlaw's service
in the way of promotional material development and expertise in program design. If Council directed staff
to negotiate with Laidlaw on those issues staff was willing to do that.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Rindone/Nader) direct staff to negotiate on the area of all multi-family service
areas to resolve the outstanding issues. If during negotiations staff feels it is not clarified, they are to bring
the issue back to Council.
Councilman Rindone stated the motion was made to negotiate with Laidlaw regarding the servicing of all
the multi-family units City-wide and clarify the areas of concern, which had served as the basis of staffs
rejection of the proposal. If, after negotiating those concerns staff was unsatisfied, staff could bring back
a recommendation to reconsider.
Mayor Nader felt staff had made a good effort to implement previous Council direction to encourage
competition and made a recommendation consistent with the previous policy direction. There was a wide
range in the Laidlaw proposal and the City did not know what the charge would be. It was his intent that
Laidlaw be able to bid under the previous motion. He felt the real issue was assurance that the City receive
the best deal for the rate payers.
VOTE ON SUBSI1TIITE MOTION: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed.
MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to direct staff to meet with Laidlaw immediately and report back to Council no
later than three weeks.
12. REPORT REQUEST FOR AN AIL-WAY STOP AT TI-IE INTERSECI10N OF EAST
NAPLES STREET AND FOXBORO AVENUE - Staff received a request from Mrs. Norma Erhardt of 657 East
Naples Street requesting the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of East Naples Street and
Foxboro Avenue. Staff recommends Council concur with previous Safety Commission recommendations and
deny the request. (Director of Public Works)
Norma Erhardt, 657 E. Naples, Chula Vista, CA, was not present when called to the podium.
MS (Moore/Horton) to accept the staff report.
Mayor Nader questioned whether any comments had been received from the school district.
Cliff Swanson, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director, responded there had been no comments
received.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
.3.).; /~
Attachment B
A PROGRAM FOR
MULTI.FAMILY RECYCUNG
PRESENTED TO
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS
I. GENERAL CRITERIA
1. Laidlaw's Recycling Coordinator will be assigned to the Multi-Family
Recycling program, as required, but not less than half-time. Mary Hammond has
already begun to work with you on the development of program material.
II. PROGRAM DESIGN
1. Our program is designed to collect from the approximately 22,000 multi-
family residences in the City, all materials designated as recyclable under the
County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance and appropriate City Ordinances.
2. A pilot program to include two large and two smaller complexes will be
implemented by July 1,1993. The pilot program may include complexes already
receiving recycling service from Laidlaw. .
The City-wide program will be planned for implementation by October 1, 1993. As
discussed with you, there may be some advantages to phasing in the program
over several weeks.
3. Recyclables will be collected by a divided truck to separate newspapers
from commingled containers. Each apartment complex will be provided with an
appropriate number of front-load and/or 90-gallon containers. If supplied, all front-
load containers will be divided and marked with decals to signify where to place
newspapers and which side for hard recyclables. 90-gallon containers will be of
two distinct colors and clearly marked with decals signifying which materials
should be placed in them. We are planning to provide storage capacity equivalent
to 1 O-gallons per apartment unit (ie. one 90-gallon container for each nine units).
4. Each dwelling unit will be provided with a a-gallon Rehrig Pacific
"Apartment Recycler". The Apartment Recyclers will be delivered prior to the
commencement of the program along with relevant instructions and educational
material. Delivery will be coordinated by Laidlaw, using community organizations
such as the Conservation Corps or Urban Corps. As part of our cost proposal, we
have included an annual 20% replacement factor, ie, 4,400 replacement
containers each year.
Exterior bins will be either exclusively 90-gallon containers or a combination of 90-
1 .3,) "'1.3
gallon containers and divided front-load containers. Front-load container will be
equipped with gravity locks and contain slots for newspaper and holes for hard
recyclables. 90-gallon containers can not be effectively locked but will have a slot
for newspapers and a hole for commingled containers. All 90-gallon containers
will have recycled plastic content. The quantity and distribution of exterior
containers will be agreed individually with each building manager.
III. PROMOTION, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
We will comply with items 1. to 5. in your specification document. Where feasible,
we would prefer to use graphics in place of language labels.
For program implementation and start-up, we have budgeted $3.00 per dwelling
unit or $66,000 for the following:
Interior bin delivery.
Instructional material for individual units.
Exterior bin delivery and placement.
Signage for exterior bins.
5,000 flyers for building managers.
5,000 posters for communal areas.
For ongoing activities, we have budgeted $0.10 per unit per month or $2,200 per
month for the following:
Quarterly newsletter to all units.
Interior bin delivery and instructional material to new tenants, estimated at 20%
or 4,400 per year.
Ongoing promotion, as necessary.
IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Laidlaw's Recycling Coordinator, Market Development Manager and other staff,
as appropriate, are available to work with City staff in providing assistance to
property managers and owners. Such assistance will include start-up and
implementation training for the managers of large multi-family complexes,
workshops for groups of smaller complex managers, promotional and
educational material as mentioned above, and follow up in specific problem
areas such as excess contamination, below average participation etc.
V. SERVICE
Separate recyclables collection service will be provided weekly to all multi-family
residential complexes in the City. As specified &bove, separate containers will be
provided for newspapers and commingled hard recyclables. To provide this
VI. COLLECTION VEHICLES
To service the multi-family complexes, we intend to provide two-compartment
side-load or front-load vehicles to separate newspaper from the hard recyclables.
Based on our experience in the single-family program and pilot programs
conducted in apartment complexes in the city, we plan to divide the vehicle 60/40
to provide maximum flexibility and collection efficiency.
VII. IMPLEMENTATION
1. A pilot program will be implemented by July 1, 1993.
2. Implementation ofthe City-wide program will be phased in by geographical
sector of the city. This will allow education and promotion efforts to be focused
on each area as the program is implemented. Based on the information that you
provided, we estimate that there are 22,000 residential units in 900 complexes in
the city. Assuming that we receive City approval in time to order the required
equipment, we would plan to begin city-wide implementation by mid-August. This
would allow six weeks prior to the October 1 deadline and would involve adding
approximately 150 addresses and 3,700 units each week. This is the equivalent
to adding one route each day for each of our collection vehicles.
VIII. SALE OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
All materials collected in the multi-family recycling program will be sold at market
value, including California Redemption Value, when appropriate. Initially, we plan
to deliver materials to San Diego Recycling under the same conditions as the
single-family program.
We estimate that we will collect 3 Ibs of recyclables per unit per week or 143 tons
per month. Of this amount we anticipate 2 Ibs to be newspaper and 1 Ib hard
recyclables. This compares to about 7 Ibs per home per week from the single
family program totalling 400 tons per month.
Laidlaw is also considering developing processing capabilities in the San Diego
area and then utilizing the national marketing capabilities of our sister company,
Laidlaw Resources. If and when this service is available, we will provide
processing and marketing services to the City at equivalent terms to our San
Diego Recycling contract.
IX. REPORTING
We will provide monthly, quarterly and annual recycling reports to the city, similar
to those currently provided for the single-family program. As all hard recyclables
will be commingled, we will work with San Diego Recycling to allocate these
materials to individual components based on sample data.
3 3';"'/.5'
X.
LENGTH OF FRANCHISE
.
In calculating the monthly costs, we have assumed that the multi-family recycling
program would be treated as an amendment to our waste collection franchise and
therefore the term would be until the year 2002. Based on this assumption, we
have depreciated the vehicles over. 1o-years in accordance with our Corporate
policies. Front-load and 9D-gallon containers will be depreciated over 15 and 5
years, respectively.
The vehicles to be purchased for this program will be specifically designed
recycling vehicles, and are not designed to efficiently transport garbage. If the
City, in accordance with any change in County policies, reverts to commingled
waste and recycling collection programs, an appropriate rate adjustment provision
needs to be included to provide for any unamortized vehicle cost.
XI. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
We believe that this proposal, in conjunction with our earlier submittal provides
a comprehensive description of the multi-family recycling program design,
implementation, operation, promotion and education. We will be pleased to
provide any additional information or answer any questions that the City may
have. Included in our cost proposal, is an 8% franchise fee to the city of Chula
Vista based on the monthly revenue from charges to homeowners or property
managers. Without this franchise fee, the monthly charge per unit would be $0.12
lower.
XII. PROGRAM COSTS
Our original intent was to attempt to provide multi-family recycling service at the
same net cost as single family service, currently $1.10 per month. Unfortunately,
as a result of higher program costs resulting from items such as the requirement
for internal and external containers, and lower program revenues resulting from
estimated lower volumes per unit causing lower landfill diversion and material
sales revenues, this has not proved possible. Our estimated net charge per unit
is $1.50 per month, calculated as follows, with the equivalent single-family
numbers shown for comparison.
Total Service Cost
Estimated Material Sales
Estimated LJF Diversion
County Grants
Net Resident Cost
SIngle-family
$1.88
(0.31 )
(0.45)
(0.02)
$1.10
Multi-family
$2.00
(0.20)
(0.30)
$1.50
4
3.2-/1,
Attachment C
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday, March 22, 1993
Conference Room #1
Public Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order with a quorum at
6:14 p.m. by Chairman Kracha. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid
called roll. Present: Commissioners Hall, Kracha, Johnson and Myers. Absent: Ghougassian.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (Hall/Johnson) to approve the minutes of the
meetings of February 15 and March 1, 1993.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Teresa Aland, 1433 Nadon, Chula Vista, requested to be put
on the next agenda to discuss the Recoverable Resource Facility. She will present a packet to
staff for distribution to the members prior to the next meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
Multi-Family Recyclin~ - Athena Bradley made a staff presentation of collection service from
Laidlaw. Referring to Page 2 under Term of Franchise, paragraph 2 which states, "... to
abandon completely its source-separated recycling program...," Myers requested that the
sentence be reworded for clarification. Hall suggested an alternative charge per unit option, to
give single families a break on rates rather than imposing universal rates. Kracha suggested to
not give a discount to senior and low income residents due to potential accounting problems.
Following discussion, it was then MSUC (Hall/Myers) to adopt the resolution to grant a
franchise to Laidlaw Waste for multi-family recycling collection services, specifically noting and
including the above comments; 4-0.
Nee:ative Declaration for 1S-93-09 Landscape Manual - Myers stated that the manual does not
go far enough in its discussion on water use, conservation, and availability. She suggested
wording be changed to mandate, rather than to encourage planting of drought-tolerant plants,
and to mandate that no potable water be used on golf courses and recreation areas. Kracha
further suggested correcting the Project Description's first two sentences to adequately reflect
what it's supposed to be, "The Landscape Manual includes general standards..." and also, "The
standards requirements affected include..." It was MSUC (Hall/Johnson) to accept the negative
declaration noting the above-stated comments; 4-0.
It was suggested the RCC review the entire Landscape Manual in a future workshop.
Ne~ative Declaration for 1S-93-1O Drainage Basin - Corrections should be made on Page 3 in
the last sentences of paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 to consistently read, "Threshold Standard"
(singular), and in paragraph 5, "Individual projects will provide necessary improvements...".
It was then MSUC (Hall/Kracha) to accept the negative declaration with the above corrections;
4-0.
:J~ -1'1
Resource Conservation Commission
Page 2
Negative Declaration for IS-93-21 Parks Implementation Plan - Since this project consists of two
phases, commissioners stated they would accept Phase I with the contingency that they also see
and review Phase II. It was MSUC (Myers/Hall) to accept the negative declaration; 4-0.
Favorable comments were made on the format of the Environmental Checklist Form. However,
questions relating to water reduction, consumption and ability to provide same, were
inadequately covered. Reid stated since this was a CEQA form, staff hesitated in making any
changes.
Otay Ranch discussion - Reid stated the County and City Planning Commissions tentatively
approved the EIR with a few areas of contention. Myers stated her objection to staffs
recommendation. She further stated that RCC's duty is to take all actions necessary to provide
the people with clean air, water, enjoyment of aesthetic qualities, freedom from excessive noise,
prevent the elimination of wildlife, safeguard the city's historic prehistoric past, and provide
long-term protection of the environment. The EIR does not provide for this protection, but
defers most of these elements to the SPA level.
STAFF REPORT: City Council, Planning Commission and Resource Conservation Commission
will hold a joint meeting in late May to discuss CEQA and its implementation.
A new member for RCC, Cindy Burrascano, will be sworn in at the next Council meeting.
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Requested City Staff copy all its documents onto both sides of
the paper to eliminate waste.
ECO Art Contest is scheduled for April 3rd at Rohr Park.
Kracha noted that EDCO collection service distribute stickers for greens recycling.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Johnson questioned the city's jurisdiction with regard to
approval of low income housing. He was advised to contact the Community Development
Department.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Kracha at 7:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES
~ ~'t~)
Barbara Taylor
3~"/r
Attachment D
City of Chula Vista
Multi-family Recycling Program
Design and Implementation Specifications
I. General Criteria
l. One (l),
programming
promotional
monitoring
outreach to
half-time person directly assigned to recycling
must be designated. Duties to inc1.ude:
material development and distribution; program
(including on-site visitations); educational
school children; community outreach.
II. Program design
l. In order to meet the requirements under the mandatory
recycling ordinance, all designated recyclables must be
collected from each multi-family residence, to include the
following: aluminum, glass bottles and jars, newspaper,
household plastic bottles (l & 2), tin and bi-metal cans,
white goods (appliances).
2. The recycling program design concept for multi-family
residences should be detailed.
a. Pilot Program Phase
b. Full implementation
3. General program design must require the separation of
designated recyclables from refuse.
a. Bin configuration: One bin dedicated to commingled
hard recyclables; One bin for newspapers.
4. Recycling Bins (interior and exterior)
a. Interior bins of appropriate size for apartments must
be provided to all multi-family residential units (at
least one/unit). Recommended use of slim, stackable
containers. Would like program design and cost estimates
on the following:
. Rehrig Pacific Company "Apartment Recycler" (6
gallon)
. Recy-Cal Supply Company "Under-the-Counter"
Apartment Container (5 gallon)
. A combination of the above, in order to provide
complexes with a choice to best meet their needs
. Any others that you may wish to suggest
.3:2 - J~
b. Exterior bins that meet the space restraints and
collection needs of multi-family complexes must be
provided. A combination of the following is suggested:
. 90 gallon carts on wheels
slots in lids for placement of beverage
containers
- recycled plastic content
- fire resistent
- durability warranty
- recommend OTTO or Toter
- heat stamped or labeled for commodity (see,
below)
. 2 cubic yard "Carefree Container" from Otto
3 cubic yard bin
- bins should also be able to have slots in
lids for newspapers and beverage containers
- Heat stamped or labeled for commodity
c. Plan for bin distribution to complexes should be
addressed.
d. Recycling bins will be required to be placed adjacent
to or near the refuse collection bins.
e. The bins for the mixed hard recyclables should be
able to be locked, in order to prevent scavenging.
III. Promotion, education and outreach activities
1. All promotional materials shall be developed with the
Conservation Coordinator's input, from the first step in
development, through the final printing.
2. No materials shall be developed or distributed without the
approval of the Conservation Coordinator.
3. All materials for program implementation shall be fully
translated into Spanish.
a. All subsequent materials shall be fully or at least
partially translated into Spanish.
4. All program implementation materials shall utilize graphic
representation of recyclable commodities.
5. All collection bins (exterior) shall be clearly labeled on
the lids and the front facing of the bin, in Spanish and
English (preferably with graphics) as to the commodity (ies)
and tlNo Trash."
6. A detailed outline of program promotional materials should
be given, including ongoing activities.
3~"'.J.o
IV. Technical assistance to property owners/managers
1. Commitment
assistance to
implementation
to work with City in providing technical
property owners /managers in design and
of program.
2. Commitment to work with the City to provide ongoing
monitoring services, quality control, etc., to managers.
V. Service
1. Collection of all recyclable materials, segregated from
trash, either separated by commodity or commingled, that are
placed in designated recycling containers at designated
collection locations, as defined by the City of Chula Vista
Municipal Code Chapter 8.25.
2. Collection shall occur not less than on a weekly basis for
multi-family residential complexes and as required to meet the
needs of each respective complex.
VI. Collection Vehicles
1. Design of collection vehicles should be done
contamination problems, that is, vehicles should
into two (2) compartments--one for hard
recyclables) one for newspapers.
to limit the
be separated
(commingled
VII. Implementation
1. A Pilot Program shall commence sometime this Spring (1993),
with phased citywide implementation through the summer and
early fall.
2. All multi-family residential complexes in the City must
have service by October 1, 1993 under the mandatory recycling
ordinance.
a. Proposal must include a timeline that indicates
Laidlaw's ability and intent to provide services to all
multi-family residences in the City by Oct. 1, 1993.
VIII. Sale of Recyclable Materials
1. All recyclable materials collected shall be sold at fair
market value.
2. No materials shall be landfilled, unless approved by City.
3. Should market failure occur for one or more material types,
only the City Manager of the City of Chula Vista may decide
not to collect the affected material.
4. Proposal should include general marketing/processing plan.
J:2-.) I
IX. Reporting requirements to City
1. To assist the City in complying with the California
Integrated Waste Management Act, tonnage reports from all
materials collected will be required on a quarterly basis for
multi-family residences, with an annual report summarizing all
tonnages and activities.
2. Reports must include all
revenues and a listing
residences served.
tonnages collected, material sales
of businesses and multi-family
3. A yearly rate review and cost analysis, to be negotiated as
to timing, will be required.
X. Length of Franchise
1. A discussion of suggested length of time necessary for full
amortization of equipment and vehicles should be presented in
order to establish a fair length of agreement.
XI. Additional services to be provided not included in the above.
XII. Program costs
1. Provide an accounting of all related costs and explanation
for each cost, similar to outline contained in Attachment A.
J~~~
SAMPLE COST BREAKDOWN
BINS (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR)
- initial bin allocation
- replacement allocation
PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
COLLECTION
- labor
- vehicles/equipment
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES/ADDITIONAL STAFF
BILLING EXPENSES
ADDITIONAL COSTS (Describe)
TOTAL:
ESTIMATED COST PER COMPLEX (Per bin/pick-up)
ESTIMATED COST PER UNIT {e.g., residence} (based upon the per
bin/pick-up) 1
** A STATEMENT OF HOW MATERIAL SALES REVENUES WILL BE HANDLED MUST
ALSO BE INCLUDED.
- WILL ESTIMATED REVENUES BE INCLUDED IN THE CHARGE PER
HOUSEHOLD FOR RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY? HOW IS THIS TO BE
CALCULATED?
- HOW WILL DIVERSION CREDITS BE HANDLED?
1 In order to present a fair rate per unit cost, I suggest that the per bin
cost be aggregated throughout the City. That is, a complex that has many units
(e.g., 100 units) would inevitably be less costly to collect from as compared to
a unit with only four or five units. Thus, the per unit cost should be averaged
for the entire City.
3..2 *"..23
"
~ ?
==
n '"
0
'" 00
~ Ei
" "
~ ~
~ e;
0
n "
p;' '0
(i' "
0- ~
S. ""
0
;. "
~
;. "
""
0 0
l 0:
'0
"
~
'0 8
~
0 0
~ "
" F-
a
~ [
"
~ "
" ~
~
cr- 0
"
S' S-
00 ~
~ S.
E-
.:;; ~
"
n "
" 0
< "
"
~ P-
"
0-
cr-
.'"
;.
"
""
"
"
"
~
Attachment E
<: (fl (fl (fl '" 0 z ~ ~ H M M M t:J 0 0
,... 0 '" '" ~ n '" '" '" !3 U> P H '" 0 '"
U> H P P '" cT !3 '0 n n H ... ...
cT '" cT '" '" ,... 0 ;i( '" 0 f-'. 0 0 H
'" P '" ~ '<: P 0 P '" ... p p '" ~ p U>
'" '" '" p '" f-'. 0- ,... ~. '" 0- 0
... f-'. '" 0 '" '" f-'. cT 0 ... 0- '" H
co n 0- H ... H 0- '" P 0 0- ~
'" 0 '" 0 0 '"
'" '" 0 <: co
n ,... '" '"
;T cT '"
'<: n
;T
'0 <f> P '0 P '0 P P '0 P '0 <f> P <f> P n Z
f-'. H 0 f-'. 0 f-'. 0 0 f-'. 0 f-'. H 0 H 0 ;T 0 ~
H H H H H '"
0 N '0 0 '0 0 '0 '0 0 '0 0 co '0 '" '0 ... 0..
cT V.> ... cT ... cT ... ... cT ... cT V.> ... co ... "" f-'. >i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" ... H
0 "" 0 00 0 00 00 0 00 0 "" "" '" ~
p ... p ... p ... ... p ... p ... ... 0
H '" H '" H '" '" H '" H '" '" cT
'<: !3 '<: !3 '<: !3 !3 '<: !3 '<: !3 !3
N f<
<f> <f> '" <f> P <f> <f> <f> <f> <f> <f> <f> <f> <f> H <f>
H H f-'. H 0 V.> H H H H N H H H N H
H H '"
N N 0 N '0 " H " 0 H H ". N N H H
'" '" ". '" ... ". " co H '" ". '" co '" '" H l\!i
0 '" * ~
0 "" * t"'
P ... M
H '"
'<: !3 ~
f<
<f> <f> P P P <f> P P P P <f> <f> P <f> H
H H 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 H H 0 H N <f>
H ~
'" co '0 '0 '0 " '0 '0 '0 '0 ". " '0 00 N
0 ". ... ... ... '" ... ... ... ... H H ... 00 '" '"
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ~
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
!3 !3 !3 3 !3 !3 !3 !3
>i
I>iI
:3: '" '" cT * Z ;T... ... 0 M ... * g. 0 ...
.." ~ f-'. ... 0 f-'. '" ;T 0 p '" ~ ;T
H '" 0 00 0 '" H n ,.,., H '" '"
... 0 '" 0 ~ ;T'<: H f-'. " N P
" '" ". ;T !3 '" 0 :3: '" P '" '" ~ ~
cT ... ... H .." 0 f-'. '" N P ...
'" f-'. ... ... f-'. ". ". '" '" ,... >i
'" '" ... '" cT P '" '" '" . <: 0 ... I>iI
cT :x> cT '" cT ;Too ,... 0- '" '" '" '"
0 '" 0 '" cT '" '" H . ,... ... H cT
n ,... '" :or ... 0 0- P '" '"
0- '<: cT ,... '" '" ". '<: t:J n ,.,., ...
'" ~1 p '" '" {J) cT '" H " '" f-"
n " cT .." '" f-'. (fl H " '" ,.,., U>
'" 1-'01-'. H 0- '" P 0 0.. '" "
'" P 0.. " '" 0- ... f-" H ~ '" '" p
cT 00 '" 0.. f-'. H '" '" f-'. '" '" ... '" ~
'" . '" 0- f-'. cT '" P ... '"
er ,... '" f-'. '" '" '" '" (fl cT ,.,.,
H P 0- N ;T >< 00 '" .." '" '" ,.,.,
f-'. 0 " ... '" '" '0 0 :x> p '" '" "
'" H cT '" '" 0- '" ,.... '" 0.. ... .. H
;T " n . 0 p n ro " H
ro 0- P '<: ... "."" '<: (fl 0 ... '" '<:
0- ro 0 0 ro '<: ro n 0 '<: ro
'" H '" ro 0..0 H H n ,.,., 0
<: 0 f-'. cT f-'. '" '" H '" ro 0
f-'. '" ;T p cT cT ... P ,.... '" ro <:
cT cT '" 00 ... 01 U> '" P '" ro
;T ... ... ro . 00 ro ~ ...
,.... rooo ,.,.,0 0- f-'. co . '" ro
p ro ro ro '<: ro 0- '" ro "''<: 0-
cT '" ro n ro '" '<: ro
p H ". P 0 '" 0.. o-er
'" 0 " ,.... ;T '" 0 ;T ... ro,<:
>< H P P ro 0 P ~
cT '" cT 00 0 '0 '" ro cT
'" ,.... '" p ... ... '" ;T
N P H ... '" 0 ro '" cT ro
I f-'. " !3 '" ,.,., ". '"
". P ". cT ro P f-'. ro 0-
00 ;T ro 0.. cT H
<: . f-'. .. 12. ... f-"
ro '" 1- 17~ 2~ cT '"
ro ro ;T ;T
'" cT ro '"
'" n 0..
~
o
t"'
H
l\!i
E
I>iI
'"
~
-.......
.
~~f?
~ J!C:_ -::
~~~~
~~-:...~
erlY OF
CHUlA VISTA
s~p
7
THE CIIT OF
CHULA VISTA
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMlITEE APPLICATION
Please Indicate Your Interest By Checking the Appropriate Line(s)
If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest
~ Board of Appeals
..y- Child Care
_ Cmsm on A;in;
_ Elderly l Handicopped Cmt
_____ Int. Friendship emsn
_ Mont;omery C.P.C.
_ Plannin; Cmso
_____ Town Centre Proj. Area emt
Chula Vista 21
Board of Ethic.
Civil Service Omsn
_ De. i;n lev Cmt
_ Growth Il;mt. CInIm
______ Lfbrary laird of Trustees
_____ Otay Valley Proj. Are. emt
Resource COl"tSV emsn
_____ United Nltions Day Cmt
UC - CV
Ch.rter Review
Cul tural Arts
Economic Dlv.
Hc.rnen Rel. Cmsn
Mobi lehClllt Rent Review Cmsm.
Parks & Ree emsn
_ Safety Cmsn
Youth Cmsn
OTHER
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
"E ADDRESS:
W. PHONE NO.
NAME:
I9I11A1tJ7L
-;;0
HOW LONG?
..2 ~ '/,E,I L5
/
.Youth Commission Applicants ONLY: School Attending
--............................................................................--..............--..-.......................
..............................................................................................................................
Grade:
COLLEGES ATTENOEO & DEGREES HELD: I -9t'"/LAI#"I use; - /~ "'~/ ~'/. nA/4t1! ~ v~.s.. A_'J:;,
"he> ...Jag//I<Ll~J/-,eJ t'})/~~- - t"A"L/ ~.;,..~. - 91R( n;b/: A,~ /EI'";. .J:;"E~
PRESENT EMPLOYER: .s~/r Jf1"'7~tI POSITION: /)'j/t"J/1';; jJ;.AI~A'/.i/J_ .t~tC'
WHAT ARE YOUR PRINCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT AIlO WHAT EXPERIENCEISI OR SPECIAL KNOWlEDGE CAN YOU you BRINe
TO THOSE AREAS?
~::;;7::;;';;;:~J~::''':'v;~ ::~~!"'~A~::V~
WHAT WOULD YOU HOI'E TO ACCOMPLISH BY YOUR PARTICIPATION? /fY N;;1/AI 19t'~"P~J;/""A// U.J/>I/// At!- ~
rAC;/'t'.I?/L "t./"e c-y ,:L!"IW _,-,-".< A/h-,o.t1/.r d-vl'.o~; ,IJbh//01-Z-S.
/L/o.eA":7 /L,~i!-# ~.lfl!'.. N~1/1.&UAdc>d" 'se// H~ .AI~L'/~ . "'.d,/a .A.." %
19~our dA"'7L. - /~.JOA/.5 b.,/i, rJ9-v A/-"h-,../ ~ h-f3 i'1a"'~J .<;",6<<//'/ /'"
. familiar with the responsibilit.ies assigned to the 8o.rd/ConmilSion/Conmittee on which I wish to serve.
?;f~U/ 4. ;#~- ~,,-:- /f /f~..:L
SIGNATURE DATE
. . . PlEA$( $(E THE IEVERSE SlOE Of THIS ""'~FOR VERY IIIPOIlTAIH LEGAL IIF_TlON . . .
- A.-I
~Lto,-l _ _
C(:-Oll
,
/) 0u /'Il?t.s,d"/H/
W~-S"S33) /js(/~.s
- A'",~ C"/e~~N;';7' .$dppL
t/ub7 w,rtf' ,JcA,.,L ~hWJ
~
,12 ~p";
<Tv;; .l9J.hJ;;..,r - CAb//; Ik;s#i ..sdP",L ~:r'~'cr
e/IJJEtfv,,,/ a~~ .At- ~Nd .AAltI"
~ce~. ~NNU".s~.s .A"vtT' "'~wp,e.. ,9,6..
.s09/~:;- /.SJu/.s.
W-z,,-. ftoc)
JP. 1;ce"J,SE P'Y(YM'~ 1'~.II"Etf - ~/JeA!A/;~ c1""UA1oe"
At- kve~ {'p.sf"' n,~ /,.",.16 t:1r /~
(,y.U- N)t) I;';~(M~. &/'J/:Eqqt'~d'# Ci)/i "o~,e,~
h>~ ,vulR,;;",./ "o"e7,e"rl. c::'1""..e, n~.s;-
/i,dE /9N~ c:tt,- ~/~L.~,,,,~~,~~~
,,~cI' /..9..et,c//~&~J .';"""~";.
-..
.tI) /I/e'ld,(JM~POcI' tvl9rc// - /".er cr ';>,v ~7019,c/'''F~
(''''''hl/HI ~ e/re,,,er H K~C)7 cAv~ ~j/;i
W7'-PtJ'If) /l.J .s~/e ~J ~,~v. ~ ~c AP"~
cr El/eA/N M/l/Uo'/iV9 .AN~ kf:' tN~
/ ,/ /.n.2 ,q/b.W~
CAu//; y,.J/~ ~/,~ dp".t'rHt!',.I';:-c.d~ 69//A;.tj
5) 7H~ c/lug, ~:J/A ~cNN('er-"/ -N&'I//~M''' ,1+7 Alt"1#~.t'.J
~/I.ei elF",II "",-,./,~'r ~rN"rA7k"/
(St's"-,3V,s/ ) l" Ae~ /,epr'~ cr ~v.e awh'v,v'7
"r;i~t. /.,.; ~""'r/E.tJ I r~ c/&1t''''~
.ANd tvaRA' R/..i'// f?';>~ &~&~'M,J;'p,v.
-~et -~'
:; ~ &\..- ~
~,
~ {ft..
~
~~~~
em Of
(HUlA VISTA
Q' ~ '
;" i " .-, fE n r;7 ~
:".,' fJ ~
ILl! ~, '. 19Q]"
c;rr ()jlil\~ll OF~'r:cs
~-I(:~.HISTA. cA . '-,
~
~
no I
r- ."
"'n
::o~
;:0:-
.C::
<nr"
0>
HULA WS~
<'r.~ "'"
~
CI1Y OF
I
-
::0
IT!
(')
IT!
-
<
IT!
o
.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITI'EE APPUCATION
Please Indicate Your Interest By Checking the Appropriate Line(s)
If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest
_ a..rd of ,,-al.
Ch it d Car.
_ CIIsm on Aling
_ Elderly & Handtc~ Clot
_ Int. Friendship Ca5n
_____ Montgomery C.P.C.
_ Plamin; emsn
_ Town Cent re Pro j. Area Cmt
Chuta Vista 21
_ Ioard of Ethic.
_ Civil Service c:.on
_ Dnl", lev Clot
_ Growth 1IplIt. CIu
_ Library Ioard of T....t_
_ Olay Valley Proj. Area Clot
Resource tansy Casn
_____ United illatiON Day Clnt
UC . CV
Charter Reyi~
CUt tur.l Arts
_____ Economic Dlv.
_____ ".-an Rel. tlllSn
_ _11_ lent I.vlew CnBm.
'Irkl & lee Cmsn
_ Safety Clnsn
Youth emsn
-X.. OTHER ~V;~""'d
c-......:.~
PLEASE PRINT CLt:ARLY
N~E:~
HOME ADDRESS: T: ~~ VI ~ -b.... ZIP: ., I" IS
. PHOIIE NO.~ IUS. PHONE ~ IEGISTEIED VOTER IH"CHULA VISTA: .x._
YES NO
DO TOU LIVE WITHIN THE cln LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA?)( _ HOW LONG? 10 "'''l'lH-.s
"'YeS NO
.Youth Commission Appliclnts ONlV: SChool Attending
.......................--..........................--.........-...-...........-....----.---........--....-----------------
-----------.---------..-.----------.------------------.-------.--...------.--..------.-------..---..--.--.-..---...-.---..
Grade:
COLLEGES ATTENDED & DEGREES HELD: bh-+w,~+t, Ce.1(~ (A.B.) ,: ~'V~I~ t:>1:
c... /,t;n,i",- {).+ BevhJe~, E-.I+ ~ S~ (w:- L...w (;r. b. ) .
PRESENT EHPLOTER: ~c.I.( - CMll'lo~ POSITION: IlC'tIz>r"c'J.
WHAT ARE TOUR PRIHCIPAL AREAS OF INTElEST IN OUR CllT _IHIlENT _ WHAT EX!E~IIl:ECS) III IPECIAL _EDGE CAN YOU Ypu IRJNG
TO THOSE AREAS? :r:: --- v, 'l..~...+d (", luJP"l ~~, -4s~ ~ ......1,,"- ~d
.,u........c f&N--ht...Ja-I'<i i".......c ...c..la-h'd ~ ~ JJ,.._I-r...... ~ ,.,e k""":'~c.c ~Luu,.~, ~"n~ ~
::7~~ ~; ~::2~~~~~.:~ lC-.&' ~:U;~~: ^.:; ~-::....~~
WHAT WOULD TOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH aT YOUR PARTICIPATION? ) .
,I. r ~
L~lt..d''''''u' """'rl;f",. -r ~..s.. A~J) ~.....n~ ....1- '~P"J--.h Ai...r~~
.......".c~., ,,, ~ k.f'r ~C ''''p~'~ ..u.. "'."1 /b.fJ. ~"IA<~ . J:' L.n....'''d ~ ''''
I am f..i liar with the relponslbllltln ""Iened to t'ii'a Ioard/C_laaIOl\fc-ltt.. on ....lch I w,ah to aerva. .u... c..~_ ~
. ~\Pt:.~.
':2- /2.'" I ~3
- o<>~ - _( , DATE' CC-Oll
aiDE Of TlIS -.ICATlCII _ WIT ~AIIT LHAL 1__TlON . . .
3/ft:... "'..3
EDUCATION
EMPLOYME NT
ASSOC IA T IONS
OTHER
INTERESTS
GLEN REVILLE GOOGINS
2~EC'-C Green:,riar DrIve
Cnula I'ls:a, Callforma 919'5
(619) 42 -6433
~
BOAL T HALL SCHOOL OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Attende::! 19E:. -1<;88, J) oegree 1985
H',;r, H:,nors grades ea-ned in ConstitJ:ior,aILaw IIA and
-,come Ta> I, -I:>nors graoes ear-,eO m Act,an:eO "'a'
Plcnnm~. Califorma Mant2' ~ooerty, Cnmmal Law,
Cnmlnc ProcedJre. Estates and Trusts, Real Eeta:e
Transactl:,ne I and Real Estate Transect'one I
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
Atten::le:l 19E I-I <;tS, AE oe~ree 19E:
M-;;F,rE": 1n gCV€,rr(~€'nt \\'ltr: a (o:-j.:entratlOn In lrterJatlonal
r f] 3~ lelr =-,
Gra::!uate::! C',nc la'J::!~ wltr 352 G ~ A.
:.€'cord J-lN::r; GrC'J~ (t:,p 15~ T class) 1ge2-198~.
V_ f ~I: CW;:~7 ~cr'c,ja" (tot" 5~ T cla==l 196'::::-' 985,
S~jt'ctf'C "or stuo~1 In Sranlsh lar9u~gf, hlstory a""'d U...lture
at triO:- Fa: IJ 1 :a,: dt- _f'tr.:E. Gr ~rlaja, 5p:::, 'fl, 5~)rlng term '982
BROBECK, PHLEGER 8. HARRISON
:3:1 J1'2J:, Cal ~orrlla _,'_
Fu1 ~ lrr~~ -emri0.,'ment :)t~'Gber 1 ,',1-9-.0~.t~-~';,' -'-:_~';~'~~
E"mpi:'yed on ::(lntr~Ct, at:o-ney ba::,\~' ,c;"~:;:~;:.;~<<~
':'.:.S:: Z~.;. 'r. trlt- ~ea1 Estat<2 P..;so'...r:e5 :;rc.u~\,
D-:-v-21(l~'ej fX~'-=lt.SE' 'v\-lth a br:.a,j ~a,I'~-:- of real €:ta:E'
~ia"'::a,:tlo~IS Jr,: udlrlg aCQIsltl:,n'S and diSP':Sltlons, :.fflCE'
2r,~ ':OC!1mecClal lea,..rg, partnersrlp a~reement, and secured
"'m::n':1r:; E",tHlslve e>-:C>E':--en:E- als': dE"/elo:,t'd m th~ areas of
1a"':0 IJ=-~) t-z;llruc,tcy 'carl workouts, :,roperty t3)o. apJ:eals a:"ld
ncoml? t2'-: mztters Assumed pnmary "'esponsibil'.y fer
structJrm~ ne,;ot. 2t i-,~ a-,d dscu-entmg major trarsac tlors
-"
Member of t~e American Sar ASSOCiation, Real Proper:y,
Protate ana Trlest Law Section and Taxation Sectlor, Mem:,er
of :'2n DIego Courty Bar Assoc1atlor, Real P~operty Section,
Sut'commlttee or Home'essnese, Member cf South Bay Co""mu~.ty
S~rv'ces, I"IC Commur'ty ;)evelocmer,c AOvlsory Committee,
1'1ent,:r for :,outn Bay CommunIty Serv.ces, Inc KidzBiz Program,
l'lembfr e,f EpIscopal Community Se""Vlces Facll.ties Committee and
.,,::1 Hoc :8mmlt:ee on ProDerty Ownership
EnjOy -eajmg. ~olf, ~asretball, c:,ffee houses ana 'ami'y ou:ings with wife,
Ala-,a, an::! dau';hter, Kate
J.~~~'-
3 Lt ~ -~
.........,
.
.
.
REFERENCES
Tod:l J Arson, Eso
Tro'na; 'w Tue-,ee, Je , Eso
Elen B 5pe'lm3n, Eso
E-ro:>ecr, Pr'ege-& Har-Ison
S5(, ....est C 5tr€'et, 5'o't€' 12CID
5ar. )If';0, Ca"lf ornla 921:j 1
(,61;) 234- J 955
Dac,,€, I '3 Gr,:ssman
ThE' )3nlel 6 Gro,srnzn Galleries
:> C B,:y 9f:,7
fLe6 Calle eel ,Aleazac
Reller 0 Sa~t:; F€', CZ:'iforma 92:>07
Ie, 19) 759<l4:::
Oar: Marcus
:outrl 8ar Com-umty 5ervlces lnc
315 .::l:h Avenu€', 51....t€'::
(hula \.'I:<a Cal1f(Tila9'91~1
'.01-3) 4~O-352:J
11- Cha-l", iO ':"ec5
,i..=S15tar,t C-lio?f ~jr(lmlst;zth'o:- OfflCE'r
Er"s:c,~,: Corr"niJr,I~\' Sf;""I.'!,:e=
:-!C.~ FC:'J'"t~, L".'<?'-I'J7
C :;..,. "",1__' Cz: ,f /r1lj: 9: 1 :'::
1::.1:;; :=:?~- :.:::--
,t..::d;~ 1 :.r,:;' fe"'f:--er:Cl?::, ~f;a; lat,1-: up.:n "eQu€'=t
-2~-5'
3L(e.. - S
~{~
~~-=
~~~~
.....~"""""'-
.
.
THE CITY OF
RECEIVED
erlY Of
(HUlA VISTA
CHULA ~18A98 SO
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITfEE<1li\')Df:Qf'J].b':(0&.r A
CITY ttEfrK'S- OF FleE
Please Indicate Your Interest By Checking the Appropriate Line(s)
If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest
_____ Board of Appeals
Child Care
_____ Cmsm on Aging
_____ Elderly & Handicapped Cmt
_____ Int. Friendship emsn
_____ Montgomery C.P.C.
_____ Planning emsn
_____ Town Centre Proj. Area tmt
Chula Vista 21
Board of Eth i cs
Civil Service Omsn
______ Desig" Rev tmt
_____ Growth Mgrot. Cmsm
_____ Library Board of Trustees
_____ Otay Valley Proj. Area tmt
Resource Consv emsn
_____ United Nations Day tmt
UC - CV
Charter Review
Cultural Arts
Economic Dev.
HLIT18n Re 1. emsn
Mobilehane Rent Review Cmsm.
Parks & Rec emsn
_____ Safety emsn
_____ Youth emsn
~OTHER Vfi?'fnZ./tIlJ
Afftf ,~ r
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
NAHE: ~-J^P-
REGISTERED VOTER IN CHULA VISTA:
HOME ADDRESS: CITY:
RES. PHONE NO. ~S. PHONE NO. #~IVe-
NO
DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA? ~
YES --;0
HOW LONG? 2S '-)eoA-Q.S
.Youth Commission Applicants ONLY: School Attending
Grade:
COLLEGES ATTENDED & DEGREES HELD:
/V' e; A.J e-
PRESENT EMPLOYER: ----1<kT I "e:O
G4r~ SI'!' C'L
POSITION:FPT7~V/G r~ J-
WHAT ARE YOlR PR)NCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT AND WHAT EXPERIENCE(S) OR SP.CIAL KNOWLEOGE CAN YOU YOU BRING
TOTHOSEAREAS1('f.IRA':"""'r _"?~ YPAA.J ~ .k'.I'''JWL~bfe. ~A/ <7A'-~I.J~IJr-
.. .
~JFL" rE~ 'rtJ A---1/L/"T.I#I'" "eh.w~rAL ".N1l roAAh3~EM~JUr /70.s,Po&U
(";lj p~ I ~e_IJ~.-- ~,t ANs=J?'~''''~ ~.~N':O C ~".r ~N~; #JOe. ef)
PI9S'T reelUJ,......- LI~L/J (' p,.,sr #LIe~/___ L/~..l I(L7~.ll.
WHAT WOULD YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH BY YOUR PARTICIPATION?
T" ,;(/,L ~ 'TAe ~/r'7 11-1 O/nJ/.1!J W,o.,.,. T~ lA.t:F ~\( #I.I~ I:"~
r~per,,=A.'C~ y~ ~,,'? #'JUIf! C,,";7~LLJ ~1Il.. ~ LJe.~A. LL f'c-
with the responsibilities assigned to the Board/Commission/Committee on which J wish to serve.
1'1/J~" 5.
DATV
I !3 9...3
-
CC-Oll
* * * PLEASE SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS APPLlCATUII FOR VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION * * *
.3 7'Q; 7
.
?a:-I ~~~ ~;;';J
~{f?
~
CEIVED
~"""-~~
CHO~I~28 P 3 :r2
THE CI1Y OF
CHULA VISTA
~H ~Lf~~'~1)!:.. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITIEE APPLICATION
Please Indicate Your Interest By Checking the Appropriate Line(s)
If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest
_ Boord of Appeals
Ch i ld Care
_ Cmsm on Aging
_ Elderly & Handicapped tilt
_____ Int. Friendship emsn
_____ Montgomery C.P.C.
--==-- Plaming Cmsn
_____ Town Centre Proj. Area Cmt
Chula Vista 21
Board of Ethics
Civil Service OMsn
______ Design Rev tmt
_ Growth Mgmt. Cmsm
______ Library Board of Trustees
_____ Otay Valley Proj. Area Cmt
Resource ConSy emsn
_____ Unhed Nations Day Cmt
UC . CV
Charter Revi ew
Cul tural Arts
Economic Dev.
'h.IM" ReL Cmsn
Mob; 1 ehane Rent Revi ew Cmsm.
Parks & Ree emsn
_____ Safety emsn
Youth emsn .J /
= OTHER 1{3.:7~'M"Sf
PLEASE PRINT CLFARLY
HOME ADDRESS:
CITY:
c
NAME :I
ZIP: 919/D
REG I STEREO VOTER IN CHULA VI ST A: ~.Ii/::J _
ES NO
DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA?~ _ HOW LONG? ~~~
._---------------------_._---_..._._._--_.__._-------~~_...._~~..__.__._..._...._------~_. -------------....-.---.--------
.Youth Commission Applicants ONLY: School Attending Grade:
...............................................~.................................................................
COLLEGES ATTENDED & DEGREES HELD: .f- M t1 /;- j: ^!3 ~ -
RES. PHONE NO.
PRESEHT EMPLOYER:
POSITION:
WHAT ARE YOUR PRIHCIPj4 AREAS OF INTERE
TO THOSE AREAS? ~
WHAT WOULD YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH BY YOUR PARTICIPATION?
to the Board/Commission/COMmittee on which 1 wish to .e~Ye.
SIGNATURE
/OI-~(' -9ol
DATE
CC-Oll
* * * PLEASE SEE TIE
SIDE OF THIS APPLlCATlCII ~ VERY IMPlIlTAlT LEGAL INFORIlATlCII . . .
:174- - ~
-.~~,.'-"'.~.~-'"
FP..f+ BRANCH {"
.
.
~~~
::.d~ ~
~~~~
~""'"~~
RECEIVED
THE CI1Y OF
el1Y OF
(HUlA VISTA
'92 IE 29 1'12:26
CHULA VISTA
~ION/COMMI1TEE APPLICATION
Please Indicate Your Interest By Checking the Appropriate Line(s)
If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest
_____ Board of Appeals
Child tire
_____ Cmsm on AliIing
_____ Elderly & Handicapped Clot
_____ Int. Friendship o.sn
_____ Montgomery C.P.C.
_____ PlaMing Cnlsn
_____ Town Centre Proj. Area Cmt
Chule Vista 21
Board of Ethics
Civil Service OMsn
_ Design Rev CAlt
_____ Growth M~t. cmsm
_ Library Board of Trustes
_____ Otay Valley Proj. Area Cmt
Resource Consv Cmsn
_____ United Nat i ons Day Cmt
UC . CV
Charter Rev; ew
Cul turel Arts
Economic Dev.
HLlMn lel. emsn
Mobi Lehane Rent Review Cmsm.
Parks & Ree emsn
_ Safety emsn
Youth Cmsn
2L- OTHER f/e:T. At> 1-19 c. C"'M.
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
NAME:
~"lIA.ST(VC
4.
HCI<.MI!:" ~
J ~.
HOME ADDRESS: CITY: C!....f-I"I (..I'f VI ~T'i ZIP: 91 'f I (l
RES. PHONE NO. PHONE ..-..-... REGISTERED VOTER IN CHULA VISTA: K. _____
.........--.. YES NO
DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA? L HOW LONG? .'7 /1::" ~.s
YES -,w-
*Youth Commission Applicants ONLY: School Attending
Grade:
COLLEGES ATTENDED & DEGREES HELD:
PRESENT EMPLOYER:
S E: l. F - E: "" PLO rC.b
POSITION:
WHAT ARE YOUR PRINCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST IN
TO THOSE AREAS? I'/. '"
FLFl:T R~!!;E;eVE
CITY GOVERNMENT AIID WHAT EXPERIENCE($.! OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CAN YOU YOU BRING
~ I I'Nr He tl
A-5:5;O. ..... Nfe:-Nl8E:~ (L.IFf: \ V FI1/ PO$" ,-"I
~
WHAT WOULD YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH BY YOUR PARTICIPATION? BE7rEIt.
o~().." THE::. liE/Elf AN S ) ""-H&:' crry <+
R.El.-I4TlaN.s P:.C-rWELOJoI
C.OMlAN II Y
,
VErEtr~'"
I ~;th C :C;;::Q:i9Md to the BoardlC~issi<<VC_ittee on ~ich ~ :i;;: ;r~
SIGNATURE .:J Uet. _ DATE
. . . PlEASE SEE TIE Ilf1lEIISE SIDE Of TNIS _L1CATlcl ~ lIERY
CC-Oll
~V?-
~
~~~~
""""'"~--
.
.
RECEIVED
THE CIlY OF
CllY Of
CHUlA VISfA
'93 .M 25 Poi :15
CITY%P~C~~SS[ON/COMMITfEE APPLICATION
CITY CLERK'S OFFIt.E
Please Indicate Your Interest ~y Checking the Appropriate Line(s)
If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest
CHULA VISTA
_____ Board of Appeals
Child Care
_____ cmsm on Aging
_____ Elderly & Handicapped Cmt
_____ Int. Friendship Omsn
_____ Montgomery C.P.C.
_____ Planning ems"
_____ Town Centre Proj. Area tmt
Chula Vista 21
Board of Ethics
Civil Service Omsn
_____ Design Rev tmt
_____ Growth M9IIIt. cmsm
_____ library Board of Trustees
_____ Otay Valley Proj. Area Cmt
Resource tonsv emsn
_____ United Nations Day Cmt
UC - CV
Charter Review
Cultural Arts
Economic Dev.
HLlMn Rel. emsn
Mob; Lehane Rent Revi ew Cmsm.
Parks & Ree emsn
_ Safety emsn
Youth emsn
X OTHER VtfT!rAAJ5
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
NAME:
~
v/~ f=A
ZIP: 9/9//
V
HOME ADDRESS:
DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA?
./
YES
NO
REGISTERED VOTER IN CHULA VISTA:
t..'/I :;':tE> pm
HOW LONG? ;3 / 'Ar 50
"'YeS NO
..-----_._.~....--------_..._._------_...__.._--_.-..-.------...------------.-.---.-.-------------------------------------
.Youth Commission Applicents ONLY: School Attending
Grade:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLLEGES ATTENDED & DEGREES HELD:
UAJ,"'II.
"JI .-
~ r rjAtUA If
'j
(IS>, ')
PRESENT EMPLOYER: PAC" f.'rlJ s"'t ,I/C"'~ :IM'. PQSITIOH: 1.14 blJrt~-l,.r"7 11114"''''''' r
WHAT ARE YOUR PRINCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT AND WHAT EXPERIENCEIS) OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CAN YOU YOU BRIHG
TO THOSE AREAS?
i~f;
r:::},~.'" b;SAbl:: V~~$. '1 A~t,..'c~.
i' J-,@r V~eerA 0 r~/1;./ W""S
Sf <"c, Po I 1~S.'"7l t -I-n #f"'.L S.
WHAT WOULD YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH BY YOUR PARTICIPATION?
0.1 ~;,... ~/t'.J V~-l~OI"'S.
1 am familiar with the responsibilities assigned to the Board/Commission/Committee on which 1 wish to serve.
~s ~""',N, ~3
:3 'It{ - It? DATE
VERSE SIDE Of THIS APPLICATION FOR VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION. . .
CC-Oll
.
.
/'9 J L-
~(~
A,dS, ~
-=-="""-= RECEIVED
~~~~
- - --
CHUIA ~I~A ((t 28 l'l 59 CHULA VISTA
CITY OF CHULA VIS1 A
CITY CLERK'S OFBOi\RD/COMMlSSION/COMMITIEE APPLICATION
THE CITY OF
Please Indicate Your Interest By Checking the Appropriate Line(s)
If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest
_____ Board of Appeals
Ch ild Care
_ Cmsm on Aging
_ Elderly & Handicapped Colt
_ Int. Friendship Casn
_____ Montgomery C.P.C.
_____ Plaming Cmsn
_____ Town Centre Proj. Area tmt
Chula Vista 21
Board of Ethics
Civil Service Omsn
_____ Design Rev Cmt
_ Growth Mgmt. Cmsm
_____ Library Board of Trustees
_____ Otay Valley Proj. Area trot
Resource tonsv Omsn
_____ United Nations Day Cmt
UC - CV
Charter Review
Cut turel Arts
Economi c Dev.
H\,IDltn Re l. emsn
Mobf Lehome Rent Review Cmsm.
Parks & Rec emsn
_ Safety Omsn
Youth emsn
~ OTHER VE.r
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
RES. PHONE N
. ._~
CITY: (.Y.
S. PHONE ~ REGISTERED VOTER
ZIP: Q/CU3
IN CHULA VISTA: ~ _____
YES NO
HOME ADDRESS:
DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA? )(
YES "'"""iiO
HOW LONG?
,-,.f Lf!:L
-....___0-----------------.------------------------------..........-.----.----------..-------............--.--...........-
*Youth commission Applicants ONLY: School Attending
Grade:
.0__.._.......-----.......---.........--..........------.--.-.-......-..--...........-.-----.-.-......-..---..--....-.-.--
COLLEGES ATTENDED & DEGREES HELO: MA~"T_j - W.<:"U.
~(~.I'l~
~HL
PRESENT EMPLOYER: ~. S. ,J
POS lTION: j).J A Vir.. T
WHAT ARE YOUR PRINCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT AND WHAT EXPERIENCE(S) OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CAN YOU YOU BRING
TO THOSE AREAS? ." 1;.'71!O ~ 1-
..
"HAT WOULD YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH BY YOUR PARTICIPATION? Jl~~~ 'lTT~BT<.. O~ \/0 (
,~ UM"" I) fJ'(T1
t am famiLiar with the responsibilities assigned to the Board/Commission/Committee on which I wish to serve.
~ -d ~~SCN.A ~
* * * PLEASE SEE TIE IIEVEIISE SIDE Of TNIS APPLICATlIII Fill VERY IIFlIlTAIIT LEGAL IIFlIlIIATlON * * *
CC-Oll
~ 3t//;
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
April 13, 1993
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
John D. Goss, City Manager~
( C-y.
Chris Salomone, Community evelopment Director\/-
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Mayor's Comments - Enforcement of the Mobile Home
Ordinance
For the Council Meeting of April 13, 1993, the Mayor placed under
his comments the enforcement of the mobile home ordinance. It is
staff's understanding that the Mayor is concerned that Chapter
9.50 of the Chula vista Municipal Code, which is entitled
Mobilehome Park Space Rent Review, does not contain any express
provisions for enforcement.
As the Chapter is currently structured, the best remedy to any
violation is a civil action filed by a park tenant instead of a
criminal prosecution undertaken by the City Attorney. It is
staff's understanding that the Mayor has received complaints from
tenants, in a particular park, who have expressed discontent with
this structure. The Chapter could be modified to address this
situation, if the Council chooses. Staff has prepared changes
which could be brought back to the Council in the form an
ordinance amending Chapter 9.50 within two weeks. These proposed
changes are attached as Exhibit A. If Chapter 9.50 is modified
to reflect the changes described in Exhibit A, any past .
violations of the Chapter would not be prosecutable. Instead, a
new violation would have to be committed, after the amending
ordinance is effective, before the City Attorney could prosecute.
Staff does not believe any changes to Chapter 9.50 are
appropriate at this time since staff is currently evaluating the
Chapter and expects to recommend considerable changes to the
Mobile Home Rent Review commission and the Council within the
next two months. until these changes can be presented to the
council, the Chapter does provide a legal method, in the form of
a civil action, for tenants to address any threats to their
tenancy. Also, any prosecutions undertaken as a result of the
changes described in Exhibit A would require, at a minimum,
approximately 16 hours of staff time.
3ib-j
EXHIBIT A
Add the following to section 9.50.070 (C)
Park owner's failure to timely deposit funds, sufficient
funds, or to sign an appropriate document submitting the
dispute to arbitration shall constitute a violation of this
section and shall constitute a waiver of the proposed
increase above the applicable CPl.
Add section 9.50.120 Remedies.
A. Any person who demands, accepts, or retains any
payment of rent in violation of the provisions of
this Chapter shall be liable in a civil action to
the person from whom such payment is demanded,
accepted, or retained for damages in the sum of
three (3) times the amount by which the payment or
payments demanded, accepted, or retained exceed the
maximum rent which could be lawfully demanded,
accepted, or retained together with reasonable
attorney's fees and costs as determined by the
Court.
B. Any person violating any of the provisions of this
Chapter shall be guilty of a criminal offense and
shall be punishable in the manner provided by
Chapter 1.20 of the Chula vista Municipal Code.
;;1/) -;2-
.-
Sections:
-9.50.010
9.50.015
9.50.020
9.50.030
9.50.040
9.50.050
950.060
9.50-<)65
9.50.070
9.50.080
950.085
950.090
950.100
950.110
Chapter 9.50
MOBILEHOME PARK SPACE-RENT REVIEW
Applicabili1y.
Applicabili1y of OJapter 9.50 to R<<reational Vehicles.
Repealed.. .
Definitions.
Repealed..
Owner Meetings and possible Voluntary Negotiations.
Repealed..
Notice of Rent Increases.
Initiation of Space Rent Review.
RepeMed..
Repealed..
Repealed..
Severability.
Repealed.
950.010 Applicability.
This chapter shall apply to a mobilehome that requires a permit to be moved on a street or highway.
The procedures contained in this chapter are intended to provide a mechanism for the resolution of
disputed increases in rents by making it advantageous for mobilehomes owners and mobilehome park
owners to establish a better understanding for each other's positions which will result in agreement on the
amount of rent to be charged. A binding arbitration provision is provided for. The procedures of the
ordinance are established with the intent that they be accomplished in a timely fashion. The participating
parties shall commit to the goal of completing the arbitration process within sixty (60) days of the serving
of the notice of rent increase, and that the entire dispute resolution procesS be completed within one
hundred-twenty (120) days following receipt of the notice of space rent increase. 'Ibis chapter shall not
apply to leases exempted by Civil Code Section 798.17 ("Green Bill" leases). (Ord. 2451 !i3, 1991; Ord. 2306
!il (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 !i2, 1988; Ord. 2163 !iI, !i2, 1986; Ord. 1997 !il (part), 1982).
9.50.015 Applicabili1y of OJapter 9.50 to R<<reational Vehicles.
Recreational vehicles as defined in California Civil Code Section 799.24 are subject to the rights and
duties set forth in Chapter 9.50 and shall have the right to arbitration as set forth herein where the
recreational vehicle owner/occupant has been in residenCy for nine or more consecutive months.
Notwithstanding the above, this chapter shall not be applicable to recreational vehicles residing in parks
operated as recreational vehicle parks, where the predominant nUmber of spaces are oc"cupied for less than
nine months. (Ord. 2306 lil (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 !i2, 1988; Ord. 2227 lil, 1987). .
9.50.020 Created.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 !iI, 1989; Ord. 2282 li2, 1988; Ord. 2163 li3, 1986;Ord.
1997 !il (part), 1982).
m .,.,/01'\
"3 t//; ~3
617
"
950.030 Definitions.
Words used in this chapter shall have the meaning desmbed to them in this section:
A 'Space rent" means the consideration, including any bonus, benefits, or gratuity demanded or received
in connection with the use and occupancy of the mobilehome space in a mobilehome Park. or for the
transfer of the lease for ParlcsPace, services, owner-provided utilities, and amenities, subletting and
security deposits, but exclusive of any amounts paid for the use of the mobilehome dwelling or of
major capital improvement or other allowable pass-throughs as defined in this ordinance.
B. "Mobilehome' means a mobilehome as defined in the California Mobilehome Home Residency Law.
C. "Mobilehome parle owner" or 'Owner" means the owner, lessor, operator, manager of a mobilehome
park within the purview of this ordinance.
D. "Mobilehome resident" of "Resident" means any person entided to occupy a mobilehome dwelling unit
by virtue of ownership thereof.
E. 'Dispute' or 'Controversy" means a disagreement or difference which is subject to the arbitration
process.
F. "Consumer Price Index" or 'CPI" shall mean the all urban consumers/all items component of the San
Diego Metropolitan Area U (broader base) consumer price index. .
G. 'Majo; Capital Improvement Pass-TIrrough" means a separately identified monthly cbarge to 'residents
which represents the repayment of a cost for a major capital improvement with the following
characteristics:
1. Said improvement shall have a cost of more than $10,000.
2. Said improvement shall be exclusive of maintenance or replacement of existing facilities.
3. Said improvement shall have been approved in concept by more than fifty percent (50%) of the
mobilehome spaces within the mobilehome parle after all spaces in the parl< have been informed
'of the nature, general design, timing, and overall cost of said improvement, and the amount and
duration of the related pass-through.
H. Other Allowable Pass-TIrroughs' means separately billed utility service fees and charges excluded from
rent in accordance with the provisions of Civil Code Section 798.41; increases in rates of
owner-provided utilities and governmental assessments sucb as real property taxes, license fees, and
assessments for municipal services or improvements. Copies of bills, invoices, or other appropriate
supporting documentation shall be kept on file in the parle owner's on-site business office, and made
available for review by affected residents upon reasonable request at any time during normal business
hours.
(Ord. 2451 ~, 1991; Ord. 2306 iiI (part), 1989; Ord. 2163 ~, 1986; Ord. 1997 iiI (part), 1982).
9.50.040 Negotiation commission-Membeniliip.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 iiI (part), 1989; Ord. 2291 iiI, 1989; 2282 !i2, 1988; Ord.
2163 !is, 1986; Ord. 1997 !il (part), 1982).
618
;so//; ~t(
(R 11/91)
-- -
950.050 Owner Meetings and possible Volun13Iy Negotiations.
Within five (5) days, but not more than 10 days, after service of a notice of increase, as provided in
Section 950.065, the parle owner must hold an informal meeting for the benefit of the affected residents to
discuss his or her increase. It is hoped that such a meeting may lead to voluntaIy settlement of the dispute.
The meeting should be set for a time and date believed to be convenient for residents and may be changed
to a different date based on the reasonable request of the residents.
The residents shall have the option to choose whether or not to attend the meeting. Attendance at
the meeting shall not affect the residents' right to arbitrate under Section 950.070. (Ord.2451li5, 1991;
Ord. 2306lil (part), 1989; Ord. 2282li2, 1988; Ord. 2163li6, 1986; Ord. 1997li1 (part), 1982).
950.060 Powers of a negotiation commission.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306li1 (part), 1989; Ord. 2282li2, 1988; Ord. 2163 li7, 1986;
Ord. 1997 lil (part), 1982).
950.065 Notice of rent increase.
A. In any situation where a mobilehome park owner wishes to ,increase the space rent above the
applicable 0'1, he or she must first give notice to affected residents, at the same time the sixty (60)
day notice required by Civil Code Section 798.30 is given. a,s follows: .
NOTICE - RENT INrnEASE IN EXCESS OF 0'1
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO ARBITRATE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, THIS INCREASE SHALL BE
AUTOMATICAlLY EFFECTIVE
This is a notice of space rent increase which exceeds the percentage increase of the Consumer Price
Index (O'I) for the most recent twelve (12) month period, as reported by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, preceding tIiis notice. The 0'1 is _ % and this increase is _ % of your current rent. Under
the City's Municipal Code, you are entided to the following rightS:
1. I am required to hold a meeting with the residents to discuss the reasons for the increase. The
meeting will be at (time and place). You are encouraged to attend but are not required to do
so. Under the City's ordinance, owners and residents are encouraged to attempt to resolve
differences regarding this' increase.
2. You have the right to file for arbitration with the City's Community Development Department.
You may file for arbitration whether or not you attend the meeting to discuss the increase. To
file for arbitration, you must place a deposit of $---,- with the City's Community DevelopmElt
Departmentwithin thirty (30) days of the date this notice is served on you. If you do not place
the deposit, you forfeit your right to arbitrate the rent increase.
If you or other affected residents are lower-income (below $13,000-$15,000 per year), you may
be elig1"ble to receive assistance with part of the cost of arbitration from the City's Community
DevelopmentDepartment. If you have questions regarding arbitration or need more information,
you can call the City at 691-5047.
Jib ~y
rn 11/911
619
,.... '..-
This increase is in addition to the following allowable pass-throughs: [identify type and ;amount
of major capitol improvement or other allowable pass-through]
The following space numbers are subject to this increase: [insert numbers of affected spaces].
B. If the residents within the affected mobilehome park have established a representative body and notify
the owner in writing of its existence, a copy of the rent increase notice must be sent to the chaitperson
of that body.
C A copy of the rent increase notice must be given to the Community Development Department of the
City of Chula VISta at the same time as issuance of the notice to residents.
D. The rent increase notice must contain the space numbers of all residents who are subject to the
. increase which is above the amount of the applicable CPL
E. The notice shall advise recipients that a deposit of 25% of the cost of atbitration shall be made within
thirty (30) days of the date of service of notice or the right to atbitration is waived. The deposit shall
be made with the Director of Community Development.
COrd. 2451 !l6, 1991; Ord. 2306 !l1 (part), 1989.
950.070 Initiation of Space Rent Review.
A In any simation where the space rent increases in a twelve (12) month period exceed cumulatively
the percentage increase of the consumer price index. as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for
the most recent twelve (12) month period preceding the rent increase notice, the following procedures
shall apply unless the owner receives written consent to the increase from more than 50%. of the
spaces affected by the notice of increase. The owner must file the original of the written consent with
the Community Development Department and notify the residents that this has been filed.
B. Residents shall be required within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the notice of increase to
deposit with the City Community Development Department 25% of the estimated atbitration cost for
one day of atbitration. Arbitration shall begin in not less than 20 days nor more than 30 days after
the date of service of the notice of increase, provided the residents' deposit has _ been made.
C Upon receipt of the residents' deposit and notification to the park owner, the park owner shall have
7 days to provide a deposit which shall be equal to 75% of the estimated cost for one day of
atbitration. The park owner shall sign an appropriate document submitting the dispute to atbitration
when making the deposit.
D. The cost of atbitration including costs incurred by the American Arbitration Association in cases where
a settlement is reached prior to any hearing will be shared.
The owner shall be responsible for 75% and the residents responsible for 25% of the first $750. Any
costs of atbitration above $750 shall be shared equally by both parties. Additional ~osts above the
amount of deposit shall be due and payable subject to the requirements of the American Arbitration
Association.
E. The atbitration shall be conducted according to .the applicable ruies of arbitration of the American
Arbitration Association and under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association.
F. The decision of the atbitrator shall be advisory to the Mobilehome Rent Commission and shall be
applicable to all- mobilehome residents subject to the rent increase being reviewed. Factors to be
620
JL/f--~
(R 11/91)
-
considered shall include but not be limited to a just and reasonable return on the owner's property.
The burden of proof shall be on the park owner to demonstrate that the rent increase is necessary to
provide a just and reasonable return on the property. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted to
the Mobilehome Rent Commission within thirty (30) days from the beginning of arbitration.
G. -The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted to the City's Mobilehome Rent Commission, which shall
affirm, modify, or revoke the arbitrator's decision at a public hearing held within sixly (60) days
following such submission. The parties may stipulate to merely a review of the record at arbitration,
or either side may request a 'denovo' hearing by the CoIiunission. If a de novo hearing is requested,
it shall be conducted in accordance with procedures adopted by the Commission which satisfy the
requirements of'due process' and ;will constitute a hearing at which evidence is required by law, so
that the Commission's decision is reviewable by the courts by a writ of administrative mandamus
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.
H. In the event that the owner reduces the rent increase to the applicable CPI, or more than 50% of the
affected residents agree in writing to settle the dispute,the arbitration process automatically
terminates. .
L The review process shall also be applicable to the situation where space rent is increased upon change
of ownership of the mobilehome or removal of the unit. Either the incoming or outgoing
owner-occupant shall have the right to arbitrate.
If an outgoing mobilehome owner intends to sell his or her mobilehome, he or she may request, and
the owner shall be obligated to provide within 15 days of the request, a written statement as to the
rental rate to be offered to the incoming owner-occupant. If the rate of increase.in rent to the new
owner-occupant is above the amount of the applicable CPI as provided in Section 9.50.070 (A), then
either the current resident or incoming resident shall have the right to arbitrate the increase under
the provisions of Section 9.50.070. The right is subject to the outgoing or incoming resident placing
a deposit pursuant to subsection B above, within 30 days of either (a) service of the owner's written
statement to the outgoing resident or (b) the date of execution of a purchase contract between the
incoming and outgoing residents, which is the latter.
The park owner's statement shall contain the following:
NOTICE - RENT INrnEASE IN EXCESS OF CPI
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO ARBITRATE IN A TIMELY MANNER. THIS INCREASE SHAlL
BE AUTOMATICAlLY EFFECTIVE UPON THE SALE OF YOUR MOBILEHOME
This is a statement of space rent increase which exceeds the percentage increase of the Consumer
Price Index (CPO for the twelve (12) month period. as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
preceding this statement. The CPI is _'*' and this increase is _'*' of your current rent. This
increase is in addition to the following allowable pass-throughs: [identify type and amount of major
capitol improvement or other allowable pass-through]. -
Under the City's Municipal Code, either the outgoing or the incoming resident is entitled to file for
arbitration with the City's Community Development Department. In order to arbitrate, you must place
an arbitration deposit of $_ with the City's Community Development Department within thirty (30)
days of the date this notice is served on you or the date of execution of a purchase contract on the
mobilehome. If you do not place the deposit, you forfeit your right to arbitrate the rent increase.
:;ifb,-7
(R 11/91)
621
'. '.
. .50% 6! c,~ t'h~ InCil"n1R-
If you are low income (below S IJ,JDD IJ,666 per year), you may be eligible to receive assistance for
part of the cost of arbitration from' the City's Community Development Department. If you have
questions regarding arbitration or need more information, you can call the City at 691-5047.
(Ord. 2451li7, 1991).
950:080 Mediation of negotiation comm;<<ioner's decision.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2282 li2, 1988; Oed. 2163 li9, 1986; Oed. 1997 lil (part), 1982).
950.085 Arbitration.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2306 lil (part), 1989; Ord. 2282 lil, 1988).
950.090 Deferral of Rent Increases_
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2451 li8, 1991; Ord. 2306 lil, 1989; Ord. 2282li2, 1988; Ord.
2163 lil0, 1986; Ord. 1997lil (part), 1982).
950.100 Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, dause, phrase or portion of this chapter is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate and independent provision and such
decision shall not affect the validity .of the remainder. (Ord. 2163 lill, 1986; Ord. 1997 lil (part), 1982).
950.110 Enforcement.
(Section repealed by Ordinance No. 2282 li2, 1988; Ord. 2163 lill, 1986; Ord. 1997 lil (part), 1982).
622
]1brgY
(R 11/91)
:i:O:Tne ~o;cne OJ: \;a.l.J:J.OJ."D.l.a .uepar.men. OJ: A.LCnO.L1C beverage
Control.
We the undersigned residents of this area PROTEST the issuance
of an on-sale or off-sale licence to be granted to the Bobar
Market, located at 72 East "J" st., Chula Vista, Ca. Ref. Zoura, Latif.
This licence would not be in the Best interest of our neighors
who have children of school age.
This store is surrounded by three Public Schools one of which is
within 100 ft. of the playground. Hilltop high School (1) block
away. Hilltop Junior High 100 ft. and the Hilltop Elementary
which is one block away.
...
To: ~ne State of California Department of Alcholic Beverage
Control.
~e the undersigned residents of this area PROTEST the issuance
of an on-sale or off-sale licence to be granted to the Bobar
Market, located at 72 East "J" st., Chula Vista, Ca. Ref. Zoura,
This licence would not be in the Best interest of our neighor13
who have children of school age.
This store is surrounded by three Public Schools one of which is
within 100 ft. of the playground. Hilltop high School (1) block
away. Hilltop Junior High 100 ft. and the Hilltop Elementary
which is one block away.
Latif.
.. .
----'-_P_--
-----------~ '
3 'Ie --2.,
..
-.'-'. ....&..&.~ -U\lQ-V~ """... \,IQ...L:L./..VJ..U..l.Q. .LJ'c,tJd...l.-",wt;::Ult V,J. A.LCnO.L~C .t:Severage
Control.
We the undersigned residents of this area PROTEST the issuance
of an on-sale or off-sale licence to be granted to the Bobar
Market, located at 72 East "J" st., Chula Vista, Ca. Ref. Zoura,
This licence would not be in the Best interest of our neighors
who have children of school age.
This store is surrounded by three Public Schools one of which is
within 100 ft. of the playground. Hilltop high School (1) block
away. Hilltop Junior High 100 ft. and the Hilltop Elementary
which is one block away.
Latif.
.:1o/c ".:J
-
To: The state of California Department of Alcholic Beverage
Control.
We the uooersigned residents of this area PROTEST the issuance
of an on-sale or off-sale licence to be granted to the Bobar
Market, located at 72 East "J" st., Chula Vista, Ca. Ref. Zoura, Latif.
This licence would not be in the Best interest of our neighor.s
who have children of school age.
This store is surrounded by three Public Schools one of which is
within 100 ft. of the playground. Hilltop high School (1) block
away. Hilltop Junior High 100 ft. and the Hilltop Elementary
which is one block away.
_'1'/c - .y
To: The State of California Department of Alcholic Beverage
Control.
We the undersigned residents of this area PROTEST the issuance
of an on-sale or off-sale licence to be granted to the Bobar
Market, located at 72 East "J" st., Chula Vista, Ca. Ref. Zoura, Latif.
This licence would not be in the Best interest of our neighors
who have children of school age.
This store is surrounded by three Public Schools one of which is
within 100 ft. of the playground. Hilltop high School (1) block
away. Hilltop Junior High 100 ft. and the Hilltop Elementary
which is one block away.
(
,
. '1'1~-~
DATE ISSUED:
'April 8, 1993
REPORT NO. 93-99
ATTENTION:
Public Facilities and'Recreation Committee Agenda of April 14, 1993
SUBJECT:
Voting Methodology for San Diego Area Wastewater Management
District (District)
REFERENCE:
San Diego Area Wastewater Management District Act (Act)
SUMMARY
Issue: Should the Public Facilities and Recreation Committee and the City Council approve a
recommended change to the weighted voting method set forth by the San Diego Area Wastewater
Management District Act (Act)?
. Manager's Recommendation: Approve the recommended revisions to the District weighted vote
methodology,
Other Recommendations: The revised methodology was approved by the District Board of
Directors with San Diego representatives abstaining.
Fiscal Impact: None with this action,
BACKGROUND
Normal Vote: Under the standard voting procedure set forth by the Act, there are twenty (20)
votes available from seventeen (17) Board Members. San Diego's three (3) Board Members
have two (2) votes each for a total of six (6) votes.
Weighted Vote: The weighted vote method contained in the Act provides a 50% weight for San
Diego with the remaining 50% given to the other member agencies pro-rated according to their
portion of the wastewater flow in the system. A detailed description of the weighted vote is
shown on Attachment (1).
.
Acceptance of Current Wei~hted Vote Methodology: A major criticism of the existing
methodology for weighted voting is that it does not support consensus building among the
member agencies. As a result, a revised methodology has been proposed by the representatives
of the member agencies.
, Ii
S-J
i\
\;7
Revised Proposal:
Under this proposal, the call for a weighted vote would nullify the prior roU call vote. The
procedure for calling for the weighted vote remains unchanged from the current legislation
(Section 315). Then, in order for a weighted vote to pass, two conditions must be met. The
vote must be cairied by both a majority of the flow (San Diego) and a majority of the regular
. votes (San Diego and at least five other votes based on current membership). With this new
system of weighted votes, San Diego would always be able to veto a measure because of
controls of the majority of the flow. However, non-veto action on the part of the City of San
Diego would require some consensus building. .
~!
Additionally, a weighted vote would no longer be permitted in cases concerning the hiring,
firing, or terms of employment for both the District General Manager and District General
Counsel.
As called for in the existing Act, if a member agency has more than one member, the Directors
from that member agency would cast their vote as a unit.
Conclusion and Recommendation:
The office of the City Attorney is writing a separate report on this issue and will propose
amended legislation to revise the Act's weighted voting prOCedure as may be required.
. Importantly, San Diego will continue to hold "veto power" under this proposal and will continue
to have the weight of 6 of 20 available votes. As a result, San Diego's interests would be
protected under this proposal and Council approval is. recommended. It should be noted that the
revised proposal to become effective would require amended State legislation.
~i
Alternatives
1. Do not approve the revised weighted vote proposal.
2. Seek approval of a weighted voting procedure that requires fewer votes to pass.
3. Approve acceptance of the weighted vote proposal based on the acceptance of conditions
on the part of other member agencies (eg. fair-share cost sharing on all Clean Water
Program facilities.)
q;:."bmi....
JACK MCGRORY
City Manager .
Attachment: District Rules and Procedures "Excerpt"
SCHLESINGER/HRF
C:\""I'doc\f'DS\W.i&il&_HJl.F
~.
3~-10.
".
.
DISTRICT RULES AND PROCEDURES
ftEXCERPTft
Section 10. VOTING.
a. Each Board Director present at a meeting of the Board shall have one (1) vote,
with the exception of the City of San Diego whose Board Directors shall each have two (2)
votes, on any motion, resolution, or ordinance before the Board. A majority of the votes of the
Board shall be required to carry any motion, resolution, or ordinance, except when weighted
voting is used, or where o'therwise specified herein.
b. Any Board Director may call for the use of a weighted vote. A weighted vote
may be called after a roll call vote has been taken on any particular item. If a weighted vote
is called and taken after a roll call vote, then the weighted vote shall be final and binding. The
call for a weighted vote shall be seconded by a Board Director representing a different member
. agency than the Board Director making the call. If the call is seconded by a Board Director
from the City of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, or the County of San Diego, or if the call
is seconded by two (2) Board Directors representing other member agencies, weighted voting
shall be used.
c. Weighted voting shall be based upon the average daily flow of wastewater
discharged by all member agencies, except the City of San Diego, into facilities of the district,
as determined and established at the first meeting in July of each year by' resolution of the
Board. When the weighted vote is taken there shall be a total of 100 possible votes. Fifty (50)
of those votes shall be allocated to the City of San Diego, irrespective of its average daily flow.
The allocation of the remaining fifty (50) votes to the remaining member agencies shall be
determined pursuant to Article III, Section 10, Subdivision (3) of these Rules and Regulations.
.
356-3
"
.,
. l
,
.
,i;\
V ';
-
d. The average daily flow of the remaining member agencies shall be totaled and
the ratio of each agency's portion to this total shall be calculated and the resulting fraction shall
be multiplied by fifty (50), with decimals of 0.50 or greater rounded up to the next whole
Dumber. thereby detennining the Dumber of the remaining fifty (50) votes to be allocated to the
agency. For purposes of this section, the average daily flow of the San Diego County Water
Authority shall be equal to the average daily flow of the member agency with the smallest flow.
In no event shall a member agency have less than one (I) vote. If a member agency has more
than one (I) member on the Board, the Board Directors of that member agency shall cast the
vote or votes allocated to that member agency as a unit, as determined by the majority of the
member agency's Board Directors who are present. The affirmative vote of Board Directors
representing more than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of votes of all the Board
Directors shall be necessary and, except as otherwise provided, shall be sufficient to carry any
motion, resolution, or ordinance before the Board.
.........
-.,.
C;\wp5I\Mc\1da\Wcialu.HJt.1
- 2 -
--..,
3!~..;.q.