HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1995/03/28
Tuesday, March 28, 1995
6:00 p.m.
..( dcda"e un~er 't
.' . .. pena. y of perjury th8t I 8'"
e~?!oyej vy tile City of Chula Vista in the
Qmce 01 the City Clerk ~nd th t I .
th". u a pos~ed
. IS AgenJ"!i\loUce on the Bulletin Board at
~~;'~~b~ J5JVi ~Ui/ding an at City Hall on
, SIGNED . _ ..
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
itv Council
CALL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Fox _' Moot _' Padilla _' Rindone _' and Mayor
Horton
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
March 21, 1995 (City Council Meeting) and March 21, 1995 (Joint
City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting)
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. SANDAG preseotatioo on Bayshore Bikeway by Stephan Vance.
b. Proclamation commending Jerry M. Foncerrada, Deputy Director of Parks, for thirty years
of dedicated service to the City. Mayor Horton will present the proclamation.
c. Oath of Office:
Arnira Walker - International Friendship Comm.ission;
Jon C. Thornburg - Resource Conservation Commission.
d. Senior Volunteer Patrol.
*****
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting.
Because of the cost involved, there will be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
*****
CONSENT CALENDAR
(!rems 5 through 9)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to
the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and
Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no observed reportable actions taken
from the Closed Session of 3/21/95. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
Agenda
-2-
March 28, 1995
b. Letter requesting an opportunity to address Council for ten minutes regarding the Villa
Palmera Community. Claudia J. Diamond. Diamond Consulting Group, 539 Telegraph Canyon
Rd., Ste. 145, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is reconunended that if Ms. Diamond desires to make
a presentation at this meeting, she be allowed to do so, but that she be encouraged to submit her
concerns in writing so that staff can review them in detail and report back to Council at a future
meeting with their recommendations.
c. Letter requesting speed humps he placed in front of the school on Albany A venue. Martha
Villafranca, Principal, Otay Elementary School, 1651 Albany Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911.
It is recommended that this request be referred to staff and the Safety Commission.
6. ORDINANCE 2629 AMENDING SECTION 2.28.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE CODE OF ETHICS TO PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT
OF A FORMER CITY COUNCILMEMBER FOR A PERIOD OF ONE
YEAR AFTER LEAVING OFFICE (second readin2 and adootion) - On
1/10/95, Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the
provision of the Ethics Code prohibiting a former eJected official from appearing
before a City body or City officer or employee as an agent for someone else
soliciting a benefit or entitlement in front of the City. The Council's interest
was evaluating an expansion of that provision to preclude a former elected
official from being employed for the same one year period of time after leaving
office. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and
adoption. (City Attorney)
7.A. RESOLUTION 17847 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT REQUIRING DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH
CERT AINUNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTIONS NUMBERS
17797, 17618 AND 15200 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAME - On 1/24/95, Council approved the Tentative Subdivision
Map for Tract 95-02, Parcel R-15 of EastLake South Greens. Previous Council
actions affecting the development include: (I) Tentative Subdivision Map for
Tract 88-03, EastLake Greens on 7/18/89; and (2) Amended Tentative
Subdivision Map for Tract 88-03, EastLake Greeos on 8/16/94. All three of the
resolutions contain conditions of approval for development of Parcel R-15. Staff
reconunends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLUTION 17848 APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 95-02, EASTLAKE SOUTH
GREENS, UNIT 15, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE
PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP, AND THE
EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION,
REJECTING THE OFFER OF DEDICATION IN FEE OF LOTS A, B
AND C, APPROVING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID
SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
Agenda
-3-
March 28, 1995
8.A. RESOLUTION 17849 APPROVING THE BOUNDARY MAP SHOWING THE PROPOSED
BOUNDARIES FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 93-1 OF PROPERTIES TO
BE ASSESSED FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS - As a preliminary step in
the assessment proceedings, it is necessary to request Council pass resolutions
approving the proposed map boundary, ordering the installation of the alley
improvements, and setting public hearings on the intention to form the
assessment district. Staff recommends Council approve the resolutions and set
the public hearings for 5/9/95 and 5/16/95 at 6:00 p.m. (Director of Public
Works)
B. RESOLUTION 17850 ORDERING INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS IN ALLEY FROM
"J" STREET TO KEARNEY STREET BETWEEN ELM A VENUE AND
SECOND A VENUE, ORDERING THE SUPERINTENDEYf OF STREETS
TO GIVE NOTICE AND ORDER CONSTRUCTION AND SETTING
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 93-1 PURSUANT TO THE BLOCK ACT OF
1911
9. REPORT REVIEW PROCESS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OF MULTIPLE
SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTIENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ST A TEMENT - The City and several other jurisdictions have been participating
in the development of a drall MSCP Plan which is being prepared by the City
of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department for its regional sewerage
service area. The City of San Diego recently released a public review draft of
the MSCP Plan and has published a schedule for review of the draft plan and
accompanying Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
which will be released in May. Staff recommends Council accept the report.
(Director of Planning)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete
the pink fonn to speak in opposition to the staff recommemlation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per
individual.
10.
PUBLIC HEARING
MODIFICATION TO DELETE ANNUAL STAFF REVIEW OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-92-06; A 12-BED RESIDENTIAL
TREATMENT FACILITY FOR RECOVERING ALCOHOLICS
LOCATED AT 73 NORTH SECOND AVENUE - CITY ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR - On 11/26/91, Council approved Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) PCC-92-06 to allow a 12-bed residential treatment facility for recovering
alcoholics. The program, referred to as Nosotros, occupies the southerly
portion of the former Vista Hill/Southwood psychiatric facility site at 73 North
Second Avenue in the R-3 zone. A condition of the CUP for the project
required staff to conduct an annual review of the operation, with notice being
provided to surrounding residents. Based on the compliance history of the
facility, the Zoning Administrator is reconunending that Council delete the
requirement for annual review. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Planning)
RESOLUTION 17851 AMENDING RESOLUTION 16425 WHICH APPROVED PCC-92-06
ALLOWING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 12-BED RESIDENTIAL
TREATMENT FACILITY FOR RECOVERING ALCOHOLICS AT 73
NORTH SECOND A VENUE
Agenda
-4-
March 28, 1995
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opyortunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
Council's junsdiction tliat is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is Limited to three
minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items Listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations bl.
the Council, staff, or members oj the general public. The items will be considered individually by the CouncIl
and staff recommendations may 10 certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
Jill out a "Request to Speak" fonn available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are Limited to five minutes.
REJECTING LOWEST BIDDER AS NON-RESPONSIVE;.. ACCEPTING
BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE O~ A TRACTOR
LOADER WITH BACKHOE - On 1118/95, bids were received for a tractor
loader with backhoe for Public Works Operations. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution awarding the bid to Bengal Equipment. (Director of Public
Works) Continued from the meeting of 3/14/95.
11.
RESOLUTION 17830
12.
REPORT
UPDATE ON REGIONAL SEWER ISSUES - An oral report will be given
by staff.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
OTHER BUSINESS
13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTCSl
a. Scheduling of meetings.
14. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Ratification of appointment: Judith A. Pidgeon - Child Care Commission.
b. Board of Appeals and Advisors member attendance.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on April 4, 1995
at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Agenda
-5-
March 28, 1995
*****
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will
discuss and deliberate on the Jollowing items oj business which are permitted by k1w to be the subject oj a closed
session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the
interests oj the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports oJ final action
taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length oj time taken up by closed
sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return Jrom
closed session, reports oj final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
oj final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's OJfice.
16. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. City of Chula Vista vs. the County of San Diego regarding approval of a major use
permit for Daley Rock Quarry.
. Chula Vista and nine other cities VS. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste
issues (trash litigation).
2, Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
. Significant exposure to litigatioo pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 2.
. Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs) and EPA
lawsuit.
. Chula Vista vs. LP A.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
. Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, Executive Management, Mid-
Management, and Unrepresented.
Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (W CE).
Unrepresented employee: Executive Management. Mid-Management. and Unrepresented.
17. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
*****
Tuesday, March 28, 1995
6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
Re1rular Meetinsz of the City of Chula Vista City Council
ADDENDUM
14. MAYOR'S REPORTlSl
c. Approval for Cinco de Mayo Festival along Third Avenue which would require the closing of
Third Avenue between "E" and "0" Streets on 517/95 from 12:00 (noon) to 6:00 p.m.
"I dec!ars !;.m~,~er pc;n3~t'l Gi !}e~'~'!!'" th:J't I am
em:-;lo:'ed by t'"!e ' "if ,'of !j ''.J',~J'J:n tt.E
0" ;ce of lne Ci'~~, ..Aen< : ',-,_.'c'1
tLis .Gf\t.t,d/!'io..ice ;)11 t~c i,3ui.0"11 0,ird ::~:
the PUbLc t:rvices Bu,I(}in;{ and
DAcW: 3 ~y, 75 SIGNED
.;:-
~ San Diego
ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS
....-'-.."..;
~':;'~;.' Uj 'H. ~9
-_ hn 11- -..J
Suite BOO, First Interstate Plaza
401 B Street
San Diego, California 92101
(619)595-5300 Fax (619)595-5305
January 26, 1995
Mr. Clifford L. Swanson
Deputy Public Works Director
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Swanson:
The SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Policy Advisory Committee is coordinating ongoing
efforts to plan and implement improvements to the Bayshore Bikeway. I think you know
that the committee was formed at the request of Greg Cox when he was Mayor of Chula
Vista. Most recently, Len Moore represented the City of Chula Vista on the committee.
We have requested appointment of a new representative, but we realize that there are now
several members on the Council that may not be familiar with the bikeway and the work
that is currently being done to improve it in Chula Vista and elsewhere.
As part of our planning effort, we have developed a ten to fifteen minute slide show that
describes the bikeway, the committee's planning efforts to date and the projects we are
working to implement. I would appreciate very much an opportunity to present this slide
show to your Council at the next convenient date. The show focuses on improvements to
the bikeway where it crosses the Chula Vista boundary on the north and south. It can
easily be tailored to fit your time constraints, or to provide a specific emphasis.
Please let me know if this presentation can be scheduled for your Council's agenda. You
em n".ach meat_595-5324 if you have questions or want to make specific plans. I look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
~ )U.(I~
STEPHAN M. VANCE
Senior Transportation Planner
1/ fnV
! q) fP
SMV lab
7"'a ~ /
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, EI Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove,
National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego.
ADVISORYILIAISON MEMBERS: Califomia Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Defense, S.D. Unified Port District, and TijuanalBaja Califomia.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item i ~
Meeting Date: 3/28/95
ITEM 1TTI.E:
Presentation of proclamation commending thirty years of service of Jerry M.
F oncerrada
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Parks and Recreation
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
(4/5ths vote: Yes_ NolO
Jerry M. Foncerrada, Deputy Director of Parks, achieved thirty (30) years of service on December
28, 1994. The proclamation will be presented by Mayor Pro Tern Rindone.
7'1> ~ J
COMMENDING JERRY FONCERRADA
UPON THIRTY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE
TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Jerry Foncerrada began his employment with the City of Chula Vista
in Decemt?er of 1964 as a Recreation Leader, and since has served as Senior Recreation
Supervisor, Recreation Superintendent, Park Superintendent, and Acting Director of
Parks and Recreation, and currently serves as Deputy Director of Parks; and
WHEREAS, Jerry was instrumental in establishing the tennis program at
Southwestern College, assisted in the creation of a summer school program, organized
and conducted the Chula Vista Invitational Youth Basketball Tournament, which at its
peak, was one of the largest tournaments in Southern California. Jerry helped in
developing the City's Therapeutic Program which grew from a once-a-week activity into
a comprehensive therapeutic recreation program; and
WHEREAS, Jerry played an important role in the renovation of Memorial Park,
Marina View Park, Terra Nova Park, Rohr Park, and Sweetwater Recreation Trail
Improvements and was actively involved in the development of Chula Vista Community
Park at EastLake Greens, Sunridge Park, and Sunbow Park, in addition was
instrumental in developing a partnership with the Bonita Optimist in securing $20,000 to
improve the play area, Fort Apache at Rohr Park:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SHIRLEY HORTON, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista,
California, do hereby COMMEND JERRY FONCERRADA upon thirty years of dedicated
service to the City of Chula Vista.
t/6 -cA
RE: Senior Volunteer Patrol
The City of Chula Vista is preparing to expand its 24 member
Senior Volunteer Patrol Program by 30 additional members.
We are seeking men and women willing to volunteer a minimum
of 6 hour per week, Monday through Saturday.
Senior Volunteer Patrol Officers perform vacation house checks,
perform foot and driving patrols through the City's business
districts, and their presence helps decrease crime.
To be a member ofthe Senior Volunteer Patrol you must be at
least 55 years old, be a resident ofChula Vista, have a valid
California Drivers License, and be in good health. The academy
for the next class of Senior Volunteer Patrol Officers starts
Monday April 10, 1995, so you need to get your applications in
early.
For more information on joining the Senior Volunteer Patrol
call 691-5127.
~r:I~/
March 23, 1995
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and City counc~~n
John D. Goss, city Manager~ ~~l
city council Meeting of March 2'!. 1;;5
TO:
SUBJECT:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
city council meeting of Tuesday, March 28, 1995. Comments
regarding the written communications are as follows:
5a. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that there
were no observed reportable actions taken by the city council
in Closed Session on March 21, 1995.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS REQUEST BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
5b. This is a letter from Claudia Diamond, Diamond Consulting
Group, requesting an opportunity to address council regarding
the Villa palmera Community. As of this writing, staff has
attempted, but been unable to reach Ms. Diamond to ascertain
her concerns. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT IF MS. DIAMOND DESIRES
TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AT THIS MEETING, SHE BE ALLOWED TO DO
SO, BUT THAT SHE BE ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT HER CONCERNS IN
WRITING SO THAT STAFF CAN REVIEW THEM IN DETAIL AND REPORT
BACK TO COUNCIL AT A FUTURE MEETING WITH THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS.
5c. This is a letter from Martha Villafranca, Principal of otay
Elementary School, requesting that speed bumps be placed in
front of the school on Albany Avenue. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT
THIS REQUEST BE REFERRED TO STAFF AND THE SAFETY COMMISSION.
JDG:mab
~u~
=~-~
:......,;:.....-:~.-...;:
~~~~
~--~-
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
March 22, 1995
From:
The Honorable Mayor and City Counc~~
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorneycf~~
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 3/21/95
To:
Re:
The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of my knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed Session, that there were
no actions taken in the Closed Session of 3/21/95 which are
required under the Brown Act to be reported.
BMB: 19k
C:\lt\clossess.no
~~/
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5037
Iv OF CHULA VISTA
Y CWtK'S OFFICE
,~'.\.1Cf1~
RECEIVED DIAMOND CONSULTING GROmr~/' ,,~~.,U,{j. 7Jtt!J''',:;....~-:
A DIVISION OF CC& R PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC, " "l.)
'95 IIllR 17 AlO 112 539 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Ste. # 145 Chuta Vista, CA. 91910 \it; ',) ,
Office: (619) 421-4121 Fax: (619)-421-5628' c), , .;-"',
\ .,../ ~ ~'i'fl"," I.~ii'q
/). " <"!'I^'"
.... Y,
/l~-, ~,.."~~__-.,'
~" '~if-:Jj' \~.
I
Mayor Shirley Horton and the City Council
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
March 14, 1995
Dear Ms. Horton and City Council Members,
I would like to request an opportunity to address the Council at the meeting of March 21, 1995
regarding an unresolved issue affecting the Villa Palmera Community. The presentation will be
limited to 10 minutes.
Your office can contact me at the above phone number or address to let me know where I will be
on the agenda.
Thanking you in advance.
/I / ,,' ce, ,. /~ 11"
c{.autU~ (anutn.z!jfJ(f)m
Claudia J. .' ond RN, BA, MPH
President, CC&&Property Investments, Inc.
President, Villa Palmera Homeowners Association
cc: Villa Palmera Board Members
Curtis Management
V. P. Association Legal Counsel
W~,itTEN COMMUNICATIO~S
Ce-i ~~~(<j) r~f<}f
fjfj;i~
5b-;
-:tb
DIAMOND CONSULTING GROUP
A DIVISION OF CC& R PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC.
539 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Ste. # 145 Chula Vista, CA. 91910
Office: (619) 421-4121 Fax: (619)-421-5628
March 28, 1995
Mayor Shirley Horton and The Chula Vista City Council
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Ms. Horton and City Council,
I have twice previously made presentations to City Council. The first time was August 23, 1994. After which,
City Council sent my concerns to various members on the city staff for review and resolution. I, along with two
other home owners in my community met with staff on September 23, 1994. The first thing I was asked at that
meeting was "So which issues out of your questions do you want answered?" "All ofthem" I responded. It became
evident very quickly that the men sitting around the table had no intention of answering any questions except those
which they had hand picked. A written response was received, but many issues remained unanswered. As of this
date, the situation remains the same.
I next attended the November 22,1994 City Council Meeting. As luck would have it, our FAX machine was on the
day that the City faxed me over the page that dealt with Villa Palmera Concerns being on that agenda. I never
received a follow up phone call to be sure I received the fax, no letter, etc. I did attend the November 22nd meeting
and once again addressed issues of concern which had been presented previously. It is now FOUR months later and I
have received absolutely NO follow up to that meeting. (Copy of my presentation attached). At the City Council
Meeting that night, discussion ensued regarding the posting of signs from 4) B) of my concerns. It was further
determined that the Safety Commission would review the speed limit issue addressed in concern 3). I am still
waiting to attend the Safety Commission Meeting!
I find it incredible that we, the taxpayers, contribute to the salaries of the people working for the City and yet they
have no obligation whatsoever to respond to our concerns completely and in a timely manner. If this was private
industry, a person would be fired for not responding to consumer concerns. In private industry a company depends
on its people doing a good job and responding to the public or the company will fold. Apparently, whether you do
your job or not, working for the City guarantees you a paycheck!
Infact, the City views the homeowners of Villa Palmera as "low rent apartment dwelling troublemakers." 1bis,
incidently, is a direct quote by more than one member of the City staff, which of course explains why the City does
not care whether we are responded to or not! I should like to tell you that we have quite a number of impressive
people who own the 76 single family homes in our community. We have writers, consultants, speakers, nurses,
doctors, dentists, lawyers, retired military, retired folks who spent much of their careers working in industries right
here in Chula Vista, successful business owners, people who work for local TV stations, educators, people who stay
home to raise their children and those who even watch their gnmdchildren! The home owners are a very eclectic and
law abiding group of individuals. The Community has a homeowners association because we have a pool and
common area landscaping. The Community is meticulously maintained which is a reflection of pride in ownership.
The City, as well as the builder should be delighted to have neighbors who take such good care of their homes.
1bis will only make a new community more marketable when the homes are built.
The Community is still very concerned over the proposed expansion of the sidewalk which runs along Paseo
Ranchero on the west side. Resolution 16222, #14. c. (attached) states {The final design of Pas eo Ranchero shall
include...except in} "Mission Verde subdivisions where existing conditions shall remain." Per the City's' Street
Design Standard Policy', 8' wide sidewalks are constructed along 4 Lane and 6 Lane Major Streets in commercial
areas, NOT in residential areas. The sidewalk designation for a 'Class I Collector Street' is 5.5', which is the
existing condition along Paseo Ranchero. An 8' wide sidewalk is completely inconsistent with the sidewalks in and
around Rancho Del Rey (see attached sheet).
.5b--J
Taking an additional 2.5' of sidewalk away from the Villa Palmem Community wonld severely compromise the
habitability of the homeowners living along this stretch of sidewalk. The backyards of !be homes to be built on the
east side of Paseo Ranchero will be at least 50 ' from the road and there will be a wall around the properties; a much
different condition than our homes. At a meeting of the Villa Palmera Homeowners in January of this year,
Constance Byram of McMillin indicated that she knew of no reason why the expanded sidewalk could not be on the
east side of Paseo Ranchero.
If the City insists on recklessly abandoning its own guidelines in proposing to expand the sidewalk, we have a
solution. As you are aware, an equestrian crossing on Rancho Del Rey Parkway has been approved by the City
Engineer. Building an equestrian crossing over Paseo Ranchero north of the Villa Palmera Community to
accommodate pedestrians will leave our sidewalk intact, while still providing an 8' sidewalk (trail) on the east side of
Paseo Ranchero.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
/ '. iJ\ l /
'....r ,-
Claudia J. Diamond RN, BA, MPH
President, Villa Palmera Homeowners Assoc.
President, CC&R Property Investments, Inc.
+-) '11/"
cc: Villa Palmem Board of Directors
Curtis Management, Christine Olivas and Legal Counsel
Sb-1
A DIVISION OF C C & R PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INe.
539 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Ste #145 Chnla Vista, CA 91910
Office: (619) 421-4121 Fax: (619) 421-5628
E-Mail: Prodigy: wumk22a
. /.IolI11~JI!U~~~
TO: Mayor Tim Nader and City Counsel of Chnla Vista
276 Fonrth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Mayor,
The Community of Villa Palmera (which represents 76 single family homes) still has COncerns which have not
been answered despite a meeting with The City and subsequent correspondence. The following are issues which need
to be addressed or require further attention.
1) Notice of hearing
With regards to the noticing process, paragraph II of correspondence dated November 4, 1994 sent to Villa
Palmera, mention was made that The City was not made aware of any irregnlarities in the noticing procedures during
the hearing process, which "sometimes occurs if there is a problem with mail delivery". It would be impossible to
inform The City of a lack of receipt if we are not aware that notices were sent. Since my presentation at the City
Council Meeting of August 23, 1994, I have had the opportunity to question many more home OWners of Villa
Palmera as to whether they received notice: the answer is always in the negative.
2) Trail
The 8-10' sidewalk/recreation pathway called for in Resolntion 16222 (Condition 12) calls for the pathway to
connect the trail systems in the south leg of Rice Canyon and in the Telegraph Canyon Rd. open space area. (I have
referred to this twice before). Again I refer you to Condition 30 of the same Resolution which refers to the sign
program identifying the trail network and Condition 31 which refers to equestrian type fencing. Yet The City
continually says that a horse trail has never been intended ?
Regarding horses and sidewalks, The City has provided CA. Vehicle Code 21050, however this refers to the
highway, not residential streets. Park Rnle 2.66.100 refers to leaving or hitching horses and Park Rnle 2.66.130 is
at the discretion of the Director of Parks and Recreation. The City has already stated that it eannot keep horses off
of the sidewalk. I have previously asked for evidence of Health Codes with regards to horses: i.e. proximity to non-
public residences and the disposal of excrement. Are there no health codes? Also unanswered, will horses be allowed
to travel on or adjacent to Pasco Ranchero and will signs be posted indicating that horses are not allowed in the area?
Lastly, I refer you to Paragraph II of Issue II in my letter to Steve Griffin dated September 28,1994. In part it
reads, per The City's ' Street Design Standard Policy' , 8' wide sidewalks are constrncted along 4 Lane and 6 Lane
~or Streets in commercial areas, not in residential areas. The sidewalk designation for a 'Class I Collector Street'
is 5.5', which is the existing condition along Paseo Ranchero. Per Condition 14 C of Resolution 16222, ' the
existing conditions shall remain'. Enlarging the sidewalk is therefore not an issue, as it is an existing condition
A.l\ID is not in a commercial area.
3) Safe Speed along Pasco Ranchero
At the meeting of September 23, it was agreed that Pasco Ranchero wonld be posted at 35 MPH, at least until
such time that the constrnction was completed between E. "H" St. and Telegraph Canyon Rd. At that time a speed
study would be conducted to determine the appropriate speed limit. Per correspondence from Harold Rosenberg, City
Traffic Engineer, dated October 20,1994, the posted speed will be 40 MPH. Two points stand out in the city's de-
fense of the higher speed: I) a lower posted speed limit may be considered a speed trap and 2) it is not believed to be
a good idea to post a lower limit nOW that might have to be increased later. What kind of convoluted thinking is
5p/s
this? It sounds like The City is giving into pressnre, rather than doing the right thing! Page I of The City of
Chula Vista 'Street Design Standards Policy', Paragraph II so states 'The street design standards establish uniform
policies and procedures to carry out the City's General Plan and Circulation Element. It is neither intended as, nor
does it establish, a legal safety standard for these functions". Who then, does take responsibility for detennining
safe speeds?
McMillin has indicated that from Telegraph Canyon Rd. north to the E. "J" St. intersection, Paseo Ranchero
cannot be posted above 35 MPH due to the slope of the hill. Per Harold Rosenberg's memo dated October 20,
1994, in the area of the school (north and sonth), the speed limit will be posted at 25 MPH. That means in a
relatively short stretch of road, there will be THREE different posted speed limits! Going from 40 to 25 MPH is a
danger in and of itself. It seems that the safety and welfare of the children is not a concern of The City. How many
children have to be injnred or die for The City to wake up?
Exhibit D from Bob Leiter reo The City Council Meeting of November 22, 1994, includes a comparisou of the
1988 designation to the current street standards of Paseo Ranchero. We were told at the meeting of September 23,
1994 that the",e would be NO parking along Paseo Ranchero, the comparison shows otherwise. Please clarify this
point.
4) A) Safety of Villa Palmera Homes/Residents
\Villiam Ullrich, The City's Senior Civil Engineer, response to the vehicle out of control issue is based on 35-
40 MPH parameters. This is the minimum posting speed. A vehicle traveling faster will result in a much different
outcome. When questioned about a gnardrail, the consequences of a vehicle going over the rail seems of more im-
portance than the safety of the residents of the home and any resultant injuries.
B) Private Road Issue
The City's response to the concern that the private road rnnning through Villa Palmera would not be traveled
by the general public seems very unlikely: "Private streets are not as wide as public streets and therefore give the ap-
pearance that use is limited to residents", Given the location of Circulo Verde, it is likely that it will be viewed as a
short cut to E. ''Y' St., especially when the school posting is in place. Charter Point, whose entrances are located on
Otay Lakes Rd. and Telegraph Canyon Rd. is an excellent example of a community whose streets are used for
shortcuts. This issue has been a concern of theirs for a long time. It seems reasonable that The City would post
'NO THOROUGHFARE' OR 'NO OUTLEr' signs for the residents of Villa Palmera.
William Ullrich has also indicated that The City would attempt to control construction traffic going through
Villa Palmera by shutting down construction until the activity ceased. What is the likelihood that The City would
proceed in this manner? Who, at The City would we contact?
5) Builder Issues
McMillin has posted both entrances to Villa Palmera with signs indicating that constuction traffic should not
pass through. A letter has been requested from McMillin guaranteeing repair to Circulo Verde if trucks do drive
through Villa Palmera and damage the newly resurfaced road. This certainly seems a reasonable request in light of
good community relations.
As recent as September, McMillin has guaranteed notification within 10 days of construction activities to the
Villa Palmera Homeowners. Recently earth moving activities commenced with no one in the community being
notified.
Steve Griffin, The City Principal Planner, has indicated that homeowners in Villa Palmera and the Home Owner
Association will receive notice of any subsequent RdR III final map considerations that go before The City Council.
To help ensure delivery to the current home owners. he can contact Curtis ~gement for the most recent list.
I look forward to a conclusion of the preceding issues.
Regards,
Claudia J. Diamond RN, BA, MPH
President, Villa Palmera Homeowners Assoc.
President, CC&R Property Investments, Inc.
5b~t
12.
.
l
~
;...
_, 13.
G
o
Ybe developer shall be re.ponsible ~or the construction of wider
.i4evalka at tr~it stopa, subject to the approval of the City
Engineer .
~.. Ybe ~1n&1 design of Paseo Ranchero shall include eiqht ~oot wide
lan4scape ea.ement buffers a. required by the ttreet Desiqn
8tandar4a or be adjoined by an open apace lot at least eight
feet vi4. vith alopes no greater than 5:1. axce~t i" ~he
following areaa where the final 4esiqn shall be subject to the
approval of the planninv Director, Landscape Architect and City
Envineer:
a. A4jacent to the lots fronting on Cabo ealabazo, Calle
candelero and Punto Hiraleste where a special slope and
retaining vall 4esiqn will be implemented;
b. Along the Junior High School aite;
c. Along the existing Ladera Villas and His.ion Verde,
aUbdivisions where exi.ting conditions ahall remain; and
4. Adjacent to the out~parcel owned by the Chula Vista School
District.
'r--'
,15.
'>,
\\
11S.
The final 4esign of East "J" Street shall include 5.5 foot wide
landscape easement cutters as requlred by the Street Design
Standards or be adjoined by an open space lot at least 5.5 feet
wi4e with 5:1 maximum side slopes, except in the following
locations where the final design shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Director, Landscape Architect and city
Engineer:
a. Along the park site;
b. Along the two corner lots at the intersection of East MJ"
street and camino Hiel (lots 82 and 57 of Phase 2, Unit 1)
and the aoutheast corner lot of East MJM Street and Cabo
Capote (lot 15 of Phase 2, Unit 2);
c. Adjacent to the out-parcel owned by the Chule Vista School
District; and
d. Along -the existing Bel Aire R14qe aubdivision where
axisting conditions ahall remain.
.
All retaining valls which interface with the public streat
system shall be constructed to match the Ranch Rancho del Ray
SPA XXI Design Guideline standards for exterior walls.
Jb-?
-1',5
~2:1 MAX
PARKING 4,
(
~*
10/12/89
"-
I\~I\
,j)
Access to and from four-lane major streets from abutting properties shall
typically be controlled but not restricted. No direct access from
si ngl e-family resi denti al homes is all owed. In developed area of the City
di rect access from si ng1 e-family homes coul d be allowed wi th approva 1 of
City Engineer. Full access median openings will be permitted with
approval of the City Engineer on these facilities only at locations
specified by the City Engineer and under conditions establ ished by the
City. Parking on these facilities shall typically be allowed. However,
parking at critical locations may be denied as deemed appropriate by the
City Engineer. If a bike lane is to be provided in conformance with the
Bicycle Element on this four-lane major facility and parking is to be
retained, an additional 10 feet of right-of-way will be required to allow
for a 10-foot widening of the roadway cross section. Four-lane majors
shall also provide landscaped buffer areas. Pedestrian crossing demand
shoul d be well planned, focused and controlled to direct pedestrians to
designated crossing points at signalized intersections.
Widen all approaches to intersections as per Exhibit "A" in order to
provide for additional lanes, as per Exhibit "E."
ft
*
100'/104'
It
20
10'/12' ,.. ~
/0'/12' LANDSCAPED
LANDSCAPED a' a' 32' BUFFER AREA
BUFFER AREA 32' v EASEMENT
EASEMENT .,.. .~, tf1'<
*"'5:1 MAX -1 I-- 5.5'/ B' 5.5/.8' - r . -5:1 MAX
20/0 20/0 2% ~kl
. ------ 20/0 2% -1-
~ ~J l""- I -
- I I I .::.J-----"
20'
--\
12'
I, 12' .1
It.
-,
12'
12'
B'
PARKING
2:1 MAX/
""04' RIGHT - OF- WAY OUE
TO B' SIDEWALK IN
COMMERCIAL AREA
4-LANE MAJOR
Landscaced slopes greater than 5:1 may be acceptable as determined by the
Direc:cr of Planning.
-6-
5b-~
~
LANDSCAPED
BUFFER AREA
EASEMENT
NO
PARKING
I
It.
1\ 'D "
Il.
B'
..
39' 10'/12'
... r- 2:1 MAX
5,5'/8' I
20/0 20/0
- I
,-
NO 5:1 MAX
PARKING LANDSCAPED'
II' 17' BUFFER AREA
EASEMENT
Il.
e'
...
112'/116'
"
10/'12'
39'
7' 7'
1
*
5.5'/ e'
~:I d,.;s
~
20/0
20/0 20/0
17'
1/'
1/'
14'
II'
"'116' RIGHT-OF- WAY DUE
TO e' SIDEWALK IN
COMMERCIAL AREA
6-LANE MAJOR
(DEVELOPE 0 AREA W/O 1- e05 )
** Landscaped slopes greater than 5: 1 may be acceptable as determi ned by the
Director of Planning.
4. FOUR-LANE MAJOR
20'
,SCAPED
'ER AREA
EMENT
:; AX
.----\'\
--,
Commercial Area
(frequent driveways)
Low Density Area
Design ADT
Minimum design speed
Curb-to-curb
28,000
45 mph
80' (includes a
16' median)
30,000
55 mph
80' (includes a
16' median)
2:1 MAX/
104'
7%
1 ,150' with 5%
superelevation
to 2,000 with
no
superel eva ti on
Major streets are primarily designed to distribute localized trips.
Typically, intersections shall be spaced no closer than 660 feet unless
othenlise approved by the City Engineer and signal ized intersections shall
be spaced no closer than one-quarter mile intervals. A raised r.1edian is
"equired to separate the tl,O directions of travel and to il~prove the
'isual appearance of the arterial corridor. One mid-block meriian opening
lay be permitted only with approval of the City Engineer. Such
ntersection and any resulting signals shall not negatively impact signill
rogression and traffic flow on major streets. This opening shall
Ipically be spaced at the mid-point Jetween the ,"ajor intersections
Ipprox. 660'). The specific location of these median openings shall be
.temined by the City Engineer.
Ri ght-of-way
Maximum grade
Minimum curve radius
104'
7%
1,100' with no
superelevation
he
39
-5-
5b~1
-
Paseo Ranchero (four lane connector road -- Telegraph Canyon to East H)
(What's currently built north of East H Street in the Rancho del Rey development)
'sidewalks five feet wide
'on both sides of street
Paseo del Rey(four lane connector road -- Telegraph Canyon to East H)
'sidewalks five feet wide
'on both sides of street
Del Rey Boulevard (four lane connector road)
'sidewalks five feet wide
'on both sides of street
'see special note regarding sidewalks within Rancho del Rey development
Rancho del Rey Parkway (four lane connector road)
'sidewalks five feet wide
'on both sides of street
'see special note regarding sidewalks within Rancho del Rey development
ALSO NOTE: Sidewalks continued to be only five feet wide, even throughout a school
zone along this street
Avenida del Rey (four lane connector road)
'sidewalks five feet wide
'on both sides of street
'see special note regarding sidewalks within Rancho del Rey development
SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING SIDEWALKS WITHIN RANCHO DEL REY
DEVELOPMENT:
'No homes faced any of these streets.
'In almost all cases throughout the development, sidewalks could have easily been
widened to more than five feet Instead, the developer chose to plant f10werbeds and
shrub banks along the sidewalks. -
East H Street (six lane connector road)
'sidewalks five feet wide
'on both sides of street where adjacent to Rancho del Rey homes
Otay Lakes Road (now four lane - will be six lane connector road)
'sidewalks five feet wide (except in front of community college and one shopping ctL)
'on both sides of street
ALSO NOTE: Even though the sidewalks in front of shopping center are eight feet
wide, the sidewalk in front of the homes directly next to this shopping center are only
five feet widellll Sidewalks were NOT widened in front of people's homes III
Sb - It?
r
I
~ h/ /1
,...,'>i~s.-,.._-__"c~ ~_':>~"_H.:,'''"r ..-_.~O
I
53 ,);2
3~b ~)3
, "/'.? t)/c)/]c-
. /J(a/2/C/'L "\ (~ /~~
j;{~~),?{r. I';~~l~~/
(lQ- ct /Lt. '{-{;- :n-u-:Y/(t:Cf/'-j Y'~CI~:/d ':/~t2f
, ~/ A . (-'7. '
V i1/7J--U.L eX: );V.:>-A-( (' 'L.Z.../ /r vJ z.c;/L..- "/-:C:M~
-71: it-if! J-U t'c.L I~A. FCA-<'"'~ ~r::-~,- )t:/!.2/U;,L d >.d-O'--.-/ .
~t1._.a ,..{ /~ <.' c~' t' L"-t' </"(.' ,~. \L... t w-<' {'~ z- c[. t....,2.('- r-c';.~"";-{<-
.;~:{ . 2L/(A'~~. {':( C /th ,(r~ l c--(~"jr /' ,/. / (~. !J .;".-e' .><.2::;.
. Z0 (1...-<' c' /,-, ~ cv<--(_ . (L /.1 L<... r...o. /)C.c ,A!! L 1.>-/ .
'-/1 y: ~d-/l- d~V21f;1- / '~J1~~-~Jr~
t~ / (_<p_.t..t:/c~ c...~.,C /.0uz ,!if Yd /- Y' / c.9 /
/ / l . ." / 7't
(j \ 0 ~ ....... .
,'J ..>./ ' >. / L~.
,--..1.an..Ac~,--/' ~ - ,
/ L . /
,~ ' L. . J\ J. Gr' L-Cta.
">1..; I
// 4/61
;7 ". /' .
(CtlLttlUtZ; .... Ua/~
I /
l/
v
5b ';1
DIAMOND CONSULTING GROUP
A DIVISION OF CC& R PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC.
539 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Ste. # 145 Chula Vista, CA. 91910
Office: (619) 421-4121 Fax: (619)-421-5628
TO: Mayor Tim Nader and the City Council
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
August 15, 1994
Dear Mr. Nader and City Council Members,
I would like to request an opportunity to address the Council at the meeting of August 23rd regard-
ing issues which affect my neighborhood, The presentation will be limited to 10 minutes maxi-
mum.
Thanking you in advance,
Sincerely,
Claudia J. Diamond RN, BA, MPH
President, CC&R Property Investments, Inc.
P,S. My heartfelt thanks to the wonderful firefighters who, on this very day, contained the fire
which began just east of Paseo Ranchero and spread very quickly due to the winds, Their rapid
response prevented what could have been a real tragedy on both sides of the road
/'
Sb -- I:>
DIAMOND CONSULTING GROUP
A DIVISION OF CC& R PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC.
539 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Ste. # 145 Chula Vista, CA. 91910
Office: (619) 421A121 Fax: (619)-421-5628
TO: Mayor Tim Nader and the City Council
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
August 15, 1994
Dear Mr. Nader and City Council Members,
With regards to my attached request, the following are my areas of concern:
* During construction, what provisions have been made to keep the homes in my development
free from noise, dirt and construction traffic?
* What environmental impact studies, if any, have been done?
* Is a sidewalk or recreational trail planned for the area?
* A minimum speed of 45 MPH through a residential area seems to be a bit excessive.
I look forward to meeting with you next week.
Sincerely,
Claudia J. Diamond RN, BA, MPH
President, CC&R Property Investments, Inc.
Sh-Jb
August 18, 1994
SUBJECT :
The Honorable Mayor and City Coun5(lh!
John D. Goss, City Manager-1 ~~\
City Council Meeting of August 23, 1994
TO:
FROM:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council
meetin9 of Tuesday, August 23, 1994. Comments re9arding the Written
Communications are as follows:
Sa/b. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ADRIEN MYERS' RESIGNATION FROM THE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND JANET RICHTER'S RESIGNATION FROM THE BOARD OF
ETHICS 8E ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THE CITY CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST
I~IMEDIATEL Y ACCORDiNG TO THE MADDY ACT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE
PUBLIC LIBRARY.
Sc. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY FILED BY RAQUEL REAL
HERNANDEZ, MARIA PULIDO, THEOLA JOYCE SMITH, MEGAN SMITH AND HILDA JORDAN
BE DENIED.
Sd. This is a letter from Claudia Diamond, C.C.& R. Property Investments,
requesting an opportunity to address the City Council on issues affecting
her neighborhood (i.e., Rancho del Rey SPA III improvements along Paseo
Ranchero). Specifically, Ms. Diamond wishes to express concerns about
potential environmental impacts of a proposed recreational trail, noise
and road connections. The overall development is subject to a final map,
expected to come before the City Council in September. Since the EIR and
grading plans have been approved, grading could begin upon administrative
approval of a grading permit (although it is not anticipated to begin
until October). IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE LETTER BE ACCEPTED AND ANY
ORAL COMMENTS BE TAKEN VIA "ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR", AND
THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO ADDRESS MS. DIAMOND'S ISSUES IN THEIR REPORT TO
THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS MATTER.
JDG:mab
~b - J7
Concerns
of the
Villa Palmera
Home Owners Association
Presentation by:
Claudia J. Diamond RN, SA, MPH
August 23, 1994
5b//Y'
DIAMOND CONSULTING GROUP
A DNIS[ON OF CC& R PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC.
539 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Ste. # [45 Chula Vista, CA. 91910
Office: (619) 421.4121 Fax: (619).421.5628
TO: Mayor Tim Nader and the City Council
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
August 23, 1994
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
The major concerns of my presentation are as follows:
* Lack of notification of the public hearing approving the Tentative Map
for Rancho del Rey SPA III
* Plans for a recreational/horse trail on the west side of Paseo Ranchero
* Redesignation of Paseo Ranchero to a 'Class I Collector Street'
* EIRs; what, where and when?
* Construction timetable, provIsions made by McMillan (and the City of
Chula Vista) to ensure health and safety of the residents of Villa Palmera
(Mission Verde)
1. Resolution 16222 (Attachment A) approving the Tentative Map for
Rancho del Rey SPA III is NOT correct in stating that the notice for a
public hearing was mailed to property owners within 300' of the
development. We did not receive this notice and therefore were not given
the opportunity to receive and comment on the proposed development. As
much as we enjoy being an oasis in the middle of nowhere (Attachment B),
let the record state that we are not opposed to the houses. Our concern, in
part, is so stated in #2 below.
2. Resolution 16222 (Attachment C) tentative condition #12 is quite
nebulous.
50'/1
A. Is the intention to construct a wide commercial type sidewalk for
pedestrians or to construct a natural pathway for horses? Who is the
interpretation left up to; the City or McMillan?
B. Condition # 12 indicates that this wide sidewalk or recreational
trail is a connecting link between 2 major trail systems (Rice Canyon and
Telegraph Canyon). Are these systems designated by the City as
equestrian, bike, hiking or a combination of all 3?
C. Can Paseo Ranchero be a major connecting link by simply
constructing a commercial width sidewalk?
D. According to the City's 'Class I Collector Streets' definitions
(Attachment D), 8 (eight) foot wide sidewalks are constructed on 4 (four)
lane and 6 (six) lane major streets in commercial areas, not in residential
areas.
E. Is the real plan to construct a temporary concrete trail and replace
it with a soft surface such as decomposed granite (DG)? What protection
do we have from that occuring on Paseo Ranchero, which is the missing
link? A DG trail is proposed on Paseo Ranchero both north and south of
Villa Palmera, but in the area along Paseo Ranchero that passes alongside
Villa Palmera, the DG trail is suspiciously absent. (Attachment E).
F. Condition 30 refers to the sign program identifying the trail network
in the open space areas and connecting along Paseo Ranchero and Condition
31 refers to the equestrian type fencing, both are found in the same
Resolution #16222 (Attachment F).
G. Isn't the City currently studying a plan to upgrade and expand the use
of its trail systems? That is, connecting the Bonita area with the
Olympic Training Center?
H. Is there a City Ordinance or any law prohibiting horses from using
concrete sidewalks that have been designated as recreational pathways?
Will horses be allowed to travel on or adjacent to Paseo Ranchero, say in
the proposed bike lane?
I. Does the City have any health codes with regards to horses; i.e. prox-
imity to nonpublic residences and excrement (and the disposal thereof).
J. 1) Most of the City trails, including recreational pathways, are
constructed in city open space lots and maintained through open space
maintenance districts. Why can't this major "trail system link" be
constructed in the city open space lot proposed along the easterly side of
Paseo Ranchero? (Attachment G). Would this interfere with the "buffer
area" for the new McMillan Homes proposed easterly of Paseo Ranchero?
(If this "trail link" is to be within city open space, it should be included
now so that maintenance costs are estimated now and disclosed when new
5' 6 ~ old
units are first sold. It will be almost impossible to increase
maintenance assessments after the first year). Tentative Map Condition
#12 (of Resolution 16222) refers to the Public Facilities Financing Plan.
Attachment H, clearly states that all of the trail system will be
maintained through the Open Space Maintenance District. Is this possible
if the trail is NOT in open space?
J. 2) With the above in mind, there is clearly no "open space" or
"buffer area" on the west side of Paseo Ranchero. (Attachment I). The
homeowners of Villa Palmera were never notified of this as a plan or
possibilty, nor were they informed of any associated maintenance costs or
the possibilty thereof. (Attachment J).
..,.
3. When constructed, the original intent of Paseo Ranchero was as a
connector between East "H" St. (to the north) and Telegraph Canyon Rd. (to
the south). East "J" St. was to be the major road carrying the burden of
traffic. The homes built along East "J" St. were indeed built further back
from the road. The houses along Paseo Ranchero are closer to the street.
A. The original plan (traffic circulation) was for a minimum design
speed of 40 MPH on Paseo Ranchero. (Attachment K). The design speed has
been upgraded to a minimum of 45 MPH with the new street design
standards. (Refer to aforementioned Attachment D). With a minimum of
45 MPH, there is no doubt that speeds in excess of 55 MPH will regularly
be attained through the neighborhood. These are acceptable speeds on the
highways, NOT through communities where children walk and houses are
near the roads. What about a guard rail or other barrier, such as a wall, to
protect existinq down slope residents along Paseo Ranchero from out of
control vehicles, hoodlums or horses using the "recreational trail"?
B. Circulo Verde, the PRIVATE road which runs through the existing
Villa Palmera Development has a speed limit of 5 MPH. (Attachment L).
What plans have been proposed to protect the residents from public
access? Certainly it has been anticipated by the City, that a turn onto
Circulo Verde from Paseo Ranchero at a minimal speed of 45 MPH would
have tragic, if not deadly results.
C. How can a minimal speed of 45 MPH be approved when two schools
will be in the area? An elementary school located at East "J" and Paseo
Ranchero and just east of this intersection, located on East "J" St., a sec-
ondary school. McMillan's proposed project includes in excess of 1300
new residences. In addition to the existing homes in the entire area, how
can the City responsibly allow children to walk along streets where cars
will be driving at highway speeds? What is the speed designation in the
S/? -~/
vicinity of the schools? Can one presume 25 MPH? If so, how can a
vehicle, reasonably be expected to slow down to 25 MPH or stop, if the
minimum is 45 MPH? In a court of law, these are clearly conditions which
could reasonably be anticipated and for which, it would seem, the City
would be held liable.
D. With the redesignation of the street to 'Class 1 Collector',
changes to the road are deemed necessary to accommodate the increased
flow and speed of traffic. 300 (three hundred) feet of East "J" (from
Paseo Ranchero west) has to be redug and dropped 1 1/2 (one and one half)
feet. To accommodate the new street design and trail, private landscap-
ing, established trees, irrigation systems, stairs, curbs, pedestrian
ramps, etc. are to be removed. (Attachment M #16 highlighted, for
example). The existing public and private improvements were approved by
the city and constructed over 5 (five) years ago. Once again I refer you to
(Attachment C), Condition 14. c. which refers to the Mission Verde
subdivision and indicates that "existing conditions shall remain". If
the street were not redesignated a 'Class 1 Collector' to accommodate
higher speeds these street improvements would not be necessary. With
14. c. above, it seems that changes cannot be made which would indeed
affect Villa Palmera.
4. What, if any EIRs, have been done for the area surrounding the Mission
Verde project? Any EIRs done prior to the change in street status, will be
of no value.
A. In addition to the proposed city open space buffer for the McMillan
homes, Condition 23 (a) of Resolution 16222 (Attachment N) shows need
for additional buffer from traffic noise on Paseo Ranchero (directly
across from Villa Palmera), due to the upgrade to a higher design speed.
There was NOT any such concern or reference for a buffer (such as a noise
wall) for the existing residences of Villa Palmera, despite the fact that
the existing residences will be exposed to the sam e traffic! Has the need
for a traffic sound barrier been orooerlv investigated?
B. It is reasonable to compare Villa Palmera to Park Bonita (Resolu-
tion 15388) which is located on "E" St. at Bonita Rd. :
"E" SI. is designated a 'Class 1 Collector Street' (at Park Bonita),
the same as Paseo Ranchero. The Tentative Map Conditions for Park Bonita
required a sound barrier. Condition 2 of Resolution 15388, required a 6
(six) foot high solid masonry wall with pilasters and Condition 7, of the
same Resolution, required the noise barrier wall to reduce the noise level
to 45 dB-A. (Attachment 0). Prior to occupancy, the interior noise was to
Sb - .2d-.
be rechecked to assure that the level be 45dB-A or less. Why has this not
been required and considered for the existing residences of Villa Palmera?
5. With regards to the upcoming construction, what provisions have been
made for the residents of Villa Palmera?
A. To date, I have been informed by McMillan that the pump station
will be removed; however no time frame has been provided. Per the Villa
Palmera Disclosure (Attachment J), the area which the pump station now
occupies will be turned over to the Homeowners by the City. How does
this process occur and with whom?
B. How does McMillan plan to maintain the habitability of the resi-
dents of Villa Palmera during the entire construction period and after-
wards? There is nothing in Resolution 16222 which addresses the health
and safety of the existing residents of Villa Palm era. Our concerns
include, but are not limited to: 1) noise, 2) construction traffic, 3) dirt.
C. The private road within the development was resurfaced in July.
How does McMillan intend to keep construction traffic out of the road?
D. Is he planning on storing construction trucks and trailers on Paseo
Ranchero or East "J" St., that is on the streets directly surrounding Villa
Palmera?
E. How is McMillan going to keep construction dust and dirt out of the
Villa Palmera neighborhood? Construction is going to affect the commun-
ity on every side. (Attachment P). A clause needs to be included re: wind
in excess of a specific MPH; that dirt moving should cease. Who will
regulate this?
F. How will McMillan ensure reasonable decibel levels for the
residents of Villa Palmera during construction? How will this be
monitored and by whom?
I appreciate your time, attention and concern regarding these issues. If
any or all of you would like to see the community on whose behalf I am
here representing, please don't hesitate to contact me. I look forward to
a rapid and satisfactory resolution of the issues at hand.
Sincerely,
Claudia J. Diamond RN, BA, MPH
President, Villa Palmera Home Owners Association
President, CC&R Property Investments, Inc.
5b-2]
.,
iLfi'1
.'
,
f
USOLtrrION NO. 11.'J.'t.'J..
~OLOTION or ~ CITY COUNCIL or THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING 'l'HE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR .
ItANCHO DEL BY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA). III, CHULA
VISTA 'l'RACT '0-02
. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative
8Ubdivision sap was filed with the Planninq Department of the
City of Chula Vista on November 8, 1989 by Rancho del Rey
.ar1:narahip, and
~, aaid application requested the subdivision of
approxiaatelY 405 acres into residential lots, open space areas,
a school 10t, park and community purpose facility lot, and
WHEREAS, the Planninq Commission held an advertised public
hearinq on said project on May 8, 1991, and continued to May 22,
lUl, and
~S, the City council set the time and place for a
hearinq on said tentative.subdivision map application and notice
~ of said hearinq, to;ether with its purpose, wu ..iven by its
'/', / publication in a newspaper of ..eneral, c,irc, ulation in the city and
, its &..~!= :.... :;:~~nll~~ ~~!:{..-.-....__.....
'~. v,-~I"" ,!~ _.._~ "~hJ.uti.,,"~Ii3U^...~_lu,,..;"",
~" j' ~ and "".
:.... ~,J' WB~' the hearing wu held at 'the time :and place as
) .1f::rV" advertised, namely 7:00 p.lll., June 18, lUl, in the Council
b'M:- ~;j; Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the city Council and said
t~'. hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the city council recertified EIR-89-10, with
statement of OVerriding considerations, and associated Mitigation
Konitorinq Program for Rancho del Rey SPA III.
ROW !'BE:R.EFORE, BE 1'1' RESOLVED '1'HA'1' '1'HE CITY COUNCIL finds as
follows: "
~suant to section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
~antative subdivision map for Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) III, Chula Vista Tract no. '0-02, is found to be in
conforaance with the various elaments of the City's General Plan
~sed on the following: . ....
.
1. 'l'he site is physically suitable for residential
development and the proposal conforms to all standard.'
.stab1ished by the City for such projects.e
1
.~
~?;b -..2~
l
.:SCALE. I' . 400' . "
FIRE NUTES 'i"1i!~_
I. THE F IRE FLOW REQUIREMENT SHALL BE A M I N 1MLf.l 2, 500GPM FORTWO'..<~!':'
~~~RA~~~~S ~~~~~G~~ I ~AS~:k O~TR~ET M I ~l ~~ F~~ 2~H~C~' iHE R~~6~U~~/://);r
MEASURED AT THE T I ME OF MEASUREMENT. ':/ . '.:,:~. "~:,<t,
, ."'. ; -,~;;rt;!,:~:<,,~{~};~ ~"'!'~'
EACH FIRE HYDRANT SHALL HAVE ONE III 4' OUTLET AND TWO (2H'r2'!2 ':'.,;;-':
OUTLETS. INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE'STANDARD/J
SPECI F ICAT I ONS.:,: "};"':P:~;(.;:'..:t.'\'
,', \ "!'T;cl,,';":~'f,t:...~
PROTECTION OF FIRE HYDRANTS TO BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAIN:9jfr.tA(C'
TIMES. .... inw;;
WATER SUPPLIES FOR FIRE PROTECTION TO BE'PROVIDED'PRlbktlro
COMBUST I BLE CONSTRUCT ION MATER I AL BE I NG PLACED ON THE SITE,
, .& ,-rJI".!. , '-'.&.& _, .&J .&:J:LI .I. '-.&:J .I.
~c rJI" .1..1..1.
,...~
, -,~
,';.'oo ", \ I'
\,.:.
_,,:/~~;l,
,',i'
"
.. :,; ~... ,"':
'.C;
~~'",,"'.'
. .'. ' . .
, , '- . . . "," ',~ '. :". . .
, .
"
~J
........
~
Cl::
'~
I ~OT 12 --I
I
I
~.
9..'" .
. ~J":
,':J~
:-.:~,.
LOT 9
\
. .Jib
, ,,~:,:,:';\:',;.:\:i;.,..
LEGEND:''''';';';;:'' ,::id:'J/; ," ...,
.. !~&!~~4~~,J~~~'~~11',if~~~J".
FIREHYDRANT~~:~':,'''',<:,,;: ';, 'r'
LOT LINE"" ",.,-,:..,..,,r,,,, . ',.,' '.
, :;~~=-:f~;f':~;':~"i:;t~:'~,LjJ.' .,' '.'
RECLAIMED riATER MAiN:.....:::.~.:;;..:-:-
".: :- . . -;- .-,
':':.~'~:;~i~\-.Z"':.:,-<.~' -",
FI~~'
R,O LADE:RA VI LL .
T.M.~ i
MAp No. 640-090-28
7~OT .7
');:"t
.~
.,',
:" .
.,. .-'
.,.' -";;,
..,')>,"'.
(KEY'MAP
.', .,'
"
;,'"
"--;,'
......,.;.-.".
-." .'. ..:<_,: ,:':;",,:'-"<'->':'::'_\i_>(i,.:' . '.'
CITY ENGINEER'SHALL,DESIGN ALL STRUCTURAL STREET
1 C STREETS.", STRUCTURAL SECT I ON. DES I GN SHALL BE
VALUE METHOD SPEC I f' I EO ; ,BY THE CITY ENG I NEER.
LL BE PERFORMED BY ,A',; REG I STEREO C I V I L ENG I NEER
FESS I ONAL..;ACT I V I TY "Sc. PERFORM I NG SUCH TESTS.
L BE PROV.IDED,' TO THE CITY BY.. THE DEVELOPER IN'
LOCATIONSAND,TIMES'AS',DETERMINED BY THE .CITY
EA VY GRAD I NG ) S PROP.ClSED. GATHER I NG OF SAMPLES
UNT I L ROUGH .,','SUBGRADE I S MADE. M I N I MUM BASE
TREET CLASSIFICATIoNs SHALL BE FOUR (4) INCHES.
L CONFORM TOFINE<PROCESSED MISCELLANEOUS BASE.
~S SET FORTHIW1THE',STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR
TRUCT I ON, SECT! ON .,' 200-2.5, 1991 EO I T ION. ALL
JRFACES SHALL 'BE SEAL-COATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
2.
3.
4.
Il ,6_11
"
> .~::>:{,-~:
12.
;..-'
l
*
I, 13.
C--
~e developer ahall be r.sponsibl. for the construction of wider
.ldewalk. at t:ranait atop., aubject to the approval of the City
EnC;1neer .
~~~e ~1nal d.sign ~f Faseo Ranchero shall includ. eight foot wide
land.cape aasement tiuffers as requIr.d by the ttreet Design
standards or be adjoined by an open apace lot at least eiJht
feet wide with .lopes no greater than 5:1. . 11 Ln.'
followinc; ar.as where the final design shall be subject to the
approval of the Flannin; Director, Landscape Architect and City
Enc;ineer:
a. Adjacent to the lots fronting on Cabo Calabazo, Calle
candelero and Punto Mirale.te where a special slope and
retain in; wall design will be implemented;
b. ~ong the Junior High School site;
or--'
Along the existing Ladera villas and IIf .
.tY.t..-i........ 'Wk... __1_~J."2 __...alLJ._u_ .1....11
and
....
d. Adjacent to the out~parcel owned by the Chula Vista School
District.
.15. The final design of East "J" street shall include 5.5 foot wide
'. landscape easement iiiitters as re-qu1red by the Str.et Design
Standards or be adjoined by an open space lot at least 5.5 feet
wid. with 5:1 maximum side .lopes, except in the following
locations where the final design shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Director, Landscape Architect and City
Engineer:
a. Along the park aite;
b. Along the two corner lota at the interaection of East "J"
stre.t and camino Miel (lots 82 and 57 of Phaa. 2, Unit 1)
and the southeaat corner lot of Eaat "J. Str.et and cabo
capote (lot 15 of Phaa. 2, Unit 2);
c. Adjac.nt to the Clut-parcel owned by the Chub vista School
District; and
d. Along -th. existing Bel Aire Rid;. subdivision where
existing conditions ahall ramain.
116. All retaining valls Which interface vith the public street
.ystem shall be conatructed to match the Ranch Rancho del Rey
SPA III Design Guideline standards for exterior walla.
"
\\
56 ---c:<?
CLASS I COLLECTOR STREETS'
I(1)/1
'----'
Design ADT
~inimum design speed
Curb-to-curb
Right-of-way
r.laximum grade
Minimum curve radius
22,000
45 mph
74'
94'
S'l;
700' with 5% supere1evation to 1100' with no
supere1evation
,",.
Class I collector streets serve primarily to circulate localized traffic
and..to distri.bute traffic to and from arterials and major streets. Class
I collectors" are desi gned to accommodate four 1 anes of traffi c, however,
th~Y.'carry lower traffic volumes at slower speeds than major arterials,
and'they have a continuous left turn lane separating the two directions of
traffic flow. Typically, intersections shall be spaced no closer than 660
feet unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and signalized
intersections shall be spaced at one-quarter mile intervals.
Access to and f,pm this Class I collector street from abutting properties
shall' typically be controlled but not restricted. No direct access from
single-family residential homes is. allowed. In developed area of the City
di rect access from si ng1 e-family homes cou1 d be allowed wi th approval of
City Engineer. Parking on this facility shall typically be allowed.
However, parking at critical locaticns may be denied as deemed appropriate
by the Ci ty Engi neer. If a bi ke 1 ane is to be provi ded in conformance
with the Bicycle Element on this Class I facility and parking is to be
retained, an additional 10 feet of right-of-I'/ay will be required to allow
for a 10-foot widening of the roadl'/ay cross section.
In special cases if no abutting property access is allO\'/ed, the strip's
median, with approval of City Engineer, can be reduced to 4 feet.
\lith approval of City Engineer, in developed areas, with less than 74 feet
curb to curb (64') no widening is required except at approaches to
intersections as per Exhibit "A". Approaches shall be designed as per
Exhibit "F." Left turn into an intersection driveway will be prohibited
by a raised median. Further modifications may be allolied to this standard
as a result of the existing and projected traffic volumes.
S'
ff.
LANDSCAPEO ~
SUFFER AREA
EASEMENT 45' 55'
(''f'r I I
S'~~
C., MAX /' s-G
/ s'
PARKING --
1.0'
....SS'/94'
.,.. 34'/37' "'"34'/37'
Ii.
20/0 I 20/0
, I
12 12' 14~~1 12' 12'
I
ff.
S'
1.0' SLAND~CAPED
r SUFFER AREA
5.5' . 4.5' EASEMENT
.........
~5.1 MAX ~
2% /
I 2:1 MAX
, -;.-t-- PARKING ~
, s' I "'"THE MEDIAN
WIDTH MAY SE REDUCED
et.A!>6 I vULLt:.v I O~,.. TC 4' WITH THE APPRCVAL
.oF THE CITY ENGINEER
** Landscaped slopes greater than 5: 1 may be acceptab1 e as determi ned by the
Director of Planning.
10/12/89
-7- 5lJ ":2~
1\ D 'I
,.
It It
e' ,..
112'/116' e'
,.. ..
10112' 39' 7' 7' 39' 10'/12'
2:1 MAX * ,..
I 1 5.5'/ S' 5,5'/8' r-
"-
2% 20/0 20/0 2% 2%
~:ii;~ ~ - -
I -
NO ct. NO
LANDSCAPED PARKING PARKING LANDSCAPED'
BUFFER AREA 17' II' JI' 14' JI' II' 17' BUFFER AREA
EASEMENT EASEMENT
"'''6' RIGHT-OF- WAY DUE
T'J..I'D1L ..., K: ........,"'...
~UUI:'Crl.61 rcr::'^,",
.Jii LANC,.....u^ I()~.
(DEVELOPE D AREA W/O 1- S05 )
** Landscaped slopes greater than 5: 1 may be acceptable as determi ned by the
Director of Planning.
4. FOUR-LANE MAJOR
20'
lSCAPED
'ER AREA
EMENT
; AX
.-----\"
--"
Commercial Area
(frequent driveways)
Design ADT
Minimum design speed
Curb-to-curb
Low Density Area
2:\ MAX/
Right-of-way
Maximum grade
Minimum curve radius
28,000
45 mph
80' (includes a
16' median)
30,000
55 mph
80' (includes a
16' median)
104'
7"/"
1,100' with no
superelevation
104'
7':,
1,150' with 5%
superelevation
to 2,000 with
no
superelevation
he
Major streets are primarily designed to distribute localized trips.
Typically, intersections shall be spaced no closer than 660 feet unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer and signal ized intersections shall
be spaced no closer than one-quarter mile intervals. A raised r.1edian is
"equired to separate the t\,O directions of travel and to improve the
'isual appearance of the arterial corridor. One mid-block merlian opening
lay be permitted only with approval of the City Engineer. Such
ntersection and any resulting signals shall not negatively impact signill
rogression and traffic flow on major streets. This opening shall
Ipically be spaced at the mid-point ~etween the major intersections
Ipprox. 660'). The specific location of these median openings shall be
ten.lined by the City Engineer.
39
-5-
,Sb/c2~
-
Jl5 -
2:1 MAX PARKING st:"'
~~~i;~E
<<
**
10/12/89
\\.
\\~I\
~)
Access to and from four-lane major streets from abutting properties shall
typically be controlled but not restricted. No direct access from
single-family residential homes is allowed. In developed area of the City
direct access from single-family homes could be allowed with approval of
City Engineer. Full access median openings will be permitted with
approval of the City Engineer on these facilities only at locations
specified by the City Engineer and under conditions establ ished by the
city. Parking on these facil ities shall typically be allowed. However,
parking at critical locations may be denied as deemed appropriate by the
Ci ty Engi neer. If a bi ke 1 ane is to be provi ded in conformance with the
Bi cycl e El ement on thi s four-l ane major faci 1 i ty and park ing is to be
retai ned, an addi ti ona 1 10 feet of ri ght-of-way wi 11 be requi red to allow
for a lO-foot widening of the roadway cross section. Four-lane majors
sha 11 also provi de 1 andscaped buffer areas. Pedestri an crossing demand
should be well planned, focused and controlled to direct pedestrians to
designated crossing points at signalized intersections.
Widen all approaches to intersections as per Exhibit "A" in order to
provide for additional lanes, as per Exhibit "E."
It
It
*
01/ 4'
20'
20' 10 10
~
10'/12' ,.. 10'/12' LANDSCAPED
LANDSCAPED S' S' 32' BUFFER AREA
SUFFER AREA 32' " EASEMENT
EASEMENT ... .... r ....
*"'5:1 MAX l - 5.5'/ s' 5.5/8'- -5;1 MAX
~
.---....... 2% 20/0 2%~ 2% 2% --
- 1'- -
12'
i ".1
I
It.
<- I"
-"
~
12'
12'
s'
PARKING
2:1 MAX./
IIfii I ~ r 11!'."~lJ I A,i:\ ,
-
Landscaped slopes greater than 5:1 may be acceptable as determined by the
Direc:or of Planning.
-6-
5b / 3tJ
RfW
8'
4B'
50' .,. ':':..?~~l~ r;/~.}:j1t:.~
.... '. .. 'dO"-~":": .: """'"/0'" '8;: .~_~:/'"
4' 4'PAVEb~[OIAI/PER.:::~! ,(4) " .ti2. 30' 33'4 m T
:'lANDSCAF€PiJW.S.;''';\l?,. '," <::.f~:--.~, .
;..DWG.NO.,._.:.,~:~:: ~:. ''''r .L:,.~~::,i-':'/:':<\ 12" DaM. W.M.
EXI571NG....,."...if,,',. '"""''',:'') ,OPOFPIPE fL'4i,2.1
liI1PNJVfMfN~"'" "'Y. ' ..1,;/. . a" REeL. W.M.
.--::--:- ,--.s, _,~. /i' TOP tJF PIPE El.=.u.a./ .
.",_'C",,' U:;,:::.:.,~~"
- ::;!~:y~
m:wv l:) I\tCL. W./Vl.
~
40'
VAIRES 10"080'
5U6D/V/610N
8OUVOARY
Ell, TING IMPROVEMEN!
------ .
l.:-'
,.'<
. '.. ~;. .
.. :."__._' _'c'.. ___
"'~-<_"~':':'-'~"i~';'-'-".
VARIES' FROM 4'RTesTA 3+32./3
TO 8'LTt!. STA462/3
vJ
C
G
~::
\J
\lJ
Vl
PflOP.
fI!W,'
8'
'~.!'
;N'G WAUS
~/N'&PLAN~
'I' 9/-G5GA .
'.698 '. 'c'STA 2+ 63.68
Pf/OP.
(/iW
- . ~ I ~.....-:,_ :c'" ,
Pf/OP. a'FROM 'PflOP. ::'
/1lTAAf52./J IDSTA 7f221J1. fi!W :,:. ,\
/!\~ ." 6 -:,: ::'< "
NO
Will
\-=
\lJ
8'
@)
.',",m',,""
;1':. .
: '\{'--:'~/r~
.OETAI
NO SCALE
~',
'.' .:' ~o. TF ::;::;:iJA~~~o"EFER..'. "-." '_...:};'\:;,~:.:ii;',;!!;;~;;~frv:; i;:'
TO TABlE@ :..'......,.,., ..J,..~..,.......,.~,.....' ..
. --'.:", '.-,:.,..- ~...'~.-:~~:::":...\,~.:~:~.. ~
_ _, "..< . . ._..,~_._,.~,..-,;-::T...:'...
(CALLE SANTIAGO TO STA. 23~9.9~;
"'-:-"".'" .' _. "'0 -'-;--- ..'.~-_. ........::..:~7:..,.-
'.- -;"':"'i~
.,E,.X/5r[Pf/OP.t .. 'ffloP".
RLw'/;t_"~
- ", A '. :"; /~::'-\';\:' __,"~}~~r'
lb' "ti\ff~
0" ::',\,
'.JU8CJV76/0N SSM., '.,' ..
BOUNDlJRY' 'f' i,"<'.. .
'I . EXISTING' .~;ft~. ,)~;' " 'to
:L/~~~~:~~T5-r:~~'~':':': ;,~,~~'~.A;:~'
H' "",-.'" '
NOTE. FOR lETTEIfED - t. . ,',
---'- DIMENSIONS} RVER
, TO rll6~~ ff)
· TYPICAL STRE
y
~
\(J
"~ ~ . .
"
CD G"MON
~ert-~~:VEEC!
Q TREE I
'01 EASE~
@ 6"TYP
.. ELE
CD SEE 5
eRO SS
G) SO:E SI
'. CROSS
-J
~
<s:
/---
~
JEECT TO
%,'f RANKIN'
M'ANDs(A~
"';INO(!7Y
7YPJ\
>>~J (
5
NOTE: FOR I.GrT~Re.D
"'(.STA4Q-t64.1J lOSTA47-t(,4.1J - /JIMFKJIO/V.~ ./fEFER
CRQSS.SlOPETRANSIT/ONS TO TA8LE ' '; -,.
. , FROM 2% TO It . ..:
STA. 28+31.99.TO TElEGRAPH CANYON.ROAD
J/
1-. ' ,',
-
. " " ,LOCATION; '" .
FROM . TO
CALLE SANTIAGO 7+30.2.7 "
7+30.27 8+90.Z7
, 8+90.27 . 23+69.94
23+69.94 . 25+92.99
25+92.99 28+31.99
, ~ 28+31.99 ' 28+78.91
'~:'28'+1e. 91 -'29+58.94
, " .. 29+58. 9~~',': ... '. 29+76.94
-... 29+76.94 . .; 30+83.94
. 30+83.94 33+48.94
, '.', J3+48.94 36+48.94
36+-48.94 4~+51.45
41+51.45 '45+13.ge
.. .0,-. c,
~TA <lfHXJ1I1,sTA'f,.!Jlu..rl.T
'~4'.5i,"rCS,T,ll4!iOJ'(#_
PROP. ~~e;A~,[l::lt;;;u.*5" fROP.
12',,.
R/W 250111 SWGIIT PfR P/.AJJS
STA. 23t69.94TO STA 28+31.99.
STA of/.OOTD 57A 41.5/U~~,"
'T.ll -1(,51.44 TOm"Sf/lU5-
r:..~;;:.~ ~./f~~.uJS 'PROP.
"VNlIBn'JtTTDO'l.T. R/W';
~';r:~::';::~':;,;<. ,c ".
D . /0'- "'8" .
"'''OM''''"",," . .5' > @. .,
I.4NDSCAPE PU.W
D.WfiI_."f1o. ::11
'.
.'
1/ p- ~I
va~er 1. exclu.ively u.e~. ~he comprehensive landscape plans
ahall .ddre..:
a.
..
.t
.
tI.
c.
,/1
/'~
Slope enhanc_ent and landscape treabent for the alope in
Open Space Lot A, Phaa. 3, Unit 3, beneath the Junior High
achool lot. ~e plan .hall a~dre.. and provide for mature
aize plant material, boulder work and/or buttress work on
the alope.
A fta~uralized reveqetation program for are.. of 9r.ding in
open apac. lot., which aay include 1:uporary iniiation.
~e di.~urbe~ Wnativ.- area. within ~eleqr.ph Canyon Road
open apace corridor. ~hi. area ahall include tr..
tp"OUpini. or tre. 9%'ov... ~h... planting. .hall be treated
.. random plantings and ahall be identifi.d in a~ least .ix
area. aloni the corridor with each loca~ion providing
plan~ini. of SO to 100 tr.... ~he exact number of trees
an~ locations are to be approved by the Planning.Deparbent
end Department of Park. and Recreation. ~h. intent of
the.. 9%'ove areas i. to provide a con.i.tency with exi.ting
9%'ove area. in the open apace corridor west of the Rancho
d.l Rey SPA III area.
Prior 1:0 approval of the It'P.~ 1inal up, detai_l~-,~owinq the
location and des1in ofth~and a _ign program shall
be .ubmitt.d to and approv~rector. of Planning and
Parka and R.creation. ~he trail ay.tu in the open .pace lots
.hall be a minimum 6 fee~ wide within an . foot horizontal clear
.pace an:h:liolfoot verti~a~'lPa.~~iri~~ea:p.~~i:pt::e~~~s
.... -l
-;;- ~onnectini along Pa.eo Ranchero, 0 the'sati.faction of the
Direc~or. of Plannini and Park. and Recr.ation.
,
t/I1.
Prior final .ap approval for Jlba.e "',-.\hilt , .nd Jlhaae ","nit 2 -
a. ahown on the ~entative Map, cro.. ..c~ion. ahall be aubmitted
to and approved by the Director of Planning and City Eniineer
" illu.trating the interface where the trail is located adjacent
".' - 1:0 the drainaie ditch along ~eleqraph Canyon Road. ~he fencing
/ ( of the drainaie channel ahall be aesthetically ple..ini ,-",c-
incorperatini thie u.e of plantings .._,.t~ and
vinyl clad fenc ni. ~he.e cro.. .ec ecoratlve fencing
pr09%'aa .ay be included with the comprehen.ive landscape plan.
rence 9ate. .hall be provided a~ location. approved by the city
Eniineer t.o allow aain~enance of the drainaie channel.
t, .
Q.,
i
Parka
32. ~e developer ahall be obli9a~e~ for 12.S acre. of parkland as
described in the approved SPA Plan, including land, and/or fees,
and/or additional improvuent., in accordance with the Parkland
Dedication Ordinance. ~e actual final acreaie will relate to
the ft'nIl"'er of units approve~ with 1:he rinal aap..-
. 33. fte park 10cate~ in Pha.e " Vnit.. .hall be a ainimum 10 net
useable acrea. Design and development of the park ahall be
{
5b -J.2
~~6 'R~~ro EAsT ~
5b';}
1
~
~
52~Jt(
IH
~
irrigation per the standards of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, and installation of 3 lighted
ballfields with a soccer field. The community park. which has been named "Discovery Park," was
completed in April 1990. All of the grading. and neighborhood park level improvements will be
conditions of this project without reimbursement from the City. The construction of the parking
lot and the lighted ballfields/soccer field were required as part of this project and are valued at
approximately $518.000. These improvements will be a credit to the payment of Residential
Construction Tax fees in an amount equal to the actual cost of improvements. Credit will begin
immediately with Phase 2 and Phase 3 units. In addition to these improvements. the City may
construct a community center.
The East "H" Street Park and the neighborhood park located on the central ridge are the two parks
which will. by themselves. satisfy the minimal dedication and improvement requirements for SPA
I of the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance as in effect on October 1. 1987. The Parkland
Dedication Ordinance requires a minimum of 14.5 acres. Explorer neighborhood park is 5.6
acres, while the East "H" Street Park. devoted to park purposes and not encumbered by the SDG&E
easement, is 6 to 9 acres depending on other public facility needs. These parks have been master
planned by the developer and will be improved per the master plans. Maintenance of the East "H"
Street Park will be from the General Fund.
Marisol neighborhood park located in SPA 11 is 5.0 gross acres. This park was master planned by
the developer and improvements will be made in accordance with the approved Master Plan
consistent with the requirements of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance adopted by the City Council
in December 1987.
The neighborhood park in SPA 111 is 10.0 net use able acres and is located adjacent to the junior
high school site. This park will be master planned by the developer in conjunction with the
master plan for the junior high school site and improvements will made in accordance with the
Master Plan consistent with the requirements of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance adopted by the
City Council in December 1987. Should additional parkland be identified as needed to meet the
obligations of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, the developer would make additional
improvements to parks within Rancho del Rey or that serve Rancho del Rey or pay cash equivalent
or some combination of improvements and cash payments at the rate of $173,455 per acre for
each additional acre so determined (i.e.. if 2.56 additional acres are determined, the developer
would be obligated for a total of $444,045 in additional improvements). The amount of additional
improvements will be based on the final number of dwelling units actually constructed within SPA
111.
The staging area, the SDG & E trails. and the canyon trails are three elements that are unique to
this project. The staging area developed with Phase 3 will serve to be the main entry to the Rice
Canyon Open Space Preserve. A Master Plan h . vements were installed
to have this function as a . . ,,____..'ftA .......#
<
The trail system will be Improved per the Master
the City. ,,'llIflmJi'l . r' _' I i"J~W,JI
" _"L "'. ~. ". . . r" . ::,,,:',
eveloper and approved by
17'" IH1 ) fA' un .111'11' U\lIf:~I~nll'!' ..
L1brarv
In April of 1987. the City approved a Public library Master Plan which Identified the need for
subregional library facilities to serve the needs of Mure residents. Rancho del Rey was included
in a subarea labeled the Sweetwater/Bonita Study Area (Exhibit #5. page 28). The study
identified the need for a library facility of approximately 40,000 square feet to serve that area.
In light of the City's overall library needs. the minimum library desired by the City is 20,000
10/19/90
27 .n;, J?
V; lIa Pa'mt:r~
I
sb~ 37
;""J....
,
\
I :_
~. .
>>- Jr
'.'
I
~}~
,,""~
~\::;
. ~.,:,
,-'.~ ~.
,~.,"~
'j,':;",
i\
"l
~
':<'''-'
<r'"
;.~-: )
~J
.'V\
l'
'.1"~
~,,:..
j4{
't.,
),(1
'~.
"
y
- ~~~~'~~-
'~".f~.;,
~.~_.-
-~~-'
j
~"J,;'~
,.t.. ..
,',
','-
\,
-'-"'.
I
\
\
~-fO
.,~...._---~
:r
I
I
I
I
I
5b ~'1(
"J'
... .&.....:L.4"""""P'~~fiR*.,-,
~,.L~ &',#..~ ~U ,& E.
Welcome to Villa Palmer a, a new exciting and unique community in Chula
Vista.
We feel before you purchase your new home you should be aware of some of
the facts that make Villa Palmera unique.
History
In 1982, the property was approved for multi family use by the City of
Chula Vista which allowed 102 apartment style condominiums to be built.
Subsequently, Mission Village Properties, Ltd., of which Terra Industries,
Inc. is General Partner, purchased the property in 1987. Approval was
received through the City of Chula Vista Design Review Process for a new
concept and product featuring 76 patio homes of larger size with exclusive
use of yards and two car garages. Many of the homes are detached.
Ownel'shiD and Maintenance
Villa Palmera has furthered its uniqueness while
condominium ownership with some twists that make each
single family home.
maintaining
home li ve
the
like a
In typical condominiums your association controls and maintains the
exterior of all dwellings. However, at Villa Palmera, each homeowner
maintains the outside of his home including painting, roofs, stucco as well
as the exclusive use area (yard) designated by (and including) the fence.
Also, each homeowner is responsible for his or her own water, telephone,
electricity and sewage charges.
The Villa Palmera Homeowner's Association is responsible for maintaining
all landscape common areas around the homes (excepting the yards), the
private streets and motor courts; the pool, spa and cabana building and the
facilities for the recreation area; the sidewalks and drainage systems
outside the fenced yards, private street lighting, private street signs,
directories and offsite and onsite slopes.
~~.!J-p_ant
We have chosen not to include any "view premiums" in pricing the homes,
even though some homes currently may have a view, since they could
conceivably have their views altered by the construction of single family
detached homes adjacent to Villa Palmera in the next 2 to 5 years. The
property adjacent to Villa Palmera is currently owned by the Rancho del Rey
Partnership which, according to the specific plan approved by the City of
Chula Vista in 1985, plans to develop approximately 1,380 homes south of
"H" Street.
5~ / r c2
- P~O'P 1 nf ? -
I\T11
'----
The current status of Paseo Ranchero as proposed by the City of Chula Vista
is a four lane connector road joining "H" Street to the North and Telegraph
Canyon Road to the South with construction to be phased as Rancho del Rey
Partnership develops their property.
Homes on the East bordering Paseo Ranchero could experience an increase in
noise level when Paseo Ranchero eventually carries the City's projected
traffic loads. Those homes immediately adjacent to Paseo Ranchero have
some additional steps taken for sound attenuation, such as some dual glazed
windows and thicker glass as required by the Acoustical Impacts
International Report dated October 25, 1988.
The property bordering East "J" Street to the south is currently owned by
the Chula Vista City School District.
Further information regarding the proposed elementary school site can be
obtained from the Planning Division of the School District 425-9600.
Communit.v Facilit.v Districts and Charll'es
In order to make sure tax dollars and assessments paid by Villa Palmera
residents are applied to their specific needs, Community Facilities
District No.5, (C.F.D.) has been established according to the Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, for the purpose of
constructing public schools to provide adequate educational system
capacity. Additional information is provided under separate amendment to
the "Purchase Agreement and Escrow Instructions" which explains in detail
the costs associated with this C.F.D.
In the developm'ent of the Villa Palmera
has paid $591,710.00 in benefit fees
community which has not been added to
Project, Mission Village Properties
and public improvements to the
any Community Facilities District.
Villa Palmera is also unique in another way in that it has its ow~
. . J~.1''''-'''l' This is only a temporary pump station that ~,.
maintained by the City of Chula Vista through charges on the resident's
water bill. Eventually the pumps will be removed by the City of Chula
Vista once the Rice Canyon Trunk Sewer System is completed possibly by
Rancho del Rey and the area currently devoted to the pump station
(exclusive of the equipment) will be turned over to the Homeowner's
Association.
S'b -'13
~}~
.~,.ct~~.~. ~
.;y-c,v,'...., .
JJ",:' ..
~
)
~
~
\
\~
"\
,
en
en
,
STREET CAAIIACTERISTICS ~ MIN. RAIl II
CVDS L
STD. DESIGN DESIGN TRA' E ES PARKING LANES ".ED IAN CB. -ro<:B. R.O;W. ROUGII MODERATE KAX.
DWG. A.D.T. SPEED NO. WIDTH (I!A NO. WIDTHt!:A) WIDTH lIIOTH WIDTH TERRAIN(al TERRAIN (a) GRADE
'RIllE ARTERIAL d 50,000 70 6 12'-16' 0 (d) 16' 98' CVD34 1000' 1500' 7\
MAJOR . 1 25,000 50 4 12' 2 S' 16 ' SO' CVDSl 750' 1000' 7\
!~'Ii91,~..' . V.}. 1.,... U 4 11" I ,.'. . .. G ~.' ..CVt>Sl' ,\""'-- ..au~.. ..~"...4 ...~
.. . . ..... ,,,,,.;-",,
RESIDENTIAL (b)
COLLECTOR 1 5,000 30 2 12' 2 S' 0 40' CVDSl 200' 300' 12\
...;..;.
RESIDENTIAL 1 1,400 25 2 10' 2 S' 0 36' CVDSl 1001 200' 15\
COII~.zRCIAL/
IllDUSTRIAL 2 - 30 2 14' 2 12' 0 52' CVDS2 - 200' n
FROHTlIGE ROAD 2 - 25 2 11' 1 S' 0 30' CVDS2 - 100' 15\
2-tll1Y HILLSIDE te)
LOCAL 3 - 25 2 12' 1 S' 0 32' CVDS3 100' - 20\
1-WA'l H Il.LS IDE Ie)
LOCAL 3 - 25 1 16' 1 S' 0 24' CVDS 3 100' - , 20\
-
RESIDENTIAL
CUL-DI::-Sr.C - 25 2 10' 2 8' 0 36' 100' 200' 15\
ALLEY - 15 2 10' 0 0 0 H/A - - 15\
CITY 0' CIIULA VXBTA S'fRltE'!' S'fU1lARDB
f1;"y:f..
f- ,\ w.'Y/,:
'.
(a) TOPOGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATION TO BE DETERIIIIlED BY CI~Y ENGINEER.
(bl 8\ IN COHM!:IlCIAL AIlEAS.
tel CRADE SEGMENTS IN EXCESS OF 12\ SHALL HOT EXCEED 300 FEET IN LENGTH. SUSTAINED GRADES AND AVERAGE GRADE OVER ANY
1000 FOOT LENGTII SEGMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED 10\.
,
I,~)
" '"
rt> .....
" '"
c 1-
"
c. ro
ro ~
...
2.
3.
'::ME!lCEIICY PARKING TO BE ALLOVED IN OU'r.ER 16' TRAVEL 7P'ES.
5'_lS~ ,,".:,-!!Q:"~
---
CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION SIIALL BE GENERALLY LIIIlTED TO MED1AIl CONSTRUCTION rOR ARTEIUALS AND MAJO!l.S
TO INCLUDE CURB, GUTTER. LlINDSCAPING. IRRIGATION AND STREET LIGHTS WITHIN MEDIAN, AND FOR ONE 12' TRAVEL LANE ON
EACH SIDE OF ARTERIAL MEDIANS.
;/\'
PO!lTLI'.ND CEMEnT CONCRETE PAVEUENT SHALL DE RFoUrRE~ 11'0.. GAAIlES IN EXCESS OF 12\.
.
TilE CITY EIlGrNEER HAY APFROVE REDUC';'ION OF PAll1<ING. SHoEWALKS AnD RIGHT OF WAY FOR STREETS WHERE DEr:.'tED
~pt'RCPRIATE. HOWEVER. TilE HINIMUM PAVEllENT WIDTlI EXCLUDIl'G CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE 24'. IF SIDEWALK IS DELETED.
__. ......._ T"1"lN( '1"nf" 1:"H"" n~ r.URB TO PROPE~"'v {,INE SIlALL BE 51.
._.t__
,\ K
I( TREE PL ANTING a MAINTENANCE
100' EASEMENT 1
5.5 3Z a' a' 3Z' 5.5' 5.S'
4.5'
z% ~ zO/o
20/0 ~.
I 2% ,,'.
Il
I
MAJOR
6' MONOLITHIC CURa
GUTTER a SIDEWALK
STREET
2:1 FILL
(T YP)
r-<-r,~}
/,v,~
If.
R. rTREE PLANTING e
MAINTENANCE
EASEMENT
55' 5.5'
45'
84'
32'
3~
(Ofl 1~
,0
,",
,
'l Z% (TYP)
COllECTOR STREET I't
60'
6"MONOLITHIC CURB
GUTTER a SIDEWALK
~,
.--- TREE PLANTING a
, ',MAINTENANCE
5.5 5.5 EASEMENT
4.5'
5.5
4.5
ZO'
,0'
$,',""IOHT
GlIU,DE IT''tPl
LEVIL
.""
6" MONOLITHIC CURB,
a SIDEwALK
STREET
It
't
CbllECTOR
GUTTEF
RESIDENTIAL
It
56'
.r- TREE PLANTING a
, MAINTENANCE
5.5' 5.5 EASEMENT
4.5
IB'
18'
2: I CUT
(TYP)
s'::1\~'h'l"1
LEVEL
,0/0
...~...
6' MONOLITHIC CURB,
GUTTER a SIDEWALK
It.
RESIDENTIAL
NOTES:
STREET
I. SIDEWALK 'NIDTH "'L.L BE lNCIUASID TO . ,[[T IF CITY [HGINU:" O(TEltNIHES
THAT IT IS lIfAIUUHTED IV PEDUT"IA" n'."'lc.
2. W'"IMUM CUlt I IIAOII:
A. IHT[IUt:CTlON OF ALLI1 WITH ANY ITltEET '. 10 ,rlT
'0 "IIIOI"TII.L ITRIIT TO "IIICINTIAL .TItIIT: 20 'lIT.
C. ALL OTHI" INTI"lleTIONI: 10 'lET
a. " liKE LANES ARE ,,[QUIRID ADD 10' TO THE .IDTH Oil'
STftEET AND PRoptRTY LINIS.
~jJ-Y-,~
NOT TO SCALE
. "",ud 0,.." R. M. F. Doto 2 -24-83 CITY OF CHULA VISTA
3-83 A,pro..~ DOlO ;3-1-83 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(/~ /' J--' ' ~ TYPICAL STREET eVDS
SECTIONS I
CITY ENGINEER
~
\
~
240' CURB TRANSITION: NORTHBOUND SHIFT 4'
240' LANE TRANSITION: NORTHBOUND SHIFT 2'
240' t. TRANSITION: SHIFT 5'
4
12' 12'
12' in 12'
v
8' 8'
10'
SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY R/W
{. 4'BROKEN DOUBLE
YELLOW
6' DASHED
WHITE
R/W
6' SOLID
WHITE
CURB
12'
J5ASEO
2
3
12'
6'SDLlD
WHITE
6' DASHED
WHITE
157.96' CURB TRANSITION
EXIS 1. CURB PER
V. DWG. NO. 88-245
QRCULO".
(~)
4' DOUBLE SOLID
YELLOW
10'
in
v
4'
240' LANE TRANSITION: SOUTHBOUND SHIFT 6'
60' TURNOUT
TRANSITION
CENTERUNE DATA
~RG, RADIUS LENGTH REMARKS
1995.00' 600.00'
1995.00' 65.82'
77.17'
240.00'
195.95'
671.07'
A~ Of/liT
;:)LALl:.1
~
80'
2' TRANSITION
EAST CURB & R/W
CURB
10'
Co
'"
ro
:,. en
5
in
v
40'
I
j
I
YI
/ ,
I
R97BL
8'
12'
12' 4'
30+00
2'
12'
B'SOLlD
WHITE
96' - 6' DASHED
WHITE
140' LEFT TURN POCKET
\ EXIST CURB PER CITY
OF C.V,DWG NO. 88-245
8~
I
STOP
PAVEMENT
LEGEND
~
~
I
" , '-' -...:.< '" ~-.....'
C:> ~:l;J C) VI'"
fii ~ '7 0 C) '\) R1~
Ij ~ -'71:l VI
0- -cj Iii"
:tl Ci 0 '<'''
S?
'"
:;j
"-
i
.
Ij
h
il1
f[)(JE Or EA/.5T ty#/(.
SAWCIIl LlIIE 2' iir..t .4.C.II6fJ!
!fENOWIL '*
EllS 1 ST IIGHT< P.B
TO 8E RE:iOCATE:D
TO erA. 27+80 I
6;& ~~ 0,,' ~I~ I
;;;!;j "I:;:: \? '" '" I
~,5i :<i\ ~ ~ ~!"" Ii
ClJ,~ dl"" \!i I"'''
'I'~ ~~ ~ I~~ II
" Vj C:> \!> _
\) "I ;<i "',
'1:::: :>Ii OJ ?
~ "1 \1 . '"
~ ~ ~
9!:ill:: ,
1''1 'i:>::: ~
" '-C
'"
:~
);:j
l~
'!'
I~
:ClJ
'Ii!
~<ii
!~
,<>>
:<
I"
\ C~UUfOW/Z#';;Tk'W~ II I I I :"J
'. '.1# GM/\€ CC,f ~. 0",
27f30 <i M.H. '# 8 . ::::0
~ )>
;;0 Z
'" :::I 0
<J <::'"
'i ",,"" 0 :r:
_0>. )>
'<> -jU> r JT1
'"
"",-" ~ ::::0
. 0
II
Cl!. tv
, OJ
Z8131.78 t TYPE '~.4' e.o.
0 413' ZEf91. 99 ~ 48' LT
ENIJ ~w TRANSITltJlJ
28+3 .99 ~ ~ f'T
26-132./3 CUf(f3 4t>T
E:8f78.91 ~ 48'LT
BEGIN R/W Tt:A!lSIT/tJH
i!6'17:}Q3 CURB4-!'T
zhSCt/8ow/1I47J1W,f tv
1# c; fJ4/?'E CL/ to
"
~
__l"l'l "
_uo
;(;.? CD
>.J ~e:
\:::> ill,,)>
~27'N
29+08 250 W HPS V S1 LIGHT ON if 16.4. 70 7M/HiC
I SIGNAL IiTANDARD '11/#3 '/2 PH.
" 29d5 2"RE:CL. WATE;R IR!2 SE;RVlCE
I 2"1t4filE... Be e.Q...
I ,~r;.29f58.9"'- 50' LT Z:Jr5;J.07
SENO-R!WJRANSlT/fJN /~~':i/T
~ 2.9Flfj.94~ 50' LT RC.R. FH.
:J !3EGlN A.C. BERM t TEMP.
,
.c. SIDEWALK <'9/867<61'8..
'-.. LINE '14 "SeE 51178 fi)~ FROFILE r..J
...l... \ 3CN-OI.(;e iE-TYI'€ "A-S"c.o. 0
. 3Of28.!34 S7U6 I.E~q5GZO
tJ''f! V C. SEIffif r( lEU!' f'{.{A5 evo
30+33. '34 8"p.VC. ~ECL.MllE'"
:J)ETAIL 2 57Vt3 (7EMP CAI'
onJ.~3 IZ"f-V.C.OOI1.WUflts1L/8AND
I"" 30~731F61'B. iSHP C4P ~.
3O+ql.5'f~48'LTP.C.R. AND E:NDII.C.B.ERM ,:--., I
, TEiIIA:l<'ARY A.c.SIDn'lALK ANO BEGIN <::l<l>
LODGEPOLE FENCL; ~~
30+8'1 BEGIN GIIARORIIIL R I
~~'i!
~~o
0),,,>
""""1~~
J- <..:"" ~
~s>>'t
, '\ "'Rll::J
""I:t..Y'I~...... "'50
, ;t::b.f!i!::i~~ ~ );:
J::1 ,,"'''''-, ~
~. -l~~ s::,~ ~
. ","'", :::!!:N -" ::Jlf84 END
cas:j::J ['I'f
. <:> "Ii 611A11DRA/L
",,,,~
~'" u
,<>l~
::::! '"
(,) .
'E"':'__
EXIST COVOUIT'
57S0G(E. s.p
.L!I!2'10'53"E
"UISTF4CEOFCU&3
--
,
'#'5P8
3OHj3.93~38'RT PCR.
250W flPSV Sl L/liflTONtX-4-7l
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 'TANOA/1"'I~l""
W/"'312 PB.. t; ~ ~
3/t-OS ~I~ ~ !
so.6ffE Sf ~,~ J
(wi vJ<{ 3 {Ida ~:~ ~ I"
(J)! ~ ~ .
~,,,, ~
~ (n I~ .'-
e: Ii Iii;,:; .
~ I "rl;, "'<. :j,
~ 0 CI'~ ",4!, I,; ~i!J, I
~ 0 l ~ ' ~~
~ l- ~, ~ I "';;J~
i\ .Y' . i:>",
j;1 C7./ I'. N:::::
~ '- "-.... 321'00 t\;
~ (n II t+::J~P.8 ,
''1 I \J) :tl
\\)L--i. N""
'll I,' ~ f)
:::::: )> ~'" I "'i'1!
Ii ::; 't ~::2
I ~~ c.
L _~.. <:~
~~ ~~'"
~\::; II l"~
z
'-0
-k 0
~~ fTl
_It r
J a -1
.... -=->
i~
-.,;:
-.,.
:::; .... OJ
:1 ;:0
" (;)
i
c-..;:o
il.tl }> ()
~>2C
j;>C::O
"'-
<J
'i
c:"
""'''''
-h,
-/If'
+'"
w
-...
f\;)
~..
)c:~
()) "
~ I
::s I
Q?
'(,,0
"'<. '
8 ~:i
~ 1m
):)
-<
r
~
3/t99 ENO 510Ei'V4LJ:
1/i:4NS, lJEGIN MONOL/77/11!
CU,ffJ GUT7€1( '1 sw
z
~o
:J
<0
"p:i
~l;!cn
(So-l
(Jj':nO
r., _"J"1
5b -" t/?
'.
;;;
!'<i
~
~
l-i
!i
VI
N
11''/011
~e developer shall be responsible for construction of full
street improvements for all public and private streets shown on
the ~entative Map within the subdivision boundary; and for the
construction of Off-site improvements to construct Paseo
bncbero. East -J" street and paseo Ladera as shown on the
'l'entative Kap. to the satisfaction of the City En;ineer.
.aid ~prov"ent. shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt'
concrete pavement, base, concrete curb. qutter and sidevalk,
aewer and vater utilities. drainage facilities, street lights,
si~. ~ire bydrants and transitions to existin; improvements.
.treet intersection spacin; as shown on the tentative map is
~ereby approved.
\ ,\ ;C\ ~.. All the atreets shown on the '.l'entative Map within the
aubdivision boundary, except private streets, shall be dedicated
~or public use. Design of said streets shall .eet all City
standards.
..,
<;~7.
\
j
19. A temporary turnaround conforming to City standards shall be
provided at the end of streets having a length greater than 150
feet, .easured from the center line of the nearest intersecting
street to. the center of the cul-de-sac, except as approved by
the City En;ineer.
20. CUl-de-sacs and knuckles shall be designed and built in
accordance with City standards unless otherwi.e approved by the
city Engineer.
...
Lo~ Contiaurstion
.' 21.
\. !
; 22.'
\ - .
1)1'"
1
Frontaga on all lots shall be a minimum of 35 feet at the right-
Of-way line except as approved by the City Engineer. This
condition doe. not apply to flag lots, as defined in the
Municipal Code.
Lot lines shall be located at the top of slope. except as
approved by the City Engineer. ~~~ a~jacent to open space
lots, property line. shall be locatea a minimum 2.5 feet from
th~ _~~_ oJ__s;Lope.
~e preparation of final .aps and plans for the locations"listed
below shall be carried out in accordance with the
following criteria unless otherwise ,approved by the City
Engineer and Director of Planning: .'
..
.
b.
131,
east "J" street
5b ~f/Y
..
\,
/
r
\
4.
Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map
Act, the Council certi fies that it has considered
the effect of this approval on the housing needs of
the region and has balanced those needs against the
public service needs of the residents of the City
and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
\\
o
<,
5. The size and configuration of the site and resulting
street pattern do not allow for the optimum siting
of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling
opportunities without reducing the density well
below that allowed under the existing zoning.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of said
subdivision is subject to the following conditions:
(
1. A 6 ft. minimum level width of landscaping backed by
a decorative wall shall be provided between back of
sidewalk and property line for all lots which
back-on or side-on to . E' Street and Boni ta Road
with the exception of the wider up-slopes involving
a total dimension of 10 ft. or wider from back of
sidewalk on lots 14 and 15, in which case the wall
will be located at top of slope. The top of slope
on Lot 14 shall be drawn back from the intersection
an addi tional 15 ft. providing a gentler 4: 1 slope
transi tion. These areas as well as the eucalyptus
grove shall be shown as a separate lettered lot(s)
to be incorporated into an open space maintenance
district which shall be formed at the request of the
applicant.
2.
lL h. oF t:, ~. h i a.A'~ ...aLl. l"U.o,... ig~ r.~~.~w. ~'.:,>:;W"'~ ~-o~'l'~,~,:'_~'~,'~f:'i~
~1,~,",\,~,,:_.,tL';;_"'_~~""'.~~f.n'
.~ ~~ " ;9F'"U,i;1"'11J1lt.l.llirm.:'f'."t':t~"'~Wil~)'"'':'''''
Street, Boni ta Road, and to the setback 1 ines of
Lots 1 (exterior) and 19 (front). A 6 ft. high wood
fence with masonry pilasters at 25 ft. on center
shall be constructed along the westerly boundary.
The CC&R' s shall contain a prohibi tion against any
modi fica tions, addi tions or supplemen ts to the
perimeter wall/fence.
A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted
for review and approval of the City Landscape
Architect in accordance with the Chula Vista
Landscape Manual to include the open space
maintenance district lot(s) and the wall/fencing
program and details.
3.
-3-
5b -1/;
- ----
- ------
...
(
,:
i\
0\\
4.
written evidence shall be submitted to the city that
agreements have been reached with both school
districts regarding the provision of adequate school
facilities to serve the project prior to approval of
the final map.
,
5.
The approval of a final map by the
require compliance with the city's
standards to the satisfaction of
planning.
City council will
adopted threshold
the Director of
6. The amount of any fees applicable to the project,
including but not limited to PAD, DIF and RCT fees,
shall be those in effect at the time they are
collected.
7. The applicant shall retain an acoustician certified
with the City of Chula Vista to take noise readings
~~~lO;/;~r t~~ Ct~:st~~~~~~~e o~f~d~'I.:!r:rr~~~~
the dwellings. Based on these readings, the
applicant will be required to use any additional
~iE..s t'l~.~~~..~~j;~~.t}}:~:~'f,:.~/~:.~ece:::~{ ~~
occupancy, _I Jl'l!'~'~'M W,''''';'''ill~';i.~;_l'il,i"....:iJt;f .eM
f_ . ~ y W' ilt;8'?";:il!iifE'I~;';~''''i~_~'('i""",,,',,a..IJI.._; He ,
J" U 'l'1t."t!I'il'.. J.....;...N~..
8. The developer shall be responsible for the
construction of full street improvements for all
streets within the subdivision and for all street
improvements for streets adjacent to the subdivision
as shown on the Tentative Map or as modified by the
City Engineer.
9. public improvements as described in this resolution
shall include, but not be limited to: AC pavement
and base, concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk, street
lights, signs, street trees, fire hydrants, sanitary
sewer, water and drainage facilities. All
improvements shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with city standards.
10.
The developer shall grant to the
planting and maintenance easements
streets within the subdivision as
city Engineer.
city street tree
along all public
required by the
11. The developer shall request the vacation of that
portion of HilltoP Drive located within the project,
along the westerly property line of subject
project. said vacation shall be approved by the
city council prior to approval of the Final Map.
-4-
5b" 5' ()
_.__' '_'- ___~~'- i-.
\\ '
II P 1/
Prior ~ approval of ..ch-rinal-wap, 'the developer .hall enter
into an a;rag.nt with the City wherein h. helds the City
barale.. for any liability for aro.ion, ailtatien or increase~
flow of dralna;e ra.ultin; from 'this proj.ct.
a6. ~a developer ahal1 anter into an aqre_ent with the City
whereby tha d.ve1oper a;ree. to participate in the monitering of
exi.tini and future .ewaie -flow. in the Teleiraph Canyon Trunk
..wer and the financin; of 'the preparation of the Basin Plan
and, purauant to .ny .dopted Basin Plan, .;re. to participate in
\ tha financini of improvem.nta a.t forth 'ther.in, in .n aquitable
.-nner. Said a;re_ent ahal1 be ax.cut.d by the d.v.loper prior
to final aap approval for .ny pha.. or unit proposini to -
,U-!:,}-apqa .awa;. .into -the '!'al.;rap~ -Canyon ~ .lever.
"5.
\
(
~7. ~a dev.lop.r ahall permit all franchi..d cable talevision
companie. (RCable Company.) aqual opportunity to plac. conduit
to and provide cable television service for aach lot within the
aubdivision. Th. d.v.loper ahall ant.r into an a;r.ement with
.11 participating Cable Companies which ahall provid., in part,
that upon rec.iving written notice from the City that .aid Cabl.
Company i. in violation of 'the t.rms .nd condition. of the
franchise ;ranted to aaid Cable Company, or any oth.r terms an~
conditions r.iulatini aaid Cabl. Company in the City of Chula
Vi.ta, .. aame may from time to tim.-be .mended, d.veloper .hall
au.pend cabl. Company'. acce.. to aaid conduit until City
oth.rwi.e notifies developer. Said aqreement aha1l be approv.~
by the city Attorney prior to fina1~ap .pprova1.
68. The developer .hall utilize the Pa.eo Ranchero corridor for-
construction traffic unl.ss oth.rwis. approyed-by the City
~ Eniin.er. A construction traffic plan .hall be.aubmitte~ ~or
r.vi.w .nd approval prior-to-approv,-.l...Rf ~I!:'rir.t_..tinal 1I;ap~
'ia.uanc.R;._~:.iLI!:ra!!"i.Re.rmit, whic;:h.ver occurs first. RIll J - .
-'l~" -rl'lf(.....~...\'r-.iifrllil.li..'.lll1f~lI~.~~j.,
~J Revi.ions to said plan shall be approv.d by the City
zngrn..r. -
Y.es/pavml!nt.
6'. ~a .Ubj.ct property i. within the boundaries of Open Space
Di.trict 120 (Zon. 7), Op.n Spac. Di.trict 110 (Pha.. II) an~
Aa....m.nt Di.trict #87-1. Prior to final map approval or other
qrant of approval for any pha.. or unit th.reof, the d.v.loper
ahal1 pay all co.t. a..ociat.d with:
a) d.tachm.nt of sUbj.ct prop.rty from Open Spac. Di.trict #10
(Pha.. %1) I and
b)
r.apportionm.nt of .....sm.nt. for Op.n Spac. Di.trict #20
(Zon.7) and As....m.nt Di.trict 187-1 ...a r.sult of
subdivi.ion of land. within the proj.ct boundary.
,
70. The d.v.1op.r shall pay:
5/;--f/
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE:
September 23, 1994
Claudia Diamond, Diamond consulting Group
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Steve Griffin, principal Planner
Resolution of Issues raised ~y Villa Palmera HOA
If the following will reeolve your concerns with the trails/speed/
safety issues, please let me know as soon as possible and a letter
will be prepared memorializing these points:
,#'. The recreational trail fronting Villa Palmera will consist of
~\,,0.~..... '.... ~~:ti .t,;i;~;~~t c~~:~~~~gE::~:~:te~~~~ct;il1~~P~~:iii~~:;~!:~
".~ responsiblity for relocating irrigation necessitated by the
" . f sidewalk expansion.
! ',~,;t.L' Paseo Ranchero will initially be posted for a speed limit of
, 35 mph in the vicinity of East "J" street and Villa P&lmera.
~ 'v Once Paseo Ranchero is completed between east "H" street and
r /,,' . ~Telgraph Canyon Road, a speed study will be conducted to
" ," 'determin the appropriate speed limit for the entire length of
Vehiole Code.
'.l:.i.lr)..f.~" ....y' The results of the speed survey will be made available to the
~.,'f"^y Villa Palmera homeowners and presented to the safety
<J,>.'.~" Commission. The Villa Palmera homeowners will kle notitied and
ti':,/ invi ted to attend the Safety Commission meeting.
v ,C
3. As noted at our meeting, Paseo Ranchero was never intended to
. aCComodate on-street parking. On-street parking will be
y/;. ' ~p.roh~bited along the entire lenghth of Paseo Ranchero.
... ..... ".~
,> ~~_:..
<-fb :5',;2
,/
A DIVISION OF CC& R PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC.
539 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Ste. # 145 Chula Vista, CA. 91910
Office: (619) 421-4121 Fax: (619)-421-5628
TO: Steve Griffin, Principal Planner
Planning Department
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
September 28, 1994
Dear Steve,
I'm glad I had the opportunity to meet with you and the other gentlemen on
September 23, 1994. It's nice to be able to attach names to faces.
While the meeting was somewhat productive, there are still issues which
remain undiscussed and/or unresolved. I will use my letter to Mr. Nader
and the City Council dated August 23, 1994 for the following formal.
1. The City may have copies of addresses in a book, however, that supplies
no proof that the residents were notified.
2. The City insists that an equestrian trail was never planned through the
area, however, it is so stated in Resolution 16222, Condition 12 that the
developer shall be responsible for construction of an expanded 8-10' wide
sidewalk/recreational pathway along the west side of Paseo Ranchero to
connect the trail systems in the south leg of Rice Canyon and in the
Telegraph Canyon Rd. open space area. Condition 30 of the same Resolu-
tion refers to the sign program identifying the trail network in the open
space areas and connecting along Paseo Ranchero and Condition 31 refers
to the equestrian type fencing. Clearly the intention is for horses to
travel through this area.
Per our meeting (and your memo dated September 23, 1994), the City is
proposing expanding the existing sidewalk by 2.5' which would enlarge it
to 8'. Per the City's 'Street Design Standard Policy', 8' wide sidewalks
are constructed along 4 Lane and 6 Lane Major Streets in commercial
areas, n at in residential areas. Infact, the sidewalk designation for a
'Class I Collector Street' is 5.5', which is the existing condition along
Paseo Ranchero. (See Condition 14. C. of Resolution 16222).
At the meeting we also discussed City Health Codes with regards to
5'/J /fJ
horses, but no one in attendance knew what they were. What are the
health codes with regards to horses; Le., proximity to nonpublic resi-
dences and the disposal of excrement?
Also with regards to horses, does the city have any ordinances
prohibiting horses from using concrete sidewalks that are designated as
recreational pathways? At the meeting on September 23, we determined
that the City will not designate or promote the sidewalks on the western
side of Paseo Ranchero, (along Villa Palmera) as an equestrian trail. Will
there be signs posted indicating 'no horses'? Will the horses be allowed
to travel on or adjacent to Paseo Ranchero?
3. As we discussed at the meeting, and as is addressed in your memo to
me dated September 23, 1994, the City will post Paseo Ranchero at 35
MPH, rather than the 'Collector I ' minimum designation of 45 MPH. Once
construction of Paseo Ranchero is completed between E. "H" St. and Tele-
graph Canyon Rd., a speed study will be conducted to determine the appro-
priate speed limit for the entire length. Which department should the
Board of Directors of Villa Palmera contact at the City and how will the
City notify the Board of Directors of Villa Palmera and its residents
regarding any changes to the 35 MPH? A McMillan representative just this
week, indicated to me that the section from Telegraph Canyon Rd. north to
the "J" St. area must be posted at 35 MPH due to the topography of the
land.
Discussion ensued regarding the entrance to the proposed schools along
E. "J" St. and the associated speed. Whether the main entrances to the
schools are located on E. "J" St. or not, speed along Paseo Ranchero in the
vicinity of the schools cannot be safely posted greater than 25 MPH. To do
so would be negligence on the part of the City. For example, the entrance
to the Hazel Goes Cook School is on Cuyamaca Ave. and yet the posted
speed limit along "L" St. in the vicinity of the school is 25 MPH. The
entire expanse has a fence and the posted speed limit before and beyond
the school is 35 MPH.
Protecting the existing down slope residents in the Villa Palmera Com-
plex along Paseo Ranchero from out of control vehicles, hoodlums or users
of the recreational trail/expanded sidewalk is still an unanswered
concern. It also remains a concern how the City plans to protect Circulo
Verde (the private road) from public access.
4. I was told that EIRs were done for both sides of Paseo Ranchero and
that infact the noise levels fall within the acceptable range of 65 dB-A.
S/? ~51
The front entrances of the Villa Palmera homes face Paseo Ranchero and
are in some areas within 30 feet of Paseo Ranchero. Along the east side
of Paseo Ranchero (where the McMillan houses are proposed) the homes
will be at least 50 feet from the road, with the backyards facing Paseo
Ranchero. Additionally, walls are proposed, which further protect the
homes from noise. It is pretty obvious that the existing Villa Palmera
homes will suffer much more from noise pollution than the proposed
McMillan homes! When asked to see a copy of the EIRs, we were told that
the documentation was too thick!
5. With regards to the upcoming construction, removal of the pump
station was discussed at length. The City will inform Villa Palmera when
the pump station area will return to the homeowners. McMillan will be
removing the pump station and they will so inform us when this will
occur. As of this date, McMillan feels that the removal will not occur for
about one year. The Board of Villa Palmera is currently surveying the
community to see how they would like to see the area (once the pump is
removed) redesignated. The results will be provided to McMillan.
I was told by McMillan that there are standards with regards to noise, dirt
and construction traffic during construction. We need a copy of these
standards. I was also told that contruction trucks and traffic will be on
Paseo Ranchero and East "J." St. in the direct vicinity of Villa Palmera.
McMillan is aware that construction vehicles are unable to turn around on
Paseo Ranchero and E. "J" St. as it currently exists. I have been told that
should vehicles pass through the development, we can contact the City
Mitigation Monitor, Marilyn Ponsengi and/or Constance Byram of McMillan.
Can McMillan provide a written guarantee that this will not occur? As
per my missive dated August 23, 1994, the City and McMillan are aware
that our private road was recently resurfaced. A letter from McMillan
guaranteeing repair if damage occurs needs to also be provided. Villa
Palmera also requires a written guarantee that dirt moving will cease if
wind is in excess of the reasonable standards.
Lastly, what are the final map conditions? When is it going to City Coun-
cil? We request a copy before it goes to City Council for the approval.
I need documentation to take to the home owners which answer the ques-
tions presented to Mr. Nader and the City Council on August 23, 1994, as
well as those generated from our meeting of September 23, 1994.
5b - j'j
I have been advised by our Management Company that all correspondence
and proposed changes to existing conditions ( such as the expansion of the
existing sidewalk along Pas eo Ranchero and alteration to the sidewalk,
landscaping and stairs along East "J" St.) must be reviewed by our legal
council prior to any commencement of work. Once reviewed and
advisement is received by the Board of Directors of Villa Palmera, the
homeowners must then vote on any proposed alterations, additions or any
construction which will affect them. Therefore, any and all documenta-
tion by The City and McMillan must be forwarded to:
Curtis Management Co.
10455 Sorrento Valley Rd. Ste. 102
San Diego, CA. 92121
Altn: Christine Olivas
and copies sent to Villa Palmera Home Owners Assoc.
c/o 539 Telegraph Canyon Rd. Ste. 145
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
Thanking you in advance and looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Claudia J. Diamond RN, BA, MPH
President, Villa Palmera Home Owners Assoc.
President, CC&R Property Investments, Inc.
cc: Mayor Tim Nader and City Council of Chula Vista
Constance Byram of McMillan
Christine Olivas of Curtis Management Co.
5,b/>>
~y~
:-J'C'~
......~............
----
---
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENr
October 4. 1994
Claudia J. Diamond
Diamond Consulting Group
539 Telegraph Canyon Road. Suite 145
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Dear Mrs. Diamond:
This is a follow-up to a discussion we had about equestrian uses on puhlie trails and parks. Although
the ordinance does not specify trails. it does relate to public parks. Basically. the ordinance gives the
authority to the parks and recreation director to prohibit equestrian access on city park land.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the city ordinances dealing with horses.
Sincerely.
~:~
Director of Parks & Recreation
Enclosures
3); / ~J(?
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(6191691.5071
"'"
~
2.66.060 Distribution or posting of handbills and other papers prohibited.
It is unlawful to distribute, circulate, give away, throw or deposit in
or on any of the parks or plazas any handbills, circulars, pamphlets, tracts,
. dodgers , papers or advertise~nts; or to post or offer or affix to any tree,
fence or structure situated within any such park or plaza any handbill s,
circulars, pamphlets, tracts, dodgers. papers or advertisements. (Ord. 1557
S 1 (part), 1974: Ord. 1179 S 1 Art. 3 (part), 1969: Ord. 857 S 2(0),
1963: prior code S 21.3.2(4).)
2.66.070 Sale or solicitation for, sale of merchandise
prohibited-Exceptions.
It is unlawful to sell or offer for sale any merchandise, article or
thing whatsoever, except by pennit of the city, or to practice, carryon,
conduct or'solicit for any trade, occupation, business or profession without
the written consent of the director of parks and recreation. (Ord. 1557 S 1
part), 1974: Ord. 1179 S 1 Art. 3 (part). 1969: Ord. 857 S 2(E) and (M),
1963: prior code S 21.3.2(5).)
:)
2.66.080 Injuring, defacing or removing vegetation, structures or monuments
prohibi ted.
It is unlawful to cut, break, injure, deface or disturb any tree, shrub,
plant, rock, building, fence; bench, table or other structures, apparatus or
property; or to pluck, pull up, cut, take or remove any shrub, bush, plant or
flower; or to mark or write upon, paint or deface in any manner, any
building, monument, fence, bench or other structure. (Ord. 1557 S 1 (part),
1974: Ord. 1179 S 1 Art. 3 (part), 1969: Ord. 857 S 2(F), 1963: prior code
S 21.3.2(6).)
2.66.090 Littering prohibited.
A. It is unlawful to throw, leave, or deposit any bottles, tin cans, broken
glass, paper rubbish, refuse or waste material of any kind in any place
except in containers for such purposes maintained by the city.
B. It is unlawful to have, possess or use, any cup, tumbler, jar or container
made of glass and used for carrying or containing any liquid for drinking
purposes, except in locations where such containers are pennitted under
the terms of a lease, operating agreement or permit.
(Ord. 2047 S 1, 1983: Ord. 1557 S 1 (part), 1974: Ord. 1179 S 1 Art. 3
(part), 1969:' Ord. 857 S 2(G), 1963: prior code S 21.3.2(7).)
2.66.100 Hitching of horses or parking of vehicles prohibited where. '
It is unlawful to leave or hitch any horse, or leave or park any
? '*\' ;.; '" automobile, motorcycle or other self-driven vehicle on any park or plaza
~/property, excepting at such place or places as are provided for and
, ',designated as places for the leaving or hitching of horses or for the leaving
: ' or parking of automobiles, motorcycles or other self-driven vehicles. (Ord.
1557 S 1 (part), 1974: Ord. 1179 S 1 Art. 3 (part), 1969: Ord. 857 S 2(H)"
1963: prior code S 21.3.2(8).) .
.
100
-----~---- ------ ,- 'r>/ - m ~-- -
517 ~ 50
,
2.66.110 Cleaning or repairing of vehicles prohibited.
It is unlawful to clean, wash or polish, or to make other than emergency
repairs upon any automobile, motorcycle or self-driven vehicle. (Ord. 1179 ~
1 Art. 3 (part), 1969: prior code ~ 21.3.2(91.1
2.66.120 Automobile speed limited.
It is unlawful to drive an automobile, motorcycle, or other self-driven
vehicle upon any park or plaza property at a speed in excess of fifteen miles
per hour. (Ord. 1778 ~ 1 (part), 1977: Ord. 1179 ~ 1 Art. 3 (part), 1969:
prior code ~ 21.3.2(10).1
/7
(~
--~'~~
2.66.130 Animals, livestock and fowl prohibited-Exceptions.
It is unlawful to bring, leave, turn loose or allow to go any horse, cow,
ox, sheep, goat, ass, swine, dog or fowl of any kind in or upon such park or
plaza; provided. however, that this section shall not apply to dogs or horses
which are in special areas of parks designated and posted by the director of
parks and recreation for such purposes, and so long as the regulations of the
director of parks and recreation with respect to the use of such areas are
complied with. (Ord. 1179 ~ 1 Art. 3 (part), 1969: prior code ~ 21.3.2(11).)
"')
2.66.140 Fires prohibited-Exceptions.
It is unl awful to make or ki ndl e any fi re except in pi cni c stoves or
fireplaces provided for that purpose, except by pennission in writing from
the director of parks and recreation. (Ord. 1557 ~ 1 (part), 1974: Ord.
1179 ~ 1 Art. 3 (part), 1969: Ord. 857 ~ 2(1), 1963: prior code ~
21.3.2(12). "
2.66.150 Tampering with equipment, tools or materials prohibited.
It is unlawful to open or close any valves or switches pertaining to the
water or electric service or to move or remove from one location to another
or destroy any equipment, tools, implements or materials used by the parks
and recreation department; provided however, that this section shall not
apply to any employee of the parks and recreation department while in the
perfonnance of hi s duti es. (Ord. 1557 ~ 1 (part I, 1974: Ord. 1179 ~ 1 Art.
3 (part), 1969: 'Ord. 857 ~ 2(J), 1963: prior code S 21.3.2(13).)
2.66.160 Birds and animals-Catching, wounding or killing prohibited.
It is unlawful to wound, kill or catch or to attempt to wound, kill or
catch any bird or other animal except on the direction of the city. (Ord.
1557 S 1 (part), 1974: Ord. 1179 S 1 Art. 3 Cpartl,.1969: Ord. 857 S 2(K),
1963: prior code S 21.3.2(14).) "
')
2.66.170 Birds and animals-Poisoning prohibited.
It is unlawful to give or offer to any animal or bird, any tobacco,
alcohol or other known noxious substances. COrd. 1179 S 1 Art. 3 (part),
1969: prior code ~ 21.3.2(15).)
32-S;
.;
101
A DMSION OF CC& R PROPERTY INVESTMENTS INC
539 Telegrnph Canyon Rd. Ste. # 145 Chula Vista, CA. 91910
Office, (619) 421-4121 Fax. (619)-421-5628
r
/LJ~dC
6fC1 . /
" . r- '('I..
/:3--.('--2/C ~.J/ 1-5:~/ Y
/?:}1 . '-;J1 ?1-;I::jdL
, !
/i .--r
~___ec./'---t":
/r
~(/~
(,- ;,; /L-.1' / I'
,"--..-' ~~~.
;f ,
I (I
'---ct-C-I:-A /c.</ ~_
- ./
) -;lz l]I~'
"
r'--.. ~
,-, -/
"'''-tU;i{
~'!_ ~ / J C.;
j L:..d-,/I /'1 ); ./ /A'-'
L//L.---"""""'-' Vl_- ,-___f :~~__;:.,...\....
, __.r-'~
\... _~J;_~ ..-.0;.:2......- t {'- ,.'
- !
.i/2-.- .>y~ ---
/-7
.. ". _ ." f.,""
-"'.i /? ,j-'--~U /f -, 6-1' I / f
/1...._/'. ....._j<....C..t..../.;::.. -" '. L;..-- ------~ '.......
. /: ',- -7 )O)i:1 ( } I .
-,i._ {,_,_; ~:7J- ,j .. ~.L--c
- '
u;1J~?l.L....C
..1 ,'-
I /';-
" .
" I ~ /
';";;"--L1 .
'/ /
c
--n
. ~
/)(j..
('I\....
(-.L-~/' ..
/ /L--C
/(L-C2--'
~...... //{{j;..../-<-
'-:-..-/ / ,I, (
/ ~C ~~--
/1 t!~/ ~'?('
// ~ '-; .
,-,'" .A
/L.c;;,"'\.. '--
/
/~c...<::/L
/
'/
--/z.. ,t, <_
t-~/:r<_.;c---
//
,~.. /
/) // //
/ l~I--:A~L.c~_c f--C~-<~- ~
~/~-(__/-<'::_c:/ ;:rv~'~' _..-;A~j':-,,0( o,.,~
:j U
>>/t/tl
---.,/"',( ," ,,1--;
/ / -'___...:___<--_/ '--'" '.- /' G
'/
/ / i., ~. ..'
CL-Lc2-(....... (cGf:...--fZ'l. c.lC(..c-(
(;?/-1,___. _
..L c\ -,. L ,
I ,
c.- (c'" 'c 2.
'\
)
.:z:::::/"L.e'----t::"" /U -C---L
-'
"<-- ~-::2_/ .:-<--t:<.. ~?~
/ .
,;::L...c.-=- CrG.-C..-J.---c:1.-<:..S:;;(
," / /
UJC~7
ju ./,:.o---(V~vr- /7u'-..
']-,'>--/ /-L--', ~/r""V ~
, ..-/-'. ......-.-, '~'-"""-<:,~..
/
"
'--------
I,,,) ~~ '
,ffl' '-' .r - ~:
/- [,' ,
//
~:J_/.A:".<JU.J_'
~~~
~
~~~~
C1lY OF
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
November 4, 1994
Claudia Diamond
President, villa Palmera Homeowners Association
539 Telegraph Canyon Road, Ste. 145
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Ms. Diamond:
Following are responses to the items listed in your letter of
september 28, 1994 (attached hereto):
1. The copies of the mailing labels contained in our files for
the Rancho del Rey (RdR) III sectional Planning Area Plan
~ (PCM-90-06) and Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-90-02) reflect
that notices were mailed to all of the Villa Palmera
'.' ~~" omeowners and the management company for the HOA at least 10
."lH~. . days prior to each of the public hearings associated with each
"f:I/~; phase of the project. I would be glad to review these records
'.:.....~ .'1.," with you in detail at your convenience.
yw- since the city does not use certified or registered mail for
I" public hearing notices, we have no direct information
confirming that the notices were received, only that they were
mailed. However, we were not made aware of any irregularities
in the noticing procedures during the hearing process, which
sometimes occurs if there is a problem with mail delivery.
2. The 8-10 ft. wide sidewalk/recreational pathway called for in
Tentative Map Resolution 16222, attached hereto, is intended
as a pedestrian trail/pathway to accommodate pedestrians only,
J' '\ i. e., walkers and joggers. The present proposal to expand the f
J} ,( sidewalk fronting Villa palmera from the standard 5.5 ft.
A;, 'J ')width to an 8 ft. width is intended to facilitate the trail in
'A"})./ /a manner which is not disruptive to Villa Palmera residents.
As stated previously, the trail/sidewalk is not intended to
accommodate equestrian use, nor could a sidewalk be used for
this purpose. Section 10.28.050 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code prohibits the use of sidewalks for horses (please see
attached CVMC 10.28.050). According to the Police Department, )
horses cannot be prohibited from using public streets in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 21050, also ·
attached hereto. But again, there is no intention to . u
designate, encourage or facilitate equestrian use of pase~ fU \\
Ranchero. '/'0 ~
J
>>-- tt;
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/1619) 691-5~01
It is our understanding that you were going to meet with the
villa palmera homeowners regarding the proposal to widen the
sidewalk by 2.5 ft. and get back to us with their reaction and
further discussions if necessary.
3. with respect to the issue of speed limits, school posting and
road protection, please see the attached memos from Harold
Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer, dated October 20, 1994, and
from William ullrich, senior civil Engineer, dated October 25,
1994.
It was previously stated that Paseo Ranchero would be posted
for a speed limit of 35 M.P.H. for an interim period prior to
completion of the street and the necessary studies to
establish a permanent speed limit consistent with state law
and safe operating conditions. After further review, the city
Traffic Engineer reports that the most appropriate posting
based upon roadway design would appear to be 40 M.P.H. and
that it would be inadvisable to post any speed limit now which
might have to be increased at a later date based upon detail
studies.
The city Traffic Engineer should be contacted regarding posted
speed limits or any other issue related to traffic control.
The city Traffic Engineer will also assume the responsibility
for notifying villa Palmera homeowners as well as the
management company for the HOA, regarding any proposal to
establish or change the posted speed limit along Paseo
Ranchero.
4. The Environmental Review Coordinator, Mr. Doug Reid, will be
glad to review with you in detail the applicable Environmental
Impact Reports for the RdR III sectional Planning Area Plan
(EIR-89-10) and the General Plan Update (EIR-88-02); the
latter document being the one which reviews the potential
noise impacts from the city's major and collector street
network. Mr. Reid can be contacted at 691-5104.
As noted, the latest documentation on traffic noise impacts
comes from EIR-88-2. This document shows that the 65 CNEL
(Community Noise Level Equivalent) contour, which is the
acceptable standard for exterior residential noise levels,
falls 39 ft from the centerline of Paseo Ranchero. Since the
right-of-way for Paseo Ranchero is 94 ft., the 65 CNEL would
occur wi thin the right-of-way, some 35 ft. from the homes
within villa Palmera which front upon Paseo Ranchero. The
figures indicate that these homes fall within the 60 CNEL
contour, which is 5 CNEL below the acceptable level.
5;}:> ~ j.2
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Furthermore, the residential setbacks and community walls
proposed for the RdR III homes which will back onto the east
side of Paseo Ranchero were not required for noise
attenuation. As noted above, the 65 CNEL contour falls within
the Paseo Ranchero right-of-way, and thus the properties on
either side of the street do not require extraordinary
measures to attenuate exterior noise levels.
5. Please see the attached letter from Mr. Thom Fuller, Vice
President for McMillin Project Services, regarding their
intentions with respect to construction activities in and
around Villa palmera. As noted in Mr. Fuller's letter,
construction activities will be governed by City Ordinances
and State laws regulating excavation and grading activities,
a summary of which are listed on the Land Development Permit.
This permit also includes a certification that the applicant
has read and will comply with said ordinances and laws (please
see attached for a copy of the permit).
Mr. Fuller has further stated in his letter that McMillin will
direct their contractors to avoid any incidental use of Villa
Palmera streets, and will post a sign at each of the two
project entrances reading "No Rancho del Rey Construction
Traffic Permitted". The Inspection section of the Engineering
Division at 422-0636, or Ms. Constance Byram of McMillin at
477-4117, may be contacted regarding any violations or
concerns related to construction traffic or activities in and
around Villa Palmera.
You requested information relative to when the final map will be
before city Council for approval and what are the final map
conditions. The developer is processing what is known as a "Master
Final Map" (MFM) which creates large lots requiring further
subdivision (super-block parcels). Resolution 16222 contains the
conditions of approval which must be met before final map approval.
Not all conditions of approval are required to be met with each
final map. Some conditions only pertain to specific areas within
the tentative map area.
The MFM will be the first map to go before city Council for
approval. Condition 74 of Resolution 16222 addressed this map and
indicates the intent of the City relative to what was necessary
prior to finaling a MFM. The City Engineer has required plans and
surety for all of the backbone streets in order to assure access
and utilities to all of the lots being created. The MFM does not
include any individual lots therefore said map is not considered
the first final map as indiacted in some conditions of approval.
The MFM is tentatively scheduled for november 22,1994.
Subsequent final maps for the super-block parcels created by the
MFM are currently in process and are expected to be considered by
the city Council in mid-December or early January.
5p / t. ]
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
/)
.~...v)'.' -/1 \
~y'
J'~<
'."'/ I
~'
\
i
.
The Master Final Map is tentatively scheduled for City Council
consideration on November 22, 1994. The Villa Palmera homeowners,
HOA management company and anyone else requesting notification will
receive notice of this and any subsequent RdR III final map.
sincerely,
~
steve Griffin
Principal Planner
SG:mw
cc: sid Morris, Assistant City Manager
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works
Jess Valenzula, Director of Parks & Recreation
Cliff Swanson, City Engineer
Bill Ullrich, senior civil Engineer
Hal Rosenberg, city Traffic Engineer
Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Curtis Management Company, 10455 Sorrento Valley road, Ste.
102, San Diego, CA 92121, Attn: Christine Olivas
Villa Palmera Homeowners Association, c/o 539 Telegraph Canyon
Road, Ste. 145, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Thom Fuller, Vice-Present McMillin Company, 2727 Hoover
Avenue, National City, CA 91950
Constance Byram, Community Relations, McMillin Company, 2727
Hoover Avenue, National City, CA 91950
Attachments
Letter from Claudia Diamond dated September 28, 1994.
RdR III Tentative Subdivision Map Resolution No. 16222.
Copy of CVMC 10.28.050.
Copy of California Vehicle Code Section 21050.
Memo from Harold Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer, dated October
20, 1994.
5f .-J1;I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Memo from William Ullrich, Senior civil Engineer, dated October 25,
1994.
Letter from Thom Fuller, McMillin Company, dated October 21, 1994.
Copy of Land Development Permit Application.
M:\home\planning\claudla.Dia
5J; -i5
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
M~MQRldi!2YM
L"~ -,- ,
I",. t ''...
i
~,
October 20, 1994
File: PC-989
FROM:
Stephen Griffin, Principal Planner
Cliff Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director/City EngineerJ);
~ ttf2- [tfr
Harold Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer
TO:
VIA:
,~ ,y
, lL~
q\, "~
Subsequent to our discussion in the meeting held to consider the impact of th~~' , ,r, /
development along Paseo Ranchero, we have reviewed the roadway design speed in the '
area of Paseo Ranchero and East "J" Street. Based on the roadway design, it appears I,
that the most appropriate speed for posting would be 40 M.P.H. However, our standard I'; hfl:Jr~
procedures are to not post a limit until after the road is opened to traffic and~: 1.
speed survey can be completed. Once that is completed, all factors which affect the? 1.9
establishing of the speed limit on Paseo Ranchero will be considered and the most ~,
appropriate speed limit will then be established and posted. The California speed trap.,;J I-
law requires Engineering/Traffic Survey be performed to determine what the most~ ,./,1".'
{, \appropriate speed limit is for prevailing conditions. S~ff
~h~, t,1\ An Engineering/Traffic Survey takes into account design characteristics of the roadway <;r"
.~ including design geometrics such as vertical and horizontal curves, accident rates,
" Jt;U special conditions such as schools, parks and other factors, and most importantly, the. Alt~
'~v:""" .~, 85th percentile speed. California Law bases the posting of speed limits on the \4'V'
\ .' . i.~sumption that motorists on the roadway will drive at or below a speed that they If },-
I.f.e .,iff feel to be safe and appropriate for roadway conditions. We do not believe it is ,Y J~'
X(I"" I F advisable to post a lower limit now that might have to be increased later. /f/~
C '. ' ~I'. A lower posted speed limit than that determined by the Engineering/Traffic Survey, is
to., ' considered a "Speed Trap" is therefore not legally enforceable by the Police
'Tic' Department and is not defensible in the courts. An artificially low speed limit can also
pose a real problem in maintaining a safe operation of the street. In the
Engineering/Traffic Survey, unusual conditions are considered to be roadway conditions
that are not readily apparent to the motorists and are taken into account when
establishing the most appropriate speed limit.
SUBJECf:
Proposed Speed Limit on Paseo Ranchero
The City will install the necessary school signs for the proposed Elementary School
site at the intersection of East "J" Street and Paseo Ranchero once constrUction for
the school nears completion. At that time, we will be posting the appropriate "School"
series signs (Speed Limit / 25 M.P.H. / When Children Are Present) in advance of the
school boundaries facing northbound and southbound traffic. In order to be effective,
the overall speed limit also needs to be posted.
\..i'~'
/,lv-
lM
!)~~.0 7
U !'
,.
'7r"
/"
I hope this information will help you resolve any questions regarding this issue. If you
have any question about this information or any other traffic related matters, please
feel free to call me at 691-5237.
~~b ~l~
(C:\DENNIS\RANOHERO.DOC)
~~,-
.
MEMO FROM WILLIAM ULLRICH, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER
DATED OCTOBER 25, 1994
>>~tl
,
~
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
October 25, 1994
File: PC-989
Stephen Griffin, Principal Planner
we!
Clifford L. Swanson, Deputy Director of Public
City Engineer
William A. Ullrich, Senior Civil EngineervJ~
SUBJECT: Response to Claudia Diamond, Villa Palmera HOA
This is in response to a portion of items 3 and 5 of Ms. Diamond's
letter dated September 28,1994. The majority of Engineering's
response to item 3 was contained in a previous memo from Hal
Rosenberg. The response to item 5 will be relative to Engineering
aspects only.
ITEM 3
Relative to protecting Villa Palmera residents from out of control
vehicles.
\ I\/~
XI)'; \,
i1'vll'" .
'i) '"\
.----
Only the northerly portion of Paseo Ranchero adjacent to the
Villa palmera has a curve. That curve has a centerline radius
of 2010 feet. The remainder of the street is straight.
Staff considers this segment of Pas eo Ranchero a location
where there is a low potential for a vehicle running off the
road. The 2010 foot radius curve at the northern segment of
Pas eo Ranchero adjacent to Villa Palmera can accommodate a
speed of 55 miles per hour (MPH) comfortably (State Highway
Manual Fig. 203.2). Since the speed limit will be 35-40 MPH,
the curve will not create circumstances which would lead to
vehicles leaving the road. The nearest unit is approXimatel~ ' ~.,.l"'~
30 feet from the curb. The possibility of a vehicle leavingJ"."""I(LD:'
the roadway and striking a. building is consi~ered extremel ~ ~.,tt~
low because of the road alJ..gnment and geometrJ..cs. ' f0/~'-'
The CALTRANS Traffic Manual indicates that guardrails may be ~vy~~ '
necessary on the outside of curves having a radius of 1000 '.
feet or less. Since the curve radius is 2010 feet, guardrails,'
are not warranted based upon the curve radius. The manual also
indicates that a guardrail is more severe to hit than going
over a slope when the height of a 2 to 1 slope is 12 feet or
lower and when there is a high potential for cars running off \
the road. Placement of a guardrail in this location would be ,
more hazardous to the occupants of the vehicle than going over I.~ L; f I
the bank because the maximum height of 2 to 1 slope within ~~~. ~-./
Villa palmera is approximately 8 feet. , ' (
! lQof.!
~ - t Y ~,Ut:." '":';,
\J~1~~
4,}J"1J'.J
Stephen Griffin
2
Villa Palmera
Row is the City going to protect the private road Circulo Verde
from public use?
,'.tnhe City does not attempt to keep the public from using
~ private streets other than to have the drives indicated as
/1.'J!IfJJ.' CIPri vate . Private streets are not as wide as public streets
, I r', ~." and therefore give the appearance that use is limited to
. ~ residents of the area. Use of such streets by the general
,tPll;'''' public is usually by those visiting homeowners who live in the
, ,-' ,0 complex. Occasionally, someone might get lost and
'~Jv accidentally use such a street, but that situation should be
v 'I' very limited.
'u-l
X'
I believe that this question is directed at the short term
construction traffic which might be required to turn around or
might travel through the private road in lieu of turning
around before Pas eo Ranchero is connected to East "R" Street.
If this problem develops during construction, the homeowners
should conta~~ the developer and the City. City personnel
would therr:ftte:mpj:.' to control that type of activity through
---"the develo1l'eL ,,-nn contractor. The only City control over this \ r"/L-'
type of activity would be to shut down construction until the)~
activity ceased. /
Staff does not anticipate this to be a major problem in that
the road will not take long to get a rough street through to
East "R" Street. Consequently, there should be little or no
need or desire to use that private street.
ITEM 5
The master final map is anticipated to be before Council in mid-
November. That final map will create super block type lots that
will require a future final map to develop the parcels. This being
the case, the majority of the conditions of approval do not apply
to the master final map. Condition number 74 of the tentative map
addresses this master map. The only requirement for this map was
to provide plans and surety for the backbone streets which provide
access to the parcels being created.
The developer has also been processing other maps which are
anticipated to be before Council in mid-December or early January.
M:\HOMB\ENGINBBR\PBRMITS\VILLAPAL.WAU
5J - i 7
LETTER FROM THOM FULLER, MCMILLIN COMPANY
DATED OCTOBER 21, 1994
56- /0
October 21, 1994
i-I,'.... -- ,
- ....' ;
Mr. Steve Griffin, Principal Planner
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Subject:
Response to Claudia Diamond's Concerns
Your Memorandum of October 10, 1994
Dear Steve:
As you requested in your memo, we are responding to Item 5 of a letter to you from
Claudia Diamond, Diamond Consulting Group, relaying her concerns as a neighbor to our
Rancho Del Rey SPA ill project.
The first paragraph of Item 5 describes our discussions regarding the removal of the
temporary sewage pumping station which serves the Villa Palmera project. Rancho Del
Rey is required, as a condition of approval of the Tentative Map for SPA ill, to remove
the sewage pumping station from service. City staff has asked us to contact the Villa
Palmera Home Owners Association to determine if the Association wishes to have the
concrete slab and surrounding wall demolished and removed or left as-is when the station
is removed. Once the station is removed, the City will quitclaim its easement. The
Association owns the underlying fee ownership.
Our current schedule for the gravity sewer which will make possible the removal of the
station shows completion in the fourth quarter of 1995. It is conceivable that the work
will not be completed until mid-1996.
,
! The second paragraph ofItem 5 discusses standards for noise, dirt and construction traffic .~
, during construction. We have told Ms. Diamond that we will be governed by the land'
development general conditions of our land development pennit. A blank copy of an
Application for Land Development Pennit is enclosed for information. The general
conditions are printed on the reverse side of the Application.
I
With regards to construction traffic, our project is conditioned to use the Paseo Ranchero
corridor southerly from East "H" Street as the primary construction access. We have been
clear in discussion with Ms. Diamond that construction traffic will need to use Paseo
Ranchero and East "J" Street because portions of our project are only accessible through
use of those streets. Other than for work associated with the removal of the sewage
pumping station, there is no reason for project construction traffic to use the Villa Palmera
private streets.
m
>>--7/
We will include direction to the contractors at each pre-construction meeting to avoid any
incidental use of the Villa Palmera private streets. We will post a sign at each of the two
entrances to Villa Palmera reading "No Rancho Del Rey Construction Traffic Permitted".
The City-directed Mitigation Monitor, Marilyn Ponsegi will be monitoring construction
traffic access as part of the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. Constance Byram,
from our Community Relations Department will be available to address complaints.
( i"
,
I: I'
. \....-~ I..t ' :
We believe we understand Ms. Diamond's concerns. We also believe that her concerns are
best dealt with through the existing City ordinances and permit processes, including
Construction Inspection and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Rancho Del Rey will
comply with City ordinances, permit conditions, inspection procedures and monitoring
programs.
.~
,/ ~.
.)
__~1
{r., .'\
; - I!
:,
If you require additional information, Steve, please do not hesitate to call me at 477-4170,
extension 443.
Very Truly Yours,
Rancho Del Rey Investors, L.P.
~61~
Thorn Fuller
Vice President, McMillin Project Services, Inc,
cc, McMillin Project Services, Inc.
Ken Baumgartner
Craig Fukuyama
Constance Byram
Ken Screeton
ill
~ - ?c:2
LAND DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS
THE OWNER, AS PERMITTEE, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE FOLLOWING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE WORK IS
DONE BY HIM, HIS ENGINEER, OR HIS CONTRACTOR.
~ORK AUTHORIZED:
ISSUANCE OF A LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONSTITUTES AUTHORIZATION TO DO ONLY THAT WORK WHICH
IS SPECIFIED AND APPROVED BY SUCH PERMIT.
TI\llE LIMITS.
THE PERMITTEE SHALL COMPLETE ALL OF THE WORK DESCRIBED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SUCH PERMIT, IF NO TIME LIMIT IS SPECIFIED, WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED
WITHIN 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,
IF THE PERMITTEE IS UNABLE TO COMPLETE THE WORK WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, HE SHALL PRIOR TO
EXPIRATION OF THE PERMIT, PRESENT A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME SETTING FORTH THE
REASONS FOR SUCH REQUEST.
,-STORM DAMAGE PRECAUTIONS:
I
~ DURING THE PROGRESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS THE PERMITTEE SHALL TAKE ALL SA'fETY
PRECAUTIONS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM DAMAGE DUE TO EROSION,
FLOODING, SILTING OR OTHER STORM RELATED HAZARDS WHICH ARE A CONSEQUENCE OF HIS OPERATION.
UST CONTROL
i THE PERMITTEE SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE DUST CONTROL MEASURES BY WATERING OR OTHER MEANS
'\ ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ENGINEER. DUST CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE APPLIED ATTHE CUT SITE, THE FILL
SITE AND/OR MATERIAL IN TRANSIT AS MAY BE NECESSARY.
(
,
NOISE:
THE PERMITTEE SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 17,24,050 OF THE CITY CODE WHICH
LIMITS THE GENERATION OF NOISE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 P.M. AND 7:00 A.M.
RESPONSIBILITY OF PERMITTEE.PROTECTION OF UTILITIES:
DURING LAND DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS THE PERMITTEE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREVENTION OF
DAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC UTILITIES OR SERVICES. THIS RESPONSIBILITY APPLIES TO THE SITE OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT AND ALONG ANY ROUTES OF TRAVEL OF ANY EQUIPMENT PERFORMING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT.
RESPONSIBILITY OF PERMITTEE.PAOTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY:
/ NOTWITHSTANDING MINIMUM STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OR THE
i CONDITIONS OR ISSUANCE OF A LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ISSUED THEREUNDER, THE PERMITTEE IS
(RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY AND SHALL NOT EXCAVATE ON LAND
\ SO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS TO ENDANGER ANY ADJOINING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT
SUPPORTING AND PROTECTING SUCH PROPERTY FROM SETTLING, CRACKING, OR OTHER DAMAGE WHICH
MIGHT RESULT.
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS:
ALL MODIFICATIONS OF AN APPROVED LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE IN WRITING AND BE APPROVED BY
,HE CITY ENGINEER.
COMPLETION OF WOAK-NOTIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION:
THE PERMITTEE SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY ENGINEER WHEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT OPERATION IS READY FOR
FINAL INSPECTION FINAL APPROVAL SHALL NOT BE GIVEN UNTIL ALL WORK INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF ALL
DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES, AND ALL PROTECTIVE DEVICES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND ANY
REOUIRED PLANTING ESTABLISHED, AND ANY REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS, AS-BUILT PLANS, AND/OR REPORTS
HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED THE CITY ENGINEER MAY, UPON REQUEST, CERTIFY THE COMPLETION OF WORK IN
""CCORD WITH THE PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE,
BUILDING PERMIT-
,HE ROUGH GRADING PHASE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT WORK DESCRIBED ON FORM PW-E-106 B SHALL BE
CO~\PLE'EO BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED,
fj;--l3
,u:.>u((j I Hm "'u. .'lOln .,,- .
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA A
VISTA APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP rOR RANCHO
DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) III, CHULA VISTA ~~t' ~l
TRACT 90-02 r.c /'~- ,u
(;.. -
//J,r;:r.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map wa$#I~'~
filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on November 8, 1989' ".
by Rancho del Rey Partnership; and, ~~~l/
WHEREAS, said application requested the subdivision of approximately 405'/~
acres into residential lots, open space areas, a school lot, park and community ~'
purpose facility lot; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said
project on May 8, 1991, and continued to May 22, 1991; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said
tentative subdivision map application and notice of said hearing, together with
its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in the city and its mailing to property owners within 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., June 18, 1991, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
City Council and said hearing was thereafter ~losed; and,
....
WHEREAS, the City Council recertified EIR-89-10, with Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Rancho del Rey SPA III.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL finds as follows:
Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act,
the tentative subdivision map for Rancho del Rey
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) III, Chula Vista Tract no.
90-02, is found to be in conformance with the various
elements of the Ci ty I S General Pl an based on the
following:
1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the
proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such
projects.
2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing
lmprovements -- streets, sewers, etc.-- which have been designed
to avoid any serious problems.
Sf - 7(
Resolution No. 16222
Page 2
3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista
General Plan Element as follows:
A. Land Use _ The project is consistent with the General Plan, El
Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and the SPA III Plan which
designates the property PC -Planned Community, with a variety
of land uses and residential densities.
B. Circulation - All of the on-site and off-site public streets
required to serve the subdivision are consistent with the
circulation element of Chula Vista General Plan and the
circulation proposed within the El Rancho del Rey Specific
Plan. Those facilities will either be constructed or in-lieu
fees paid in accordance with the Rancho del Rey SPA III Public
Facilities Financing Plan.
C. Housing - A low and moderate housing program with an
established goal of 5% low and 5% moderate will be implemented
subject to the approval of the City's Housing Coordinator.
Computation of the satisfaction of this condition will include
the entire El Rancho del Rey Specific Planning Area.
D. Conservation and Open Space - The project provides 148.3 acres
of open space, 36% of the total 404.9 acres. Grading has been
limited on hillsides and grading plan approval will require
the revegetation of slopes in natural vegetation. Approval of
EIR-89-10 included the adoption of a mitigation monitoring
program out 1 i ni ng the mi ti gati on measures requi red for project
impacts on geology, soils, biology, air, water, cultural
resources, land form, transportation and utility sources.
E. Parks and Recreation - The project will be responsible for the
improvement of the 10 acre net neighborhood park and payment
of PAD fees or additional improvements as approved by the
Director Parks and Recreation. In addition, a trail system y,.:..L'
will be implemented through the south 1 eg of Ri ce Canyon, ~
connecting with other open space areas.
F. Seismic Safety - The Rancho del Rey site is crossed by the La
Nacion Fault Zone which has one prominent fault, running north
to south, with other potential traces. The mitigation
monitoring program adopted with EIR-89-10 provides for
measures to be taken to mitigate the impacts of development in
association with the fault zone.
G. Safety - The site will be within the threshold response times
for fire and police services. The project will increase the
need for additional personnel, however, the City is planning
~/; -7~
Resolution No. 16222
Page 3
to meet that need with additional revenues provided by this
project.
H. Public Facilities Element - This project is obligated in the
conditions of approval to provide all on-site and off-site
facilities necessary to serve this project. In addition to
that, there are other regional facilities which this project
( together with SPAs I and II) is contributing to, including
a public library site, fire station site, and fire training
facility site. The subdivision is also contributing to the
Otay Water Di stri ct I s improvement requi rements to provi de
terminal water storage for this project as well as other major
projects in the eastern territories.
I. Noise - The units will be required to meet the standards of
the UBC with regard to acceptable interior noise levels.
J. Scenic Highway - The project does not affect this element of
the General Plan.
K. Bicycle Routes - Bicycle paths are provided along Telegraph
Canyon Road, East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero Road as shown
in the Circulation Element.
L. Public Buildings - No public buildings are planned for the
site. The project shall,be subject to RCT and DIF fees.
4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council
certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the
housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the
public service needs of the residents of the City and the available
fiscal and environmental resources. The development will provide
for a variety of housing types from single family detached homes to
attached single family and senior housing. In addition, the
addressment to providing a percentage of low and moderate priced
housing is in keeping with regional goals.
5. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially
allows for the optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating
and cooling opportunities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP for Rancho del
Rey SPA III, Chula Vista Tract 90-02, is approved subject to the following
conditions:
>>/ ?f
Resolution No. 16222
Page 4
General/Preliminarv
1. The Public Facilities Financing Plan shall be followed with improvements
installed in accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold
standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. In addition, the sequence
in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future East
Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan adopted by the City. The City
Engineer and Planning Director may at their discretion, modify the
sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant
such a revision.
2. All mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects itemized in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-10 as
required prior to Final Map approval, are hereby incorporated as
conditions of approval. The Director of Planning may modify the sequence
of mitigation at his discretion should changes warrant such a revision.
3. The developer shall comply with the Community Purpose Facility Ordinance.
The areas proposed to show comp 1 i ance with sai d ordi nance shall be
provided prior to approval of the first final map. Areas of consideration
for qualification must be within the areas of SPAs I, II or III.
Amendment to the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and Sectional Plan Areas
may be necessary to accomplish compliance.
4. Prior to final map approval for Phase I, a Precise Plan shall be approved
by the City Council detailing the development of the Specialty Housing
project. The precise plan shall include but is not limited to: detailing
the density of the various portions of the projecti identifying the amount
of recreational and open space facilitiesi detailing the financial
arrangements available to proposed tenantsi identifying the age limits and
any income requirements of tenantsi and showing the percent of the project
for sale or rent.
Streets. RiQhts-of-Wav and Imorovements
5.
Prior to any final map approval for Phase 2 or 3 or any unit thereof, the
developer shall obtain all necessary right-of-way for the construction of
the unimproved off site portion of East "J" Street west of Paseo Ladera,
from River Ash Drive to Red Oak Place.
6.
The developer shall construct the unimproved off site portion of East "J"
Street west of Paseo Ladera, from River Ash Drive to Red Oak Place, to a
Cl ass II Collector Standard, except that the 5 foot si dewal k may be
asphalt concrete instead of portland cement concrete. The construction of
these improvements shall be guaranteed prior to final map approval for
Phases 2 or 3 or any uni t thereof. The subdi vi der may request the
formation of a reimbursement district for these off-site improvements in
accordance with section 1?50 of the Municipal Code.
."f{i
5P" 77
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
~'}-
-'
Resolution No. 16222
Page 5
13.
The developer shall request the vacati on of that porti on of Paseo
Marguerita as necessary to accomplish the design as shown on the tentative
map. Said vacation shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the
final map for Phase 2, Unit 3.
The off site portion of East "J" Street adjacent to Buena Vista Way shall
be granted in fee to the City for Open Space, public utilities and other
pub 1 i c uses. The grant of thi s property shall be comp1 eted pri or to
approval of a final map for Phase 3, Unit 3. The developer shall enter
into an agreement to not oppose the inclusion of this property in Open
Space District # 20 (Zone 7) prior to approval of any final map for Rancho
de 1 Rey SPA II 1. The developer shall be responsi b 1 e for the costs
associated with annexing this property to Open Space District * 20.
The developer shall be responsible for the construction of off site
improvements at the westerly end of Paseo del Norte in the Casa del Rey
subdivision. The construction of these improvements shall be guaranteed
prior to approval of the final map for Phase 2, Unit 2. A cash deposit
was previously deposited with the City to pay the cost of this work. The
amount deposited is available to the developer for construction of these
improvements.
Prior to final map approval for Phase I, the developer shall dedicate
additional right-of-way along the frontage of the property on East "H"
Street to provide a 20 foot parkway (existing curb1ine to property line).
The developer shall be responsibJe for construction of a
sidewalk/recreational pathway along the entire frontage of subject
property on East "H" Street from Paseo Ranchero westerly to Paseo del Rey
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Director of Planning and the
Director of Parks and Recreation. The construction of these improvements
shall be guaranteed prior to final map approval for Phase 1.
The developer shall be responsible for construction of an expanded 8 to 10
foot wide sidewalk/recreational pathway along the western side of Paseo
Ranchero, to connect the trail systems in th~~oM1b~~~ of RiC~_C~ny9_Q.~n~D"
in the Telegraph C.~.l1Y~n_RQi!d._QRe'LSp~Ce_!l.r:.eil.._. These improvements shall be "
iiistalleaTilconjunction with the construction phases of Paseo Ranchero :f,:u
specified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan. ~ (,J~:;;
'lU~
The developer shall be responsible for the construction of wider sidewalks /'
at transit stops, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
14.
ll.~ FI,ial d!.ngn ll'l"n!!:c'RB!\~I.l. a~'.R'fI""- liJht..4Mt.wide landscape
easement buffers as required by the Street Design Standards or be adjoined
by an open space lot at least eight feet wide with slopes no greater than
5:1, e e tin. . .,;jjj:.t_re the final design shall be subject
fj; / ?y
Resolution No. 16222
Page 6
B.
;kc.
..- ! \,
to the approval of the Planning Director, Landscape Architect and City
Engineer:
A.
Adjacent to the lots fronting on Cabo Calabazo, Calle Candelero and
Punto Hiraleste where a special slope and retaining wall design will
be implemented;
Along the Junior High School site;
V-~;;;'~~r_. r~ Vil1~s a~d'\4n"Mt'lIfr.iP;"-"'"
~ ..-........ii,U",Ii,...,~ JJlI .IM t
Adjacent to the out-parcel owned by the Chula Vista School District.
D.
15. The final design of East "J" Street shall include 5.5 foot wide landscape
easement buffers as required by the Street Design Standards or be adjoined
by an open space lot at least 5.5 feet wide with 5:1 maximum side slopes,
except in the following locations where the final design shall be subject
to the approval of the Planning Director, Landscape Architect and City
Engineer:
A. Along the park site;
B. Along the two corner lots at the intersection of East "J" Street and
Camino Hiel (lots 82 and 97 of Phase 2, Unit 1) and the southeast
corner lot of East "J" Street and Cabo Capote (lot 85 of Phase 2,
Unit 2);
16.
17.
\
,-~:\.
~/
'j"
C. Adjacent to the out-parcel owned by the Chula Vista School District;
and
D. Along the existing Bel Aire Ridge subdivision where existing
conditions shall remain.
All retaining walls which interface with the public street system shall be
constructed to match the Ranch Rancho del Rey SPA III Design Guideline
standards for exterior walls.
The developer shall be responsible for construction of full street
improvements for all public and private streets shown on the Tentative Hap
within the subdivision boundary; and for the construction of off-site
improvements to construct Paseo Ranchero, East "J" Street and Paseo Ladera
as shown on the Tentative Hap, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete
pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and water
utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, fire hydrants and
~/71
Resolution No. 16222
Page 7
transi ti ons to exi sti ng improvements. Street intersecti on spaci ng as
shown on the tentative map is hereby approved.
18 . All the streets shown on the Tentati ve Map withi n the subdi vi si on
boundary, except pri vate streets, shall be dedi cated for pub 1 i c use.
Design of said streets shall meet all City standards.
19. A temporary turnaround conforming to City standards shall be provided at
the end of streets having a length greater than 150 feet, measured from
the center line of the nearest intersecting street to the center of the
cul-de-sac, except as approved by the City Engineer.
20. Cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be designed and built in accordance with
City standards unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Lot ConfiQuration
21. Frontage on all lots shall be a mlnlmum of 35 feet at the right-of-way
1 i ne except as approved by the City Engi neer. Thi s conditi on does not
apply to flag lots, as defined in the Municipal Code.
22. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes except as approved by the
City Engineer. When adjacent to open space lots, property lines shall be
located a minimum 2.5 feet from the top of slope.
23. The preparation of final maps and plans for the locations listed below
shall be carried out in accordance with the
following criteria unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning:
,~,j A.
\VI~
-'
Provide a minimum 50 feet from the corner of Paseo Ranchero and East
"J" Street to lots 6 and 7, Phase 3, Unit 2, to provide additional
buffer and transition area at the corner.
B.
Provide a pedestrian throughway between lots 130 and 131, Phase 3,
Unit 2, from Camino Calabazo to east "J" Street across from the
school and park sites.
Lot 128 of Phase 2, Unit I, shall be widened to a minimum 50 foot
width to accommodate a combined slope and maximum 5 foot retaining
wall. This is to avoid a "tunnel" effect created at side lot lines.
Lots 3 and 5, Phase 2, Unit 3 shall utilize maximum 5 foot high
retaining walls, and/or a combination of retaining walls and crib
wa 11 s .
C.
D.
>>~ S'/J
Resolution No. 16222
Page 8
E. Provide a different name for each of the portions of Palazzo Court
located to the east and west of East "J" Street and the portions of
Dorado Way located to the east and west of Camino Miel.
Street Trees/Ooen Soace
24.
25.
26.
J27V
I ./ t~~
'po-' ",'
JA' ..,)
,:; r
28.
29.
The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance
easements along all public streets as shown on the Tentative Map. The
width of said easements shall be as outlined in the City's Street Design
Standards Policy.
The developer shall be responsible for street trees in accordance with
Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The use of cones
shall be included where necessary to reduce the impact of root systems
disrupting adjacent sidewalks and rights-of-way.
All open space lots adjacent to public rights-of-way shall maintain a
width so as to provide 10 feet of landscaping treatment behind the back of
sidewalk.
Maintenance of all facilities and improvements within open space areas
covered by home owners associ ati ons shall be covered by CC&Rs to be
submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to approval of the
associated final map.
Prior to the approval of any final map, the developer shall request in
writing that maintenance of all facilities and improvements within the
open space area associated with such map shall be the responsibility of
the Rancho del Rey Open Space Maintenance District.
Prior to approval of the first final map, a comprehensive landscape plan
shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Landscape Architect
and Di rector of Parks and Recreati on. Pri or to approval of each fi na 1
map, comprehensive, detailed landscape and irrigation plans, erosion
control plans and detailed water management guidelines for all landscape
irrigation shall be submitted in accordance with the Chula Vista Landscape
Manual for the associated landscaping in that final map. These detailed
landscape and irrigation plans shall be for the review and approval of the
City Landscape Architect and Director of Parks and Recreation. The
landscaping format within the project shall be to emphasize native,
drought tolerant plant material. Exceptions can be made for areas where
reclaimed water is exclusively used. The comprehensive landscape plans
sha 11 address:
A. Slope enhancement and landscape treatment for the slope in Open
Space Lot A. Phase 3. Unit 3, beneath the Junior High School lot.
The plan shall address and provide for mature size plant mate.. rial. '0-/.~
boulder work and/or buttress work on the slope. \,.1 \.- \. i;.J it .
~\~5~fV~~~:' f
3b - g-- / c{-('-;.-r~
30.
)t
'. 1\<',
, ~.
31.
Resolution No. 16222
Page 9
B. A natural i zed revegetati on program for areas of gradi ng in open
space lots, which may include temporary irrigation.
C. The disturbed "native" areas within Telegraph Canyon Road open space
corridor. This area shall include tree groupings or tree groves.
These plantings shall be treated as random plantings and shall be
identified in at least six areas along the corridor with each
location providing plantings of 50 to 100 trees. The exact number
of trees and locations are to be approved by the Planning Department
and Department of Parks and Recreation. The intent of these grove
areas is to provide a consistency with existing grove areas in the
open space corridor west of the Rancho del Rey SPA III area.
All graded areas shall be replanted prior to the approval of any final
map. Germination of plant material shall be guaranteed by the applicant
to the satisfaction of the City Landscape Architect.
Prior to approval of the first final map, details showing the location and
design of the l..dl 111811" ~~._!'" ,",_~,__'shall be submitted to and
approved by the Directors of Planning and Parks and Recreation. The trail
system in the open space lots shall be a minimum 6 feet wide within an 8
foot horizontal clear space and a 10 foot vertical clear space. The
associated sign program shall lUt:IILII) lth.- t.-4.nr+w-1l..j-,....lplll'llII.
areas and connecting along Paseo Ranchero', to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning and Parks and Recreation.
Prior final map approval for Phase 3, Unit 3 and Phase 4, Unit 2 as shown
on the Tentative Map, cross sections shall be submitted to and approved by
the Director of Planning and City Engineer illustrating the interface
where the trail is located adjacent to the drainage ditch along Telegraph
Canyon Road. The fencing of the drainage channel shall be aesthetically
pleasing incorporating the use of plantings, equestrian type fencing and
vinyl clad fencing. These cross sections and decorative fencing program
may be included with the comprehensive landscape plan. Fence gates shall
be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer to allow
maintenance of the drainage channel.
Parks
32. The developer shall be obligated for 12.5 acres of parkland as described
in the approved SPA Plan, including land, and/or fees, and/or additional
improvements, in accordance with the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The
actual final acreage will relate to the number of units approved with the
final maps.
33. The park located in Phase 3, Unit 4 shall be a minimum 10 net useable
acres. Design and development of the park shall be subject to the
~b ~ffJ-
Resolution No. 16222
Page 10
approval of the City's Director of Parks and Recreation and shall conform
with the park master plan to be adopted by the City Council.
34. An adequate buffer and separation of 50 feet shall be provided between the
residential lots at the eastern end of Palazzo Court and the existing park
facilities, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
Solution may include but is not limited to relocating an existing tennis
court or lot redesign.
35. A minimum 20 foot wide access corridor shall be maintained at the end of
Paseo Palazzo where the cul-de-sac abuts the existing park. Said area
shall be made part of the park. Detail and design of the access shall be
submitted to and approved by the Departments of Planning and Parks and
Recreation prior to final map approval for Phase 3, Unit 1.
GradinQ/DrainaQe
36. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the
grading plans.
37. SpecHi c methods of handl i ng storm drai nage are subject to detail ed
approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and
grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of the
requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance (No. 1797
as amended). The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate
compliance with all drainage requirements of the.Subdivision Manual.
38. Grading proposals shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning for consideration of balanced cut and fill,
utilization of appropriate soil types, effective landscaping and
revegetat i on where appl i cab 1 e. Gradi ng shall occur in separate phases
unless a single phase operation is approved with the grading plan.
39. A letter of permission for grading shall be obtained from SDG&E prior to
any grading within or adjacent to an SDG&E easement or which would affect
access thereto.
40. The developer shall make a reasonable effort to obtain permission to grade
the slopes along Buena Vista Way at the former intersection of East oJ"
Street. If permission to grade said slope is not reasonably attainable as
determined by the City Engineer, the regrading of these slopes shall not
be requi red. The provi si ons of thi s condi ti on shall be comp 1 i ed with
prior to approval of the final map for Phase 3, Unit 3.
41. Prior to approval of any final map for single family residential use, the
developer shall submit a list of proposed lots indicating whether the
structure wi 11 be located on fi 11, cut or a transition between two
situations.
>>/ ffJ
Resolution No. 16222
Page 11
42. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage
system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes. Lots 71, 72
and 89 of Phase 2 Unit 1 shall be designed so that there will be no
negative grading or drainage impacts to the adjacent off-site properties.
43. Graded access shall be provided to all public storm drain structures
including inlet and outlet structures. Paved access shall be provided to
drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot or as
approved by the City Engineer.
44. The use of boulders in minor drainage basins and energy dissipators in the
canyon and open space areas in the manner approved by the City Engineer
and Planning Director, is encouraged to allow water to be captured and to
allow trees to grow naturally.
Sewer
45. The developer shall be responsible for performing sewage flow metering to
monitor three segments of main identified in the Rick Engineering report
dated September 5, 1990 as sections QR, X1X2 and KL. Metering shall be
accomplished at the locations determined by the City Engineer. Metering
shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of any building permit for SPA
III and be repeated at intervals directed by the City Engineer. Should
any of these segments have metered flows which fill more than 80% of the
pipe diameter, the applicant shall construct parallel facilities as
determi ned by the City Engi neer. The developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City prior to first final map approval providing for
all items indicated above.
46. An improved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet shall be provided
to all sanitary sewer manholes. The roadway shall be designed for an H-20
wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer.
47. The developer shall obtain permission from the City to deposit sewage in
a foreign basin. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the
City relative to the diversion of sewage prior to final map approval for
any phase or unit thereof proposing said diversion.
48. The developer shall be responsible for the removal of the existing sewer
pump stations (Mission Verde and Candlewood). Prior to approval of any
final map entailing said removal, the owner and the City shall enter into
an agreement to estab 1 i sh the scope of work and the amount to be
reimbursed by the City to the subdivider for performing said work. The
developer may also request the formation of a special sewer service area
. to provide for the cost of connection of the area currently being served
by the Candlewood pump station to the permanent gravity sewer system.
>> -~f
Resolution No. 16222
Page 12
Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the scope of work at both
sites shall be limited to the removal and disposal of equipment, grading,
landscaping and construction of new sewerlines and manholes required for
connection to the proposed Rancho del Rey sewer system. Any upsizing of
Rancho del Rey Sewer lines due solely to the flow generated by the Mission
Verde and Candlewood areas shall also be included.
Reclaimed Water
49. Prior to approval of the associated final map, the developer shall provide
on-site infrastructure to accept and to use reclaimed water when it is
available, along Paseo Ranchero from Telegraph Canyon Road to East "H"
Street and along East "J" Street from Paseo Ranchero to the park site, per
the adopted Public Facilities Financing Plan.
50. Any costs incurred from retrofi tti ng the recl aimed water system, when
reclaimed water becomes available, shall be paid by the developer. Monies
for thi s sha 11 be held by the Ci ty, through a deposi t set up by the
developer. The amount shall be determined by the developer, approved by
the City and in place prior to approval of each associated final map.
Fire
51. Fire hydrants will be required per the Fire Department standards. Hydrant
spacing is 500 feet for single family and 300 feet for multi-family
dwellings. .
52. Maximum hydrant pressure shall not exceed 150 psi.'
53. Fire hydrants and roadway access (per City Fire Marshall approval) shall
be installed, tested and operational prior to any combustible materials
placed on-site.
53.5 Developer and City shall, prior to the recording of the first final map
including all or any portion of the territory of the tentative map, have
entered into a Development Agreement which shall include, but shall not be
limited to, a promise satisfactory to the City requiring the developer to
advance the entire costs of relocating, or at City's option, to build and
relocate, Fire Station No.4 to a site satisfactory to the City, in
exchange for which developer shall be granted certainty of entitlements,
or such other mutually agreeable consideration.
AQreements/Covenants
54. Prior to final map approval for Phase I, Unit I, the developer shall enter
into an agreement with the City to guarantee the development of the parcel
specifically for senior housing.
>>/~5
Resolution No. 16222
Page 13
55. Prior to the approval of the first final map, the developer shall enter
into an agreement to provide a right turn lane at the intersection of
Paseo del Rey and East "H" Street, to the sati sfacti on of the City
Engineer, if the threshold standards for this intersection as expressed in
the then current Growth Management Ordinance are exceeded at any time
during the development of this project.
56. Prior to approval of the first final map, the developer shall enter into
an agreement to provide a park-n-ride facility near the intersection of
East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero to i ncl ude 50 parki ng spaces, 10
bicycle lockers, lighting, trash receptacles and circulation striping to
the satisfaction of the City Transit Coordinator. In addition, a transit
stop, to include a bench, shelter and trash receptacle, shall be provided
on the north side of East "H" Street. A plan of said improvements and the
timing thereof shall be submitted and approved by the City Transit
Coordinator. Requirements of this condition may also be met by
dedication, improvements, and/or financial participation in a park-n-ride
faci 1 i ty master plan, at the sole di screti on of the Ci ty Counci 1. The
specific site shall be in the vicinity of the site indicated herein or at
an alternative site possibly off the territory of the tentative map which
alternative site shall meet with the approval of the City.
57. Prior to approval of each final map, copies of proposed CC&Rs for the
subdivision shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planning
Department.
/58.
v...J i
y~.v .
~ ,v
59.
60.
Prior to approval of the first final map, the developer shall provide a
schedul e, subject to the approval of the Pl anni ng Di rector and City
Housing Coordinator, for the development of low income housing as defined
in the agreement executed between the City and Rancho del Rey Partnership
per City Council Resolution No. 15751 dated August 7, 1990.
Prior to the approval of any final map for the subject subdivision or any
unit thereof, the developer shall obtain all off-site right-of-way
necessary for the installation of required improvements for that unit.
The developer shall also provide easements for all on-site and off-site
public storm drains, sewers and other public utilities prior to approval
of the final map. Easements shall be a minimum width of 6 feet greater
than pipe size, but in no case less than 10 feet.
The developer shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to
consideration of the final map by City if off-site right-of-way cannot be
obtained as required by the Conditions of approval. (Only off-site right-
of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act
are covered by this condition.
After said notification, the developer shall:
c51;;-/ Y ~
Resolution No. 16222
Page 14
A. Pay the full cost of acqulrlng off-site right-of-way or easements
required by the Conditions of Approval of the tentative Map.
B. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-
way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City
Engineer.
C. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared
and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation
proceedings.
D. If the developer so requests, the City may use its powers to acquire
ri ght-of-way, easements or 1 i censes needed for off-si te improvements
or work related to the Tentative Map. The developers shall pay all
costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition.
The requirements of a, b, and c above shall be accomplished prior to the
approval of the Final Map.
All off-site requirements which fall under the purview of Section 66462.5
of the State Subdivision Map Act will be waived in accordance with that
section of the Act if the City does not comply with the 120 day limitation
specified in that section.
61. Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City to include the subdivisions in the Mello Roos
public facilities district or an acceptable alternative financing program,
subject to the approval of both the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater
High School Districts.
62. Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City wherein he agrees to comply with that version of
the Growth Management Ordinance in effect at the time a building permit is
issued. Such compliance includes but is not limited to the then current
East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan and the adopted Air Quality
Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan for Rancho del Rey SPA Ill.
63. Prior to final map approval for any phase or unit thereof, the developer
shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby:
A. The developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for
any units in the subject subdivision if anyone of the following
occurs:
1. Regional development threshold limits set by the then current
adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been
reached.
3J-~?
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
./1
. JJ'N~("I .
.\.,q.\, ,(:J.:
, ('
(A \^f'\'
b'P
Resolution No. 16222
Page 15
2. Traffic'volumes, level of service, public utilities and/or
services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective
Growth Management Ordinance.
B. The developer agrees that the City may withhold occupancy permits
for any of the phases of development identified in the Public
Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Rancho del Rey SPA III if the
required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended
by the Annual Monitoring Program have not been completed.
Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall agree to not
protest the formation of a district for the maintenance of landscaped
medians and parkways along streets within and adjacent to the subject
p rope rty .
Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the Ci ty wherei n he holds the City harml ess for any
liability for erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage resulting
from this project.
The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby the
developer agrees to participate in the monitoring of existing and future
sewage flows in the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer and the financing of the
preparation of the Basin Plan and, pursuant to any adopted Basin Plan,
agree to participate in the financing of improvements set forth therein,
in an equitable manner. Said agreement Shall be executed by the developer
prior to final map approval for any phase or unit proposing to discharge
sewage into the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer.
The developer shall permit all franchised cable television companies
("Cable Company") equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide cable
television service for each lot within the subdivision. The developer
shall enter into an agreement with all participating Cable Companies which
shall provide, in part, that upon receiving written notice from the City
that said Cable Company is in violation of the terms and conditions of the
franchise granted to said Cable Company, or any other terms and conditions
regulating said Cable Company in the City of Chula Vista, as same may from
time to time be amended, developer shall suspend Cable Company's access to
said conduit until City otherwise notifies developer. Said agreement
shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final map approval.
The developer shall utilize the Paseo Ranchero corridor for construction
traffic unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. A construction
traffic plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to approval
of the first final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs
first. The plan shall include provisions for dust control and state hours
of operation. Revisions to said plan shall be approved by the City
Engi neer.
>>~~Y
Resolution No. 16222
Page 16
Fees/Pavments
69. The subject property is within the boundaries of Open Space District #20
(Zone 7), Open Space District 110 (Phase II) and Assessment District 187-
1. Prior to final map approval or other grant of approval for any phase
or unit thereof, the developer shall pay all costs associated with:
A. detachment of subject property from Open Space District 110 (Phase
II); and
B. reapportionment of assessments for Open Space District 120 (Zone 7)
and Assessment District 187-1 as a result of subdivision of lands
within the project boundary.
70. The developer shall pay:
A. Spring Valley Sewer Trunk connection fees ($130/acre) prior to final
map approval for any phase or unit thereof contributing flow to the
Spring Valley Trunk Sewer.
B. Telegraph Canyon drainage fees in accordance with Ordinance 2384.
71. PAD fees shall be waived or modified as provided in the adopted Public
Facilities Financing Plan for Rancho del Rey. RCT fees and DIF fees shall
be paid in accordance with the applicable regulations, including the duty
to pay the fees in effect at the time the bulding permits are issued. PAD
fees shall be guaranteed until such time as the City waives said fees.
Mi sce 11 aneous
72. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California System -
Zone VI (1983).
73. Prior to final map approval for any unit, the developer shall submit a
copy of said final map in a digital format such as (DXF) graphic file.
This Computer Aided Design (CAD) copy of the final map shall be based on
accurate coordinate geometry calculations and shall be submitted on 5 1/2
HD floppy disk prior to recordation of the final map.
74. The developer may file a master final map which provides for the sale of
super block lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of
units and phasing thereof, shown on the tentative map.
If said super block lots do not show individual lots depicted on the
approved tentative map, a subsequent final map shall be filed for any lot
which will be further subdivided.
5'b ~g/
Resolution No. 16222
Page 17
The City Engineer may condition approval of such a final map to require
necessary plans to provide infrastructure necessary top meet City
thresho 1 d pol i ci es and to conform to the approved Publ i c Facil iti es
Financing Plan. All super block lots created shall have access to a
dedicated public street.
Bonds in the amounts determined by the City Engineer shall be posted prior
to approval of a master final map. Said master final map shall not be
considered the first final map as indicated in other conditions of
approval unless said map contains single or multiple family lots shown on
the tentative map.
Code Reauirements
75. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, State and Local
regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be
responsi b 1 e for provi di ng all requi red testi ng and documentation to
demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer.
76. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code as they exist at the time of issuance of the building
permit. Preparation of the final map and all plans shall be in accordance
with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista
Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinances and
Subdivision Manual.
77. Applicant shall comply with, remain in compliance with, and implement, the
terms, conditions and provisions of the Sectional Planning Area Plan, and
such Water Conservation Plan, the Air Quality Plan and the Public
Faci 1 i ti es Fi nanci ng Pl an approved by the Council (" Pl ans ") as are
applicable to the property which is the subject matter of this Tentative
Map, prior to approval of the Final Map, or shall have entered into an
agreement with the City, providing the City with such security (including
recordation of covenants running with the land) and implementation
procedures as the City may require, assuring that, after approval of the
Final Map, the Applicant shall continue to comply with, remain in
compliance with, and implement such Plans. Developer shall agree to waive
any claim that the adoption of a final Water Conservation Plan or Air
Quality Plin constitutes an improper subsequent imposition of the
condition.
Sb~;;O
Resolution No. 16222
Page 18
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property.
/!{~1;.#
Director of Planning
Approved as to
Ik ~L..~
Ci ty Attorney
Presented by
5p~ 9/
,_, _' .'_''--'-' "" J. ,--' I n
hW~_-' ,'.;:.'0:;:.
.,ktl'
11~ j,/ '.'
-A..~. .~...;..... c. OUNClL~STA_
Ji!Jp,/J ~1. '([;5-) .
/1~~' ~-6~ ~Jt
/e jf
ITEM TITLE:
Item
Meedq Date 11/22/94
Resolution Accepting an Irrevocable Offer ofDedication
for Street Purposes over a Portion of Lot A in the Ladera Villas
Subdivision Map 12519
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution.. Amending Condition of Approval No. 74 of
the Rallchoael Rey SPA III Tentative Map to Clarify when Park
Acquisition and Development Fees and Telegraph Canyon Channel
Drainage DlF are Payable for the super block lots.
Resolution Approving Master Final Map and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 90-02, Rancho del Rey
SPA III ~
Director of Public Workst
Director of Planning Qe
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..KJ
On July 18, 1991, by Resolution 16222 (Exhibit A), the City Council approved the Tentative
Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 90-02, Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
III. Condition of Approval No. 74 of the tentative map allowed the developer to file a Master
Final Map (MFM) creating master lots. The map before Council is the MFM for Rancho del
Rey SPA III. Approval of the MFM does not confer development riihts to the developer.
Subsequent final maps will be required to further subdivide the master lots into residential units.
The proposed amendment to Condition No. 74 will clarify when Telegraph Canyon Channel
Drainage DIF ('reDIP) and Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees are payable.
Right-of-way for Pasco Ranchero previously offered to the City through an irrevocable offer of
dedication must also be accepted by the City to provide adequate access to the lots being created
by the MFM.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Adopt the resolution accepting the irrevocable offer of dedication for street
purposes;
2. Adopt the resolution amending Condition of Approval No. 74 to clarify when
Telegraph Canyon Channel Drainage DIP and PAD fees are payable;
3. Adopt the resolution approving the Master Final Map and the subdivision
improvement agreement.
SP -17
Page 2, Item
Meetlna Date 11/22/94
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The project is generally located between East "W Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. from
Paseo del Reyto Buena Vista Way. It consists of 407.7 acres which are proposed to be divided
into 16 super block lots, which will be further subdivided into residential and open space lots
by subsequent fInal maps. The map now before Council for approval is the Master fmal map,
which creates the 16 super block lots (See Exhibit B).
The developer has dedicated or obtained all right-of-way necessary to construct or widen the
major streets within the subdivision with the exception of a portion of Paseo Ranchero, which
was previously offered for dedication as a public street. This right-of-way, a portion of Lot A
in the Ladera Villas subdivision, was offered for dedication but rejected on Final Map No.
12519 (See Exhibit C). In accordance with Section 66477.2 of the Subdivision Map, rejected
offers of dedication remain open until the City accepts or terminates and abandons the offers by
Council resolution. The action before Councll will accept this irrevocable offer of dedication
(100) in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act thereby providing adequate right-of-way to
constrUct Paseo Ranchero in conformance with City standards. The acceptance of the 100 is
. being requested at this time because access to the development during construction is limited to
Paseo Ranchero and Ladera. Consequently the road construction will be one of the first items
of work.
Condition of Approval No. 74 of the Rancho del Rey SPA III tentative map allowed the
developer to me a master fmal map (MFM) to create super block lots for the purpose of selling
said lots to guest builders. Subsequent fmal maps would be required to create the lots shown
on the approved tentative map. The condition also provided that the MFM was not to be
considered the first fllla! map referenced in other conditions of approval. However, Condition
No. 74 did not indicate whether the Telegraph Canyon Drainage DIF (TCDDIF) and Park
Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees were to be paid at the time of approval of the MFM
or upon approval of subsequent fllla! maps.
The proposed amendment to Condition No. 74 clarifies that the TCDDlF and PAD fees are
payable prior to approval of the final maps which create individual lots as depicted on the
approved tentative map. Staff recommends that Condition No. 74 be amended to add the
following:
"The Telegraph Canyon Drainage DIF and Park Acquisition and Development
fees applicable to the property to be subdivided by the master final map are due
and payable prior to approval of subsequent fllla! map(s) fIled over said property
to create individual lots as depicted on the Rancho del Rey SPA III tentative
map."
The MfM for Rancho del Rey SPA III has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and
found to be in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map. Approval of the MFM
constitutes acceptanee on behalf of the public portions of Pasco Ranchero, East "1" Street, Pasco
5P ~5J
.~
Pile 3, Item
Meetlna Date 11/22/94
Ladera, Paseo Entrada and Buena Vista Way and acceptance on behalf of the City of Chula
Vista easements for installation and maintenance of traffic control, drainage .and sewer facilities
all as shown on the MFM.
The developer has processed plans for the construction of the following public improvements:
1. Paseo Ranchero. Telegraph Canyon Road to East 'H' Street;
2. East . J' Street - within subdivision boundary;
3. Paseo Ladera - Telegraph Canyon Road to East 'J' Street;
4. Rancho del Rey SPA III Outfall Sewer. Pasco Ranchero to Pasco del Rey.
The developer has satisfied all conditions of approval applicable to the MFM, executed a
Subdivision Improvement Agreement and provided bonds to guarantee construction of the
required public improvements. All applicable fees have been paid. deposits submitted and a
bond provided to guarantee the monumentatlon for said subdivision.
,
~ VILLA PALMERA HOMEOWNERS CONCERNS i+~~~
At the August 23. 1994 meeting, Council directed staff to meet with the Villa Palme~~
. Homeowners (VPHO) to answer questions raised by the written correspondence submitted by i..
Ms. Claudia Diamond concerning the improvement of Pas eo Ranchero. Staff has met with Ms.
Diamond and two other members of the VPHO. An informational item from the Planning
Director containing staffs responses and a copy of Ms. Diamond's letter are attached as Exhibit . vi I
D. f~/'"
Ms. Diamond has been notified that this item is being considered by the Council tonight. ~fJ nO.)'
. 0 \ .e:r\c7 II (2"1 c
. CEQA CERTIFlCATION'0 . f\'l un t2
All CEQA requirements for this project were met when the Tentative Map was approved by
Resolution 16222. No other environmental review is necessary.
FlSCAL IMPACT: None. All Staff costs associated with processing of improvement plans
and final maps will be reimbursed from developer deposits.
Attachments:
Exhibit A. C=U keoolutlon No. 16222 & MlnuWl of 7/18/91 CaunJ;U Meetina
Exhibit II. kalIcho del Rey SPA m. MFM
Exhibit C - Location of oft'er of dodlcatlon Map 12'19
Exhibit D . Memol'lllldlllU to Connell from P1annlD& Rll Villa PiJmera COlli:erIlll
Ilxhibit B . D!JclOlllte Scalemen!
PlIo: BY.~1l
P:\HOldIlII!NOINUIlIAGIlNtlA\rdn3......
un;.,
3b,1'/
~..
~
EXHIBIT "8"
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO.
RANCHO DEL REY SPA III MASTER
90-02-
FI NAL MAP
/
,
j
-l
0-0
-l
r
fTI
~,,-
;:::-..:::
.-
/
I
LOr 14
L--
I.
0
:r:
c
);:
~<
.(/)
--I
J>
--I [
;u "'\
J> \:)...:
() \
--I
Z t\
0
I ~
I to -
IN 0
I
10 Z
:N 0
1T1
-<
I
(..l
~
~
~
-
Lor 16~
Lor , \./
"
--
Lor ..
~~:
..
STREEt
OfFER OF DEDcAnoN
50"!. BE ACcu-,~
/-E CX",fll" c"
lor
I
- Lor ~
lOT 7
<(
0-
(/)
-
>-
w
0.-:::
-l
W
00....
<(
o ~_
I ...
-.J U '.l.1ol
U <(::
Z Zf-
<tc:-
0::: m
z 2S~
I-W
o(/)
o.-:::<t:
w2
I
u
Z
<(
0:::
o
W
(/)
<(
0...
,.....,
\
I~
Ii!
I~
15~
z~
i=
f'...
I-
a
-.J
S~
9~
a
8t:
6l:
. C ....-r--
---
zz
EZ
t:>z
~ ~o
(.? ~~
~ ~~
g:U..I
~Cll
o~
It
~
~ ~
i
w
L
--
I-
a
-.J
,n
_Sb ~ j t
DA I TITLE;...'
11/10/94 ACCEPTANCE OF A PORTION OF PASEO RANCHERO
RL~~.~:' IN RANCHO DE~. R~Y, SPA III MASTER FINAL MAP
N
~
f-
a
..J
o
~
;
~
I
~
~---
I
-- -" Id l.U.~.l. lLJ;L111 Ur LHULH l')l';:;iH TEL f~I]:CITY OF CHULA VISTA ;+106 P04
f 'f. k.L~Lt b
COVoNCiL iNFORMATiON KIHOAANDUX
DATE:
November 11, 1994
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City cou2J~~)
John Go.., oi ty Manaqe~G- b~
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning:l't tL/
John Lippitt, Director of Public WOrktr,
Staff response to concerns of claudfa Diamond of
Villa Palmera Homeowners Aaaociation (HOA)
regarding proposed Ranoho del Rey (RdR) SPA III
iJ?provements (Counoil Referral No. 2921)
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
At the City council meeting of August 23, 1994, a written
oommunioation from Claudia Diamond raised several concerns
resardinq proposed improvements associated with RdR III as they
relate to Paseo Ranchero and the existing Villa Palmera projeot for
Which Ms. Diamond serVes as the President of the HOA. Villa
Palmera consists of 76 condominiums at the northwest corner of
paseo Ranchero and East IIJII street, and is surrounded by property
to be developed with the RdR SPA III Community.
In r~sponBe to Council direotion, staff met with Xs. Diamond and
another representative of the Villa Palmera HOA on September 23,
1994. Xs. Diamond followed-up that meeting with a letter to staff
on September 28th, and, staff responded to Ms. Diamond'S remaining
concerns in the attached letter dated November 4, 1994. Ms.
Diamond'a concerns involve (1) the lack of noticing on the RdR III
project, (2) er;Iuestrian use of the proposed recreation pathway
fronting Villa Palmera, (3) the speed limit propo..d on 1>ueo
Ranohero, (4) noise impacts from paSeo Ranchero, and (5) RdR III
construction activities as they lllay at'fect Villa palmera residents.
~
vJ
~
As ~etaile~ in the attached letter:
. ~ ;,,1;;/'\ .~1ty reoorda in~ioate that notices of the RdR III SPA and
('~:L.8 )6Cyl''Tentative Map hearings were mailed to all Villa Palmera
/{~X\")' (~Il/ homeowners and the management company for the HOA; Cf
\ ,," {[~ ,f' - uJ(c..:t 0
)'~. ~o~. The recreation pat~~~~w.l~n front ot' the villa Palmera
(~{'~ iroject, whiCh is quire~o be widened from 5 1/2 to 8 teet, ~~2-
" c'.{ . not intended to ae odate equestrian activity and could /'0
i-C; not be used for this purpo.. ~f;cordin9 to local ordinance; I ~C
~ _; 'J I par t\G:-sc.,lwflDn 1621"2- ~
./ t- / / +- ,s, --f--w. COY> /l C7i:: 1- /
'-rhe. -frs! I 5':js+om So a
..."..
L
--------------------------
------------------------------------
-18-' 94 FR I 10: 23 ID: CITY OF CHULA U I STA __IEL 110: CITY OF CHULA. I) I STA 11106 P06_._ ..__n
Memo council Referral No. 2929
,
3. The speed limit will be posted on paSeo Ranchero after the
.treet is complete and studies have been undertaken to
determine the appropriate limit based on eafe operating
conditions and atate law; Villa Palmera homeowners will be
noticed and given an opportunity for input when the studies
and speed limit are considered by the Safety commission;
4. The environmental documentation shows that according to the
accepted etandard, the Villa Palmera residents will not be
aignificantly impacted by traffic noise from Paseo Ranchero;
and.
5. McMillin must comply with all city and State rClgulations
regarding grading and construction activities, and also will
post signs at entrances to Villa Palmera reading "No Rancho
del Rey construction Traffic Permitted". city staff has
provided Hs. ,Diamond with information reqarding applicable
City regUlations, and the names of contact persons on city
staff who oversee compliance with these regulations.
Council also asked staff to determine whether the current
specifications for Paseo Ranchero were the same as thoae in effect
when Villa Palmera was developed.
The road clasllifioation for Pas eo Ranchero when Villa palmera
(Mission Verde) was developed in 1988-89 wall a Collector street.
When the General Plan was updated in 1989, the streets were defined
dirferently. Paseo Ranchero became a Class I Collector at that
t long with the change in name there were slight changes in
"f~design criteria. Followinq is a comparison of the dasig'n standards
, for paseo Ranohero at the time villa Palmera wu developed and
current standards. ADT is the averag'e daily trips.
'/' l
. $d.:0"d.(s , ().('~
\,~ ~I a,-... \
/IV ,- .,f' .,\
\ c:-' o"\-,c>)'
f ('0<t. I--, DESIGN (ADT)
\r\D{d./
Ii)~ d. 4h(DESIGN SPEED
~;f'~* NO. TRAVE:L LANES
l c/I XO
11;:/. (, I> ~ NO. PARKING LANES
{' D~,"C MEDIAN WIDTH.
c,.) ~\"\
't\ ~;)J~ .
X'" V CURB TO CURB .DISTANCE
o~ \
'\~ t) . \iMAXIMUM GRADE
!:;.\071J- MINIHUH CURVE RADII
(}.\
VILLA PAL ERMA
CURRENT
10,000-20,000
22,000
40 HPH
45MPH
4
4
2
2
o
4-10 FEET
64 FEET
68-74 FEET
10\
n
3j;/,g/
~
300-500 FEET
700-1100 l"EET
. . ~.tiS ? r t .
--- f'C'.",i".'- i[(tL
. \~ SSJ- ft~( (? c \, . J" "1(';; J
Memo Council Rehrral No. 2929 ;fM CtCo \ \ tl~-0~ ~ ('7'~ (i v;c
The actual AJ:lT which the roadway can oarry depends upon the numberv-l~c-l 1ft
of possible side interferences (driveways) that occur on the S .
roadway. The tewer the number ot driveways, the more tratfic the~ ~jry\
.treet will carry. In this case the number of driveways is small ~~(~'U
80 the' road U desiqnatad prior to 1989 and currently 1a not f) ~O( S 1.1
significantly different. The center median indicated under our \.Jjdr't'q,'
current design criteria provides an added measure of safety but l~{~~
adds 11 ttle to the carrying capacity of the roadway. The segment 0(\ "f.
of fuso Ranchero adjaoent to the villa palmera projeot 1o7as SJ0
de.iqned to meet the 40 MPH dSBiqn speed. That will not chanqe .
when the road is completed by ~h. developer ot RdR SPA III.
Ms. Diamond has been noticed of Council consideration of the RdR
III Master Final Map, which i8 scheduled tor November 22, 1994.
Attaehmentl!l
."
Letter with attachments to ClaUdia Diamond dated November 4, 1994.
CI\wpSl\lupe\MEMADR.III
Y5' c/v/~l
November 29, 1994
.' ~'i\~\\\~~ct \id.'(,W~Y~~~~A' ~~~~~~~\'/\~c t
'l5:~ \ 1 _{^- ("\ .ANi -~y z.J( 17~ ('0 ~~ ~ v\.~ ()
\(\ - )~a . rr\~-\..>((j~\.' Wr",( . V'\v'(' \~( ~ \ ~ (' (
" (\:>' 00J ~ \C'0) ,{\if.;r;'\f~<"P'f'\~ ,("L ,II. (j r,';\\':0~~
, ,~ v "" \C\ k'\ r \.J~~'- \ 1. -1' C 0 ()~~"r<' L? \.0L r'. VfA
$"v> \~dcr {'.d.( TC' \il.f _ X\ll- ,~\" ~ 4/ ~ l...:-
\' . \ \ \ r c'" k\ ..0 - i .07 ~A5\1 'r,U: , ' t
o ,."(Ir,,r'\\\ 'r\1\!i'1Lt.\" Yl{ll.,'\r-l1't' \'I/.-.':'J. <
rt3" c \' .({) -'\' \ \ t.J' ~6 --\': r\. (1~' "\ DIl-
Re: Rancho del Rey SPA nt\ ~ )( \)Il> ~ I}\' I I.c, 1'.../1'\\ () ,,0.- 0. (Y' eX: \" \ ~v. \ (' .;)
. D I'D ~Ii,d \ \\'" 1 \. (\./ CA ~ '('>, 0'v\\ t-f \-<;\" ~ (,f.;,'(;<:.'l-
Dear Resident: \'\~~ _;cs.. .~/VX?:(;\U"I'0-cX. ,\){V ~~,< (\"'~ 4.'0)/) x-o.
\,"-' \; \ U \j v\ '\. ik L '\;>~ Y 01\ ~):' "c,,~ X. ,).
On November 9th, McMillin Companies mailed a letter similar to this one to over 1,000 ~.J' ~,
of your neighbors, We have discovered that your address was inadvertently omitted from"''' L '\ ; ('
the mailing list. We apologize for that oversight and wish to inform you of our plans. - .l\.f' \.~
b <; '-:;0. ;("
" ~
McMillin Companies began grading the property adjacent to or near your home during the l.\D~~, { .(
week of November 14, 1994. Grading is the first step in a land development and building \ ~ '\,~ 'l~
operation and is expected to take approximately 30 weeks to complete. ,~ L,J' ,0
. IF \") i.
During the land development and building operation, McMillin will do its best to control'" ~r'\:~) ~
dust, debris and other inconveniences that you may encounter. Also, please be assured l =~ 1\: - :
that we will observe the hours of operation specified by the City of Chula Vista. ,-\'f''J- ~\. /
J) \ C.0'
Some hints that may be helpful to you during development are: ~ .;.~ t /0i.L;7 \~.
. C'.J~ \ .
,\:\)f' .
1. Keep the doors and windows of your home closed during hours of operation;'-'\ 0... \l- Ii.
and,() ,}. , '7' ~.
~J c7S'~
2. Keep swimming pools, spas, cars and outdoor furniture covered as much aSS .~. /,;;:: \
possible. SI; 'l (i.
O-~f' .J;{
It is our desire to be a responsible neighbor. Consequently we will attempt to minimize -z><'~Ur
the impacts of our development on you. Your understanding and cooperation during thit0' CI.
time will be appreciated. If you have any questions or if you need more information, {i ' - 7
please contact me. My phone number is 477-4170, ext. 540, or call Linda Baptiste at U J,\,-"
extensIon 214. 1:>< ~\
~i' { . \'
~~0 X ~(i. \'~L'\\
,\....~ ;<..0' .1)..(',,, sF
Xc --'(\ '. O-~\ veLesF ~(,uXrf.
~\l0 ,ol\ .(11 /\V.hCV\\'
\~. 0.- . a.-( x.. -{' - 'vl'j
i\..' .~ ~\" n"'"
v x:.U -.Jjc- <;.-~ >,
"" '<<, ,I(\Q ",,0 \
",\, ,,0 ^,7 -d'
'V-' '-? ~ If'- '\^' {<:>
X -04 _"",- ) a
lj' 'X0 "F
(.'{--,c 'Q-c.>
\... . 'C
'\~
~
Very truly yours,
M'2Z:7~
Constance C. Byram
Director of Community Relations
CCB\lb
fl-/tJ3
C:LBICB\ W1NWORDIPH3IL-P ARDON I
OTAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1651 ALBANY AVE.
CHUlA VISTA, CA 91911
(619) 425-4311 FAX (619) 425-2018
MARTHA VillAFRANCA, PRINCIPAL
MARCH 13, 1995
~ ~ :u
p~ I ~
mC")
::O:r N J'T1
~c: ...
V)r <
O M H o~ a I'T1
ear rs. orton: :::is 0 0
-V> ..
O-l W
As Principal of Otay Elementary School, the safety of our students is alW'il~ on~f our
greatest concerns. Otay Elementary School is nestled within a very Icyge and nuturing
community. Many of our chldren are within walking distance of the school and many
are provided with bus transportation. We have approximately 620 students who enter
our school grounds on a daily basis. Since safety is such an important aspect of their
school attendance, I would like to make a request that a consideration be given to
have speed bumps be placed in front of the school on Albany Ave.
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR SHIRLEY HORTON
276 Fourth Ave.
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
u
, There have been several incidents of near accidents in front of our school. Traffic
coming downhill from Orange Ave on to Albany usually is coming at an increased level
of speed because of the downhill factor. This poses an unsafe condition for our
, students who may be entering or exiting our school grounds either walking or being
transported by bus or by parents.
While I do understand that speed bumps pose problems to drivers as well, they can
be the one effective ingredient to provide increased safety which eventually could
save a childs life in the future. Speed bumps would alert drivers to monitor their speed
more carefully and closely. I ask that you take this request under consideration for the
safety of our students. I will be presenting this information to the Otay Committee at
their monthly meeting on March 13, 1995 at 7:00pm.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration regarding this very important
matter. Should you have any questions or concerns, or would like to meet with me,
please call me at 425-4311.
Sincerely,
YrL~ -0- .
Martha Villafranca
cc!$! ~(i)
v2 ~)J
WRITTEN COMMUN1C~JI~~S
r ~z)j-5
5C-1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
ITEM t
i MEETING DATE: 3/~ -36&..>-
J.(,J.. / O~ ;u
Ordinance "'Amending Section 2.28.050 of th"j~~la
vista Municipal Code relating~&'"C~de
of Ethics to Prohibit Em ~Emt of a
Former city councilmemba Period of
One Year after Leavifice
City Attorney~ ~/
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
Referral No. 2948
ITEM TITLE:
At its meeting of January 10, 1995, the City council made a motion
that the city Attorney prepare an amendment to the provision of the
Ethics Code prohibiting a former elected official from appearing
before a city body or City officer or employee as an agent for
someone else soliciting a benefit or entitlement in front of the
City. The Council's interest was evaluating an expansion of that
provision to preclude a former elected official from being employed
for the same one year period of time after leaving office. A copy
of a proposed amendment to section 2.28.050 is attached for your
review and consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council place the ordinance on first
reading
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
At its meeting of February 27, 1995, the Board of Ethics voted 7-0
to approve the amendment to the ordinance. The Board of Ethics
wants to advise that it sees ambiguities and clarifications that
need to be made to Section 2.28.050 and it is currently working on
corrections therefor. By sending it to you with this amendment, it
is not intended to convey satisfaction with the remainder of the
section.
The Board also advises the City Council that they considered
expanding the "after-office prohibition on city employment" to
Board/commission/Committee ("B/C/C") members and to the City
Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk without a 4/5ths vote of the
Council but rejected said expansion for a variety of reasons as
follows:
1. The most likely "evil" that an "after-office" prohibition of
employment is designed to correct is use of an official's
influence to get a job. At the B/C/C level such influence is
weak and modulated by Manager and Council review. .
2. The prohibition would operate to preclude persons from
employability, which is something we would prefer not to do
unless needed to satisfy a strong government interest not
otherwise controllable.
t. - /
Item /, J )rJ. ,.-
Date: 3/},""if95 -;/:Zf?/J::>
Forge Two
3. The group of people excluded from employability have a
demonstrated interest in Chula vista and an enhanced knowledge
of Chula vista's operations.
Meeting
4. The rule doesn't make much sense in application to the City
Manager, City Attorney or City Clerk because they serve at the
will of the Council in an existing employment relationship.
If three members of the Council want them gone, they are gone.
If three members want them to work, with the consent of the
person, they can work. Furthermore, the "evil" of using their
influence to create a job for themselves is not a concern
because they already have a job position for themselves.
Therefore, the Board declined to reconunend an expansion of the
referral to others than on the city Council, but does reconunend the
application of the rule to Councilmembers, which is consistent with
the Council referral.
DISCUSSION:
The City Attorney concurs with the reconunendation of the Board of
Ethics.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
C:\eth1c8\228050..e.
~-.,2.,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA
AMENDING SECTION 2.28.050 OF THE CH
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE CO
TO PROHBIT EMPLOYMENT OF
COUNCILMEMBER FOR A PERIOD OF
LEAVING OFFICE
;\\o~
#'X
~~
A
STA
ETHICS
ER CITY
YEAR AFTER
ORDINANCE NO.
.J.t,29
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That section 2.28.050 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.28.050 Unethical Conduct.
A. General Policy. One of the highest callings is that of public
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.
1. All City officials should endeavor to fulfill their
obligations to the citizens of Chula Vista, city
management and fellow employees through respect and
cooperation. They should strive to protect and enhance
the image and reputation of the City, its elected and
appointed officials, and its employees. All citizens
conducting business with the City shall be treated with
courtesy, efficiency and impartiality and none shall
receive special advantage beyond that available to any
others. Officials shall always be mindful of the public
trust and confidence in the daily exercise of their
assigned duties, striving to conserve public funds
through diligent and judicious management.
B. Specific prohibitions. City officials (including non-paid
commission, board and committee members) shall be considered
to have committed unethical conduct if any of the following
occur:
1. Used one's position or title for personal gain but not
found to be an act of illegality or conflict of interest
by the District Attorney, Grand Jury or Fair Political
Practices commission.
1
~-:J
2. Knowingly divulge confidential information for personal
gain or for the gain of associates in a manner disloyal
to the city.
3. Knowingly make false statements about members of the City
Councilor other City employees that tend to discredit or
embarrass, those persons.
4. Used or permitted the use of City time, personnel,
supplies, equipment, identification cards/badges or
facilities for unapproved non-City activities, except
when available to the general public or provided for by
administrative regulations.
5. No ex-City officer for a period of one year after leaving
office or employment, shall, for compensation, act as
agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent, any other
person by making any oral or written communication,
before any City administrative office or agency, or
officer or employee thereof, if the appearance or
communication is made for the purpose of influencing
administrative action, or influencing any action or
proceeding involving the issuance, amendment, awarding,
or revocation of a permit, license, grant, or contract,
or the sale or purchase of goods or property.
6. Endorsed or recommended for compensation any commercial
product or service in the name of the city or in the
employee's official capacity wi thin the city without
prior approval by a City Council policy.
7. No member of the Citv Council shall be eliqible. for a
oeriod of one vear after leavinq office. for emolovrnent
bv. or be on the oavroll of. or be aoaid consultant or
oaid contractor to the citv. or to anv entitv controlled
bv the citv or the City Council ("Controlled Entities") .
or to anv entitv which receives a maioritv of its fundinq
from the city or of its Controlled Entities. exceot bY
the oermission of the Council findinq on 4/5ths vote that
soecial identified and articulated circumstances exist.
cast at a reqular oublic meetinq taken after the involved
member of the Citv Council has left office.
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
prz
I!,
~
and
oved as to form by
Bruce M.
ity Attorney
2
t-'1
Board of Ethics
2-27-95 Minutes
Page 2
Aqenda Item No. 4 citv Council Aqenda
Prohibitinq Emplovment of a Former Elected citv
Period of One Year after Leavinq Office.
Item relatinq to
Officeholder for a
Member Herney questioned
the Board of Ethics or
responded it was sent to
whether the Council
the city Attorney.
the City Attorney.
referral was sent to
Attorney Boogaard
Mr. Boogaard informed the Board that the item was removed from the
2/28/95 Council meeting due to some questions raised by
Administration during the tentative agenda meeting. various
scenarios of employment and contract work were discussed regarding
board/ commission members, Councilmembers, City Attorney" city
Manager and/or City Clerk, with the conclusion being reached that
board and commission members should be excepted from the provision.
MSUC (Herney/McNutt) to change the words "Covered Official" in
Paragraph 7 of section 2.28.050 to "member of the City Council" and
to eliminate any reference to "Covered Official" in Section
2.28.020.
MSUC (Villegas/Carson) to allow Susan Herney to leave the meeting
at 4:40 p.m.
Aqenda Item No. 5 - Ethics Traininq Update.
It was reported that Toni McKean, the city's Training Coordinator,
would be attending the Josephson Institute's Train-the-Trainer
session in Washington during March. She was also coordinating a
Saturday date when the council and Attorney were available for the
ethics training session with a June date being a possible
selection.
Aqenda Item No. 6 - Ethics Ordinance Amendment.
Due to the lateness of the hour, it was decided to hold this item
over to the next agenda, with said item being placed first on the
agenda in order for the Board to devote an hour's time to working
on it.
MSUC (Schulman/Carson) to adjourn at 5:00 p.m. to the next meeting
scheduled for March 6, 1995 at 3:30 p.m.
c{J~~
Lorraine Kraker
t-f
THIS PAGE BLANK
~..-t-
.
.,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 7
Meeting Date 3/28/95
B.
Resolution / ?1fJ/ 7 Approving Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreement Requiring Developer to Comply with Certain
Unfulfilled Conditions of Resolutions No. 17797, 17618 and 15200
Approving a Tentative Subdivision Map for Parcel R-15 and Authorizing
the Mayor to Execute Same.
Resolution J 7 '!'JI ~ Approving Final Map and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 95-02, Eastlake South
Greens, Unit 15
ITEM TITLE: 1/.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work ~f'L
Director of Planning ~~
. \
-'7
City Manage~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
REVIEWED BY:
On January 24, 1995, by Resolution 17797 xhibit A) the City Council approved the Tentative
Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 95-02, Parcel R-15 of Eastlake South Greens. Previous
Council actions affecting this development include: I) Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula
Vista Tract 88-03, Eastlake Greens (original TM) on July 18, 1989, by Resolution 15200
(Exhibit B); and 2) Amended Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 88-03, Eastlake
Greens (amended TM) on August 1994, by Resolution No. 17618. All of three of these
resolutions contain conditions of approval for development of Parcel R-15. The final map for
Eastlake South Greens, Unit 15 (Unit 15), is now before Council for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the final map,
subdivision improvement agreement and the supplemental subdivision improvement agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The project is generally located on the east side of South Greensview Drive south of Clubhouse
Drive and consists of 64 lots for single family residential units, three lettered lots for open
space and I numbered lot as a view corridor access to the Eastlake golf course.
The final map for Chula Vista Tract 95-02, Eastlake Greens Unit 15, has been reviewed by the
Public Works Department and found to be in substantial conformance with the approved
tentative map. Approval of the final map constitutes acceptance by the City on behalf of the
public, of Boulder Creek Street, Crystal Springs Drive, and a portion of South Greensview
7-/
Page 2, Item 7
Meeting Date 3/28/95
Drive. Approval of the final map also constitutes acceptance on behalf of the City the
following easements: a 5.5 foot tree planting and maintenance easement along Boulder Creek
Street and Crystal Springs Drive; a 5.5 foot sidewalk easement along South Greensview Drive;
a 10 foot general utility easement along South Greensview Drive; and a general utility and
public access easement across Lot 65 (view corridor lot). Approval of this map also rejects
offer of dedication for open space Lots A, B and C, all as shown on the final map. However,
the City reserves the right to accept the rejected open space lots in the future per Section
66477.2 of the Subdivision Map Act.
The developer has executed a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement to satisfy the
following conditions:
1. Condition Nos. 30 and 31c of Resolution 15200.
a. Condition No. 30 requires the developer to agree that the City may
withhold building permits for any units in the subdivision if traffic on
Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, EastLake Parkway, or East
"H" Street exceed the levels of service identified in the City's adopted
thresholds.
b. Condition 31c requires the developer to agree to not protest formation of
an assessment district for the construction of street improvements to
extend Orange Avenue and Palomar Street and to not protest inclusion
of the subject improvements as projects in the Eastern Territories
Development Impact Fee system.
2. Condition No. 35 of Resolution 17618 requires the developer to comply with
the terms and conditions of the AcquisitionlFinancing Agreement for Assessment
District 94-1, CO 94-064.
3. General Condition "D" and Condition Nos. 23-25 of Resolution 17797.
a. General Condition "D" requires the developer to comply with all
unfulfilled conditions of approval of the Eastlake Greens Tentative Map,
Chula Vista Tract 88-3 established by Resolution No. 15200, and
amended by Resolution 17618, and to remain in compliance with and
implement the terms, conditions and provisions of Eastlake Greens
Sectional Planning Area, Eastlake Greens Planned Community District
Regulations, the Eastlake Greens Development Agreement, the Water
Conservation Plan and the Air Quality Plan, Design Guidelines and the
Public Facilities Financing Plan.
b. Condition 23 requires the developer to agree to indemnify and hold
harmless the City from any claims, actions or proceedings against the
?~;2,
Page 3, Item 7
Meeting Date 3/28/95
City to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City with
regard to the subject subdivision.
c. Condition 24 requires the developer to agree to hold the City harmless
from any liability for erosion, siltation, or increased flow of drainage
resulting from the subject subdivision.
d. Condition 25 requires the developer to agree to insure that all franchised
cable television companies are permitted equal opportunity to place
conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the subject
subdivision.
The developer has also executed a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for this map and
provided bonds to guarantee construction of the required public improvements (CV drawings
95-27 through 95-31), has paid all applicable fees and has provided a bond to guarantee the
monumentation for said subdivision. The agreements are now before Council for approval.
With the submittal of bonds and approval of the agreements, the developer has satisfied all
remaining conditions of approval for the final map with the exception of Condition 44 from
Resolution No. 15200.
Condition 44 from Resolution 15200 requires the developer to implement a low and moderate
income housing program with a goal of 5% low and 5% moderate income housing. Condition
44 included a deferral of the affordable housing requirement. However, subsequent adoption
of Resolution 17309 reinstated the affordable housing requirement and additionally required
that all subsequent final maps adhere to the affordable housing program condition. Resolution
17309 also directed the creation of an Ad Hoc Eastlake Affordable Housing Task Force for the
express purpose of creating an affordable housing implementation program for the entire
Planned Community of Eastlake I, II & III and the Land Swap Parcels. The Planning and
Community Development Departments are scheduled to bring the proposed program for review
by the City Council within the next two months.
Approval of the final map for Unit 15 will leave a total of 1,463 units (52%) remaining to be
final mapped within the Eastlake Greens Master Tentative Map. Draft findings of the
affordable housing program indicate that none of the units covered by the final map for Unit
15 are proposed as low income housing units and that moderate-income units can be provided
by market-rate housing units. To assure continued progress in the development of the
affordable housing program for the Eastlake Greens, and until the program is adopted, final
maps will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. In staff s opinion, approval of Unit 15 final
map will not impact the City's ability to obtain compliance with the affordable housing
requirement for Eastlake Greens. No additional final maps creating residential units for
Eastlake Greens are expected to be presented to Council for approval prior to adoption of the
Eastlake Affordable Housing Program.
It should be noted that the possibility of a tax credit affordable apartment project of
approximately 120 units has been pursued with EastLake. This project is larger but otherwise
7~3
Page 4, Item--Z-
Meeting Date 3/28/95
similar to the Cordova project recently approved for funding in Rancho del Rey. The project
would be a joint venture by Bridge Housing Corporation and South Bay Community Services,
and it would involve a subsidy from the City and a land write-down by EastLake. The project
is targeted for Parcel R-26, which is one of the primary affordable housing sites identified by
the Task Force.
The Task Force has been fully advised of the potential project on R-26, and it is felt that the
Task Force has been optimistic about achieving the affordable housing goals in part in
anticipation of that project. However, it appears that the project is not progressing as
anticipated. Negotiations between EastLake and the joint venture are on hold, and we are
informed that EastLake is researching other alternatives to satisfying the affordable housing
obligation. Discussions between EastLake and City staff on this issue are pending, and the
Council will be kept informed. Without the near-term delivery of a project like the tax-credit
apartment project on R-26, it will be important to assure that the performance guarantees in
the Affordable Housing Agreement that results from the Task Force process are clear and fully
secured, most likely with performance bonding or collateralization through land encumbrance.
In the meantime, while this issue is being worked out and the Task Force report is being
processed and brought forward to the Council, staff feels that the City's interests are
sufficiently protected by the number of units that can be conditioned that will remain after the
potential approval of the subject final map.
A plat is available for Council viewing.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. All Staff costs associated with processing of improvement plans
and final maps will be reimbursed from developer deposits.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Resolution 17797 & Minutes of 1/24/95 (excerpt)
Exhibit B - Resolution 17618 & Minutes of 8/16/94 (excerpt)
Exhibit C - Resolution 15200
Exhibit D - Plat - Eastlake South Greens Unit 15
Exhibit E - Disclosure Statement
EY-4Q5
hno
(m:\home\engineer\agenda\unitlS.lmc)
032895
7-'1
EXHlerr II ......
~#-I
RESOLUTION NO. 17797
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR UNIT 15 AT EASTLAKE
SOUTH GREENS. CHULA VISTA TRACT 95-02, MAKING THE
NECESSARY FINDINGS AND READOPTING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR IS-94-19
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, is commonly known as Unit 15 of EastLake Greens
Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 88-3; and for the purpose of
general description herein consists of 11.9 acres located on the aast side of
South Greensview Drive approximately 300 ft. south of Clubhouse Drive within
the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area of the EastLake Planned
Community ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1994 EastLake Development Company ("Developer")
and Western Salt Company ("Owner") filed a tentative subdivision map
application with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista and
requested approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for Unit 15 at EastLake
South Greens, Chuta Vista Tract 95-02 in order to subdivide the Project Site
into 68 lots ("Project"l; and.
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS. the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of
1) a General Development Plan. EastLake II (EestLake I Expansion) General
Development Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15198
("GDP"); 2) the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan, previously
adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15199 I"SPA"); and 3) a Tentative
Subdivision Map, previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15200
("TSM"). Chula Vista Tract 88-3, all approved on July 18, 1989; 4) an Air
Quality Improvement Plan, EastLake Greens Air Quality Improvement Plan
IAOIP); and 51 a Water Conservation Plan, EastLake Greens Water Conservation
Plan (WCP); both previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 16898 on
November 24, 1992; and 6) a GDP,SPA, TSM, AOIP and WCP amendment
previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 17618 on August 16,
1994; and,
fY1' 7-S
Resolution No. 17797
Page 2
D.
Planning Commission Record on Application
)
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission held In advertised public hearing on slid
project on December 21, 1994. IInd voted (4-0) to recommend that the City
Council approve the Project, based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions listed below.
E. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on January 24, 1995. on the Project and to
receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission. and to hear public
testimony with regard to same; and,
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED thatthe City Council does hereby find. determine
and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on this project held on December 21. 1994. and the minutas and
resolutions resulting therefrom. ere hereby incorporllted into the record of this
proceeding.
III. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGf\AM; FINDINGS; APPROVALS
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed. analyzed and
considered the previously approved Mitigllted Negative Declllration on IS-94-19
(known es Document No. C094-180 on file in the Office of the City Clerk) and
comments thereon. the environmentlll impacts therein identified for this project
and the Mitiglltion Monitoring IInd Reporting Progrllm ("Program"' (known as
Document No. C094-181 on file in the Office of the City Clerk) thereon prior
to approving the Project. BaslId on the Initial Study IInd comments thereon. the
Council finds that there is no substllntilll evidence thllt the Project will have a
signifiCllnt effect on the environment and thereby readopts the Mitigated
Negative Declllrlltion.
B. Mitiglltion Monitoring IInd Reporting Progrllm
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds thllt the significant
environmentlll effect(s) identified in the Mitigllted Neglltive Declaration will be
reduced to below a level of signifiCllnce if the mitigation measures in the
Mitiglltion Monitoring and Reporting Program Ire implemented. The Mitiglltion
~ 7~?
Resolution No. 17797
Page 3
Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby readopted to ensure that its
provisions are complied with.
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CECA
The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration on 15-94- 19
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR
Guidelines. and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista~
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-94- 19 reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council.
VI. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act,
the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned herein
for Unit 15 at Eastlake South Greens. Chula Vista Tract No. 95-02 is in
conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan. based on the
following:
a. Land Use
The proposed density of 5.4 dulac is in compliance with the previously
approved EastLake Greens SPA Plan density range (5-15 du/ac) for the
subject parcel.
b. Circulation
All of the on-site and off.site public streets required to serve the
subdivision will be constructed or DIF fees paid by the developer in
accordance with the EastLake Greens Public Financing Plan and
Development Agreement.
The public streets within the subdivision will be designed in accordance
with the City design standards andlor requirements. The adjoining
street system was designed to handle the anticipated flow of traffic
from this and other area projects.
c. Housing
The EastLake Greens SPA Plan area has been conditioned to provide a
~ /-7
Resolution No. 17797
Page 4
)
minimum of 10% affordable housing including a mix of housing types
and lot sizes for single-family, townhouses, condominium and various
apartment densities that will provida a wide spectrum of housing prices
for persons of various incomes. The proposed single-family datached
residential housing type is consistent with the EastLake Greens SPA
Plan.
d. Conservation
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for 15-94-19 addressed the goals and policies of the
Conservation Element of the General Plan and found the davelopment
of this site to be consistent with these goals and policies.
e. Parks and Recreation, Open Space
The project site is located within the EastLake Greens SPA Plan area.
The EastLake Greens SPA Plan provides public parks, trails and open
space consistent with City policies. The project will implement in part
conditions of approval for tha EastLake Greens SPA Plan requiring the
provision/construction of a golf course trail.
f.
Seismic Safety
)
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and pOlicias
of tha Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site.
g. Safety
The Fire Department and other emergency servica agencies have
reviewed the proposed subdivision for conformance with City safety
policies and have determined that the proposal maets the City Threshold
Standards for emergency services.
h. Noise
Noise mitigation measures included in the Environmental Impact Report
SEIR-86-o4 and Mitigatad Negativa Declaration IS-94-19 adequately
address the noise policy of the General Plan. All dwelling units within
the project will be required to be designed ao as to not exceed the
interior noise level of 45 dBA. Additionally, ell exterior private open
apace will be shielded by a combination of earth. berm. wall, and/or
buildings to achieve a 65 dBA noise level for outaide private areas.
i. Scenic Highway
The project aite is not located adjacent to any designated acenic
par /,2Y
Resolution No. 17797
Page 5
'-
highway but a landscaped open space buffer and a decorative wall will
be provided along the South Greensview Drive frontage in order to
enhance the appearance of the project from tha street.
j.
Bicycle Routes
Bicycle lanes have been incorporated within the EastLake Greens
Planned Community area design and are presently in use. The public
streets within the project are of adequate width to accommodate bicycle
travel within the interior of the subdivision.
k. Public Buildings
No public buildings are proposed on the project site. The project is
subject to RCT fees prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies
that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the
region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the
residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the
optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities
as required by Government Code Section 66473.1.
D. The site is physically suitable for rasidential development and the proposal
conforms to all standards establishad by the City for such projects.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement
herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the
impact created by the proposed development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Project
subject to the general and special conditions set forth below.
VIII. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the foregoing Tentative Subdivision Map which is stated to be
conditioned on "General Conditions" is hereby conditioned as follows:
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with
the Project as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-94-19 except
as modified by this Resolution.
ft7tJ ?~9
Resolution No. 17797
Page 6
B. Implement Mitigation Measures
Developer shall diligently implement. or cause the implementation of. all
mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Final
Supplemental Impact Report for Eastlake Greens FEIR-86-o4 and Mitigated
Negative Declaration 15-94-19.
C. Implement the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Developer shall implement. or cause the implementation of. all portions of 15-
94-19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pertaining to the Project.
D. Implement previously adopted conditions of approval pertinent to project.
Unless otherwise conditioned. developer shall comply with all unfulfilled
conditions of approval of the EastLake Greens Tantative Map. Chula Vista Tract
88-3 established by Resolution No. 15200 approved by Council on July 18.
1989 and shall remain in complianca with and implament tha terms. conditions
and provisions of Eastlaka Graans Sectional Planning Area. Eastlake Greens
Planned Community District Regulations. the Eastlake Greans Davelopment
Agreement. the Water Conservation Plan and the Air Quality Plan. Design
Guidelines and the Public Facilities Financing Plan.
E.
Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan
)
Devaloper shall install public facilities in accordanca with the Eastlake Greens
Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City Engineer
to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City
Engineer and Planning Director may. at their discretion. modify the sequence of
improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
F. Project Phasing
Developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by
the City Engineer and Director of Planning prior to approval of any final map.
if phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps.
The phasing plan shall include:
a. A sita plan showing the lot lines and lot numbers. the phase lines and
phase numbers and number of dwelling units in each phase.
b. A table showing the phase number. the lots included in the phase and
the number of units includad in each phase.
Improvements. facilities and dedications to be provided with each phasa or unit
of development shall be as detarmined by the City Engineer and Director of
~ 7~)i/
Resolution No. 17797
Page 7
Planning. The City reserves the right to conditional approval of each final map
with requirement to provide said improvements, facilities and/or dedications as
necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of
police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Planning Director may at
their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should
conditions change to warrant such a revisions.
IX. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to approval of the final map unless otherwise indicated, the developer shall:
STREETS. RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS
1. Submit for approval by the City Engineer detailed improvement plans in
accordance with Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Straet Standards,
and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. Street sections shall comply with
current City street design standards unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
2. Grant a 5.5' tree planting and maintenance easement to the City along Street
"A" and "B".
3. Grant a 10' general utility easement along the frontage with South Greensview
Drive of Lots A, B, and C.
4. Submit hydrologic and hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry-lane
calculations for Street "A" and "B".
5. Submit and obtain approval from the Director of Planning and City Engineer for
street names.
6. Develop the golf course view corridor parcel (Lot D) in accordance with the Golf
Course Trail conceptual development plan attached thereto and made a part
thereon and construct all improvements indicated thereon concurrently with the.
improvement of Street "A" and "B".
7. Provide temporary turnarounds for emergency vehicle access at all unit
boundaries to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
8. Provide minimum horizontal curve radii for all sanitary sewers of 200'.
9. Locate street lights to the setisfaction of the City traffic engineer.
10. Present written verification to the City Engineer from Otay Water District that
the subdivision will be providad .adequate water service and long term water
storage facilities.
y 7~/1
Resolution No. 17797
Page 8
GRADINGIDRAINAGE
11. Submit for approval by the. City Engineer a detailed grading plan in accordance
with the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance 1741.
12. Provide an updated soils report or an addendum to the original document
prepared by a registered engineer. as required by the City Engineer.
13. Obtain a letter of permission to grade for all off-site grading.
14. Show the cut/fillline on the grading plans and provide a list of lots indicating
those lots located on cut. fill or transition.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
15. Golf course view corridor Lot D shall be privately maintained and shown on the
final map to be granted to the development's homeowners' association
pursuant to CVMC 18.20.150.
16_ Grant to the City a public access easement over Lot D.
17. Offer to grant in fee to the City Open Space lots A-C as shown on the approved
tentative map. The City Clerk's statement on the final map shall indicate
rejection of said lots subject to future acceptance in accordance with the State
Map Act.
)
18. Submit a list of all facilities located in Open Space lots A-C proposed to be
maintained by the existing Eastlake Maintenance Oistrict No.1. This list shall
include a description, quantity and unit price per year for the perpetual
maintenance of all facilities located on open space lots to include but not be
limited to: walls, fences, water fountains. lighting structures. paths. access
roads. drainage structures and landscaping. Only those items on an open space
lot are eligible for open space maintenance. Each open space lot shall also be
broken down by the number of acres of turf. irrigated. and non-irrigated open
space to aid the estimation of a maintenance budget thereof.
19. Pay additional fees on a fair-share basis into Assessment District Numbers 90-
3. 91.1 or other applicable essessments districts due to a change in units
approved subsequent to District formation as determined by the City Engineer.
20. Pay all costs associated with apportionment of assessments for all City
assessment districts as a result of subdivision of lands w.ithin the project
boundary. Request apportionment and provide a deposit to the City estimated
at $40/unit/district to cover costs prior to approval of each final map.
21. Prepare a disclosure form to be signed by the home buyer acknowledging that
additional fees have been paid into the Assessment District or the
~ 7-/2
Resolution No. 17197
Page 9
Transportation DIF Fund, and that these additional fees are reflected in the
purchase price of the home for those units which have a density change from
that indicated in the assessment district's Engineer's Report.
22. Submit all disclosure forms for the approval of the City Engineer.
AGREEMENTS
23. Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmlass the City and its agents. officers
and employees, from any claim. action or proceeding against the City, or its
agents. officers or employees to attack, let aside. void or annul any approval
by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any
approval by its agents. officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision
pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly
notifies the subdivider of any claim. action or proceeding and on the further.
condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
24. Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or
increase flow of drainage resulting from this project.
25. Agree to insure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable
Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable
television service to each lot within the subdivision. Restrict access to the
conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and
remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and
which are in further compliance with all other rules. regulations, ordinances and
procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies
as same may have been. or may from time to time be issued by the City of
Chula Vista.
MISCELLANEOUS
26. Submit a comprehensive landscape plan for lot A. B, C and 0 to the City
landscape Architect for review and approval prior to approval of the grading
plan. Submit detailed irrigation plans and water management guidelines for all
landscaping in accordance with the Chula Vista Design Manual. The
landscaping format for the project shall be in substantial conformance with
Section 6.4 (General Landscape Concept) of the Eastlake Greens SPA.
27. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System -Zone VI (NAD
1983).
28. Submit copies of each fina' map in a digital format such as (DXF) graphic file
prior to approval of each final map. Provide computer aided Design (CAD) copy
of the final maps based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and
submit the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital
Submittal in duplicate on 5-114" or 3.112" HD floppy disk prior to the approval
-
.y- 7-/J
Resolution No. 17797
Page 10
of each final map.
29. Update the Eastlake Greens Public Facilities financing Plan es required by
Chapter V of said approved document.
30. Satisfy the requirement to pay the Transportation Development Impact Fees
(TDIFI prior to final map approval if the fee is financed through an essessment
district or pay the TDIF prior to issuance of building permits.
X. CODE REQUIREMENT REMINDERS
31. Comply with ell epplicable sections of the Chula Viste Municipel Code.
Preparation of the final map end ell plans shall be in eccordance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act end the City of Chula Vista current
standards, Subdivision Ordinance end Subdivision Manual.
32.. Underground ell utilities within the subdivision in eccordance with Municipel
Code requirements.
33. Pey the following fees prior to issuence of building permits in eccordance with
the City Code and Council Policy:
a.
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
)
b. Signal Perticipation Fees.
c. All appliceble sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection
fees.
d. Interim Pre-SR.1 25 impact fee (effective Jenuary 1, 19951.
e. Telegraph Cenyon Sewer Pumped Flows DIF.
Pay the amount of fees in effect et the time of issuence of building permits.
The developer is edvised thet fees periodically change, and that it is the
developer's responsibility to contact the appropriata City department or
government agency to ascertain the amount of a given fee due to the time of
collection.
34. Install required fire hydrents prior to delivery of any combustible construction
materials.
35. Provide a brush manegement plan and fire resistive landsceping within open
space areas, as required by the Fire Marshal.
. J1--Hf 7~ J;I
Resolution No. 17797
Page 11
(
XI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute
litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their
violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the
City's approval of this Resolution.
XII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Determination and file the same with the County Clerk.
XIII.
INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
(
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable,
this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked end of no further force end
effect eb initio.
/t:(/;.! tk
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
y
Presented by
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
(
)Hl7-J5'
Resolution No. 17797
Page 12
hO ..;.,.Jr;':...:;.,
- "~:."''';.'''''
'-;...~ ."f.r': J."
'."'.ot.i.:...'"
;:I',,:.;~ ;;..,....."':;,
....,'.':....~.,...,
/'IIP.",:*':....
~
· "'-'IIILL M
~
.~
L _ __ ".
..._".
1"'T~"1I:l
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
SITE
"'-
PROJECT
LOCATION
)
- .J
CITY
COUN'Y
CHULA VISTA PLANNINC DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR _. WI.S'I'ERN IALT CO. .-oJICTDD~;
C) -, e-t. " CIa...... Dr. .. UIIl: 61 IIIl . iii IiIlOL
10. G_.""" Dr. .....eIo.
..... ou_.
MlRTR NONE - PCS.95-02
~ 7//?
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 17797
Page 13
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 24th day of January, 1995, by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers:
Fox, Moot, Rindone, Horton
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Padilla
ABSTAIN: Council members:
None
ATTEST:
') f'
'il(.. '(, /, c, (i t.il (~(
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO I ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA I
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 17797 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 24th day of January
1995.
Executed this 24th day of January, 1995.
~ 7-/7
MiDules
IID\W)' 24, 1995 .
Pa,ell
SUBSJ'ITUTE MOTION: (RindonelHorton) to continue the Item for three weeks for more Iaformation on
Ibe alternatiyes. ApproYed 4-e-l with Padilla absent.
11. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-'S-02 - TENTATIVE SUBDMSlON MAP FOR PARCEL R-lS,
TRACT '5-02, WITHIN THE EASJ'LAKE GREENS PLANNED COMMUNITY. WESI'ERN SALT
COMPANY - The proposed i. 10 subdivide 11.9 acres of land iDlo 68 1011: 64 sinllle-family nsidentill1ols, three
opea IpACe loll, ad ODe llolf course view corridor lot. The project aite i. located OD !be _ aide of South
Greeasview Drive, approximately 300 feet lOutb of Clubhouse Drive, witbiD the E...' .I<~ Greeas Plumed
Community. Staff ftlCOlDIIleDds approvll of the resolution. (Direclor of PIumin,l)
RESOLUTION 177" APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON TIlE TENTATIVE
SUBDMSION MAP FOR UNIT 15 AT EASJ'LAKE SOUTH GREENS, TRACT 'S-02,'MAKlNG THE
. NECESSARY FINDINGS AND READOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR 1S-'4-1'
Thi. beiD,l the time IDd place .. uvertised, the public hear1n1l WIll declared opea. There beiD,l DO puhIic -.;.......y,
the public hear1n1l WIll closed.
RESOLtmON 177" OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, readi", of the tat wuftivecl, pIIIed
and approved 4-0-1 with Padilla absent.
(
12. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION TO DETACH FROM OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
NUMBER I AND OPEN SPACE DlSJ'RICT NmmER 10 THOSE TERRITORIES WITHIN OPEN SPACE
NUMBER 20, TO BE EFFECTIVE FISCAL YEAR 1995/" - The opea IpACe ....;..,.......... dillric:t tbat WIll
CIl[laled for !be Rucho del Rey development overl.pped two existin,l opeo apoce districts. Thi. actioa will 001;",;...,.
the overlap ad WIll requested hy Rucho del Rey InVestOl'lIO that the ullimate p..rty __ will oaIy have_
opea IpACe district OD their disclosure statement and tax bill. 5ra" ftlCO"'_d. approvII of the .-utiaa.
(DincIor of Public Works) Continued from Ibe meetina of 1/17"5. .
. RESOLtmON 17788 ORDERING THE DETACHMENT FROM OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
NUMBER 1 AND OPEN SPACE DISJ'RICT NmmER 10 THOSE TERRITORIES WITHIN OPEN SPACE
NUMBER 20; TO BE EFFECTIVE FISCAL YEAR 1995'"
Mayor Hortoa stated the public bearin, had been continue for one weIc 10 Councilmember PadiJJa ~d be ~
because Couucilmemben FOll and Moot had a conflict of interest.
Ma10r Borton anIered Ibe public heari", continued to February 14, 1995.
ORAL COl\u,nJNICATIONS
NODe
BOARD AND COl\u,nSSION RECOl\U,fENDATJONS
13. RESOLlmON 177'8 ACCEPTING THE ECONOl\DC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC)
AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT TEAM (WDT) PROGRESS REPORTS AND APPROVING, IN
CONCEPT, TIlE ECONOl\DC DEVELOPMENT COl\f1\DSSION'S NEW FISCAL YEAR 1994"5
GOALSIPRIORlTY PROJECTS AND ENHANCED MARKETING PLAN -The ~c Devclop_t
CommisaiOD ia providiDJ ita quarterly report. 5ra" recommends approvll of !be NIOIutiOD. (OIait, ~c
Develop_t CommisaiOD) . .
(
~?-/F
-
EXHJ[JYG'
Ey-~cgl
RESOLUTION NO. 17618
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AND IMPOSING AMENDMENTS AND
CONDITIONS ON THE EASTLAKE II (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION)
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN. EASTLAKE GREENS
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN. EASTLAKE GREENS
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN AND EASTLAKE GREENS
MASTER TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (PCS.88.3) AND
ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON IS-94-19
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS. the properties which are the subject matter of this resolution are
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit 1 and 2 attached hereto end
incorporated by this reference. identified es the EestLake Generel Development
Plan Area and EastLake Greens SPA Plan Area. end loceted in part in the City
of Chula Vista ("Project Site") and.
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS. on March .21. 1994, the EastLake Development Company
("Developer") filed epplications for en amendment to: 11 the EestLeke II
(EastLake I Expension) General Development Plan. known as document number
C094-183. e copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2) the
EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan, known as document number
C094-184. a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 3) the
EastLeke Greens Air Quelity Improvement Plan. known as document number
C094-185. a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 4) the
EestLeke Greens Weter Conservation Plan, known es document number C094-
186. a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and 5) the
EastLake Greens Master Tentative Map. known as document number C094-
187. a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ("Project"); end.
C. Prior Discretionary Approvels
WHEREAS. the development of the Project Site has been the subject metter of
1) a Generel Development Plen, EestLeke II (EestLeke I Expension) Generel
Development Plen previously epproved by City Council Resolution No. 15198
("GDP"I; 2) the EestLeke Greens Sectionel Plenning Area Plen, previously
adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15199; (SPA) and 3) e Tentetive
Subdivision Mep previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15200
(TSM) Chule Viste Trect 88-3. all approved on July 18, 1989; and. 4) en Air
y 7~/(
Resolution No. 17618
Page 2
.
,
Quality Improvement Plan (Eastlake Greens Air Quality Improvement Plan) and
5) a Water Conservation Plan (EastLake Greens and Water Conservation Plan).
both previously approved by the City Council on November 24. 1992. by
Resolution No. 16898; and
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS. tha Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said
project on July 27, 1994. and voted to recommend that the City Council
approve the Project. based upon the findings and subject to the conditions
listed below.
E. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS. a duly called and noticed public hearing was held befora tha City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 16, 1994, on the Discrationary
Approval Applications. and to receive the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and.
F. Discretionary Approvals Ordinances
WHEREAS. at the same City Council meeting at which this Resolution was
approved (August 16. 1994). the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approved for first reading Ordinance No. 2600 prezoning 22.7 acres of
unincorporated land to P-C (Planned Community) and Ordinance No. 2601
amending the Eastlake II (Eastlake I Expansion) Planned Community District
Regulations Land Use District Map.
)
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does haraby find. datermine
and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
Tha proceedings and all evidence introduced before tha Planning Commission at their
public hearing on this project held on July 27, 1994, and tha minutas and rasolutions
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceading.
III. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; FINDINGS; APPROVALS
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City Council of tha City of Chula Vista has reviewed. analyzed and
considered Mitigated Negative Decleration on IS-94-19. known as document
number C094-180. a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
~ 7/..2-tl
Resolution No. 17618
Page 3
and comments thereon, the environmental impacts therein identified for this
project end the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program"),
known as document number C094- 181, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the City Clerk, thereon prior to approving the Project. Based on the Initial
Study and comments thereon, the Council finds that there is no substantial
evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and
thereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
B. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds that the significant
environmental effecUs) identified in the Mitigation Negative Declaration will be
reduced to below a level of significance if the mitigation measures in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are implemented. The Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby approved to ensure that its.
provisions are complied with.
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEOA
The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration on IS-94-19
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Ouality Act, the State ErR
Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-94- 19 reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chuta Vista City Council.
VI. GDP FINDINGS
A. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The amended EastLake II IEastLake I Expansion) General Development Plan
reflects land use densities and circulation system design that Ire consistent
with the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements.
B. A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAN BE INITIATED BY
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED
COMMUNITY ZONE.
~/ 7~~ )
Resolution No. 17618
Page 4
A SPA Plan has already been approved for the development of the planned
community and amendments thereto conforming to 'the amended GDP are
included in the Project:
C. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT SUCH
DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF
SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN
HARMONY WITH OR PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER
OFTHE SURROUNDING AREA, ANDTHATTHE SITES PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC
FACILITIES, SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS, ARE
ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE ANTICIPATED POPULATION AND APPEAR
ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION
THEREOF.
The residential densities and transfers reflected on the amended GDP are
compatible with the pattern and character of development approved with the
original GDP, and can be adequately served by the public facilities incorporated
therein.
D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH
DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVER.ALL
DESIGN TO THE PURPOSE INTENDED; THAT THE. DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY;
AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE.
The emendments do nOt involve areas planned for industrial or research uses.
E. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER SIMILAR
NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE
IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER.ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE
PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY
ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
The amendments to the trails program will contribute to a less hazardous and
thus improved recreational amenity which will have less potential to conflict
with surrounding development.
F. THE STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND
ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON.
The revised alignment of E, Orange Avenue reflected on the amended GDP is
consistent with the alignment approved with the recent General Plan
Amendment for the area.
G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED
y ?-.22
Resolution No. 17618
Page 5
ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION(SI PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE
ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH
PROPOSED LOCATION(S).
The amendments do not involve areas planned for commercial uses.
H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND
ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID
DEVELOPMENT.
The amendments are consistent with the previouslV approved plans and
regulations applicable to surrounding areas.
VII. SPA FINDINGS
A.
THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AS AMENDED IS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE EASTLAKE II (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION) GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
t
The amended EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan reflects land use,
circulation system, and public facilities that are consistent with the EastLake
II (EastLake I Expansion) General Developmant Plan and the Chula Vista General
Plan.
B.
THE EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED
WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA Plan, as amended allows, in the context of market demand a more
logical transition of construction within the East1.8ke Greens Planned
Community, consistent with the phasing of internal and external infrastructure,
and the amendments have been found to be consistent with the EastLake II
(EastLake I Expansion) Public Facilities Financing Plan, Air Qualitv Improvement
Plan, and Water Conservation Plan.
C. THE OTC SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AS AMENDED WILL NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT,
CIRCULATION, OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within the EastLake Greens SPA area represent the lime uses
approved bv the EastLake II (EastLake I Expansion) General Development Plan.
VIII. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act,
~ 7~2]
Resolution No. 17618
Page 6
the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned herein
for Eastlake Greens. Chula Vista Tract No. PCS-88-3 is in conformance with
"the elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following:
a. land Use Element
The General Plan designates the Eastlake Greens residential areas for
Low-Medium (3-6 du/ac) density development. The proposed addition
of 22.7 acres at the mid-point of the Low-Medium density range (4.5
du/ac) is consistent with the previously approved land use intensity.
The project. as conditioned. provides a wide landscape buffer along the
north side of E. Orange Avenue. in conformance with landform grading
and scenic highway principles of the General Plan.
b. Circulation Element
All of the on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the
subdivision will be constructed or DIF fees paid by the developer in
accordance with the Eastlake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan and
Development Agreement.
Bicycle paths have been incorporated within the EastLake Greens
community area and will be constructed as part of the project.
)
c. Housing Element
The proposed project will provide a minimum of 10% affordable housing
including a mix of housing types and lot sizes for single-family.
townhouses. condominium and various apartment densities that will
provide a wide spectrum of housing prices for persons of various
incomes.
d. Parks and Recreation Element
The subdivision will provide approximately 37.4 acres of improved
community and neighborhood parks in accordance with locations and
standards of the General Plan. The required park acreage for EastLake
Greens is 26.6 acres.
e. Public Facilities Element
The project is obligated in the conditions of approval to participate in
providing the water facilities. wastewater facilities and drainage facilities
required by the policies of the General Plan.
Public building sites are included within the subdivision; however. these
~ 7~-2t(
Resolution No. 17618
Page 7
sites will not be affected by the proposed amendment.
f. Open Space and Conservation Element
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies
of the General Plan element for this site.
g. Safety Element
The project site is considered a seismically active area. although there
are no known active faults on or adjacent to the property. The fire
protection facilities and services needed to serve the project have been
reviewed by the Fire Department. Other emergency service agencies
have reviewed the proposed subdivision for conformance with safety.
policy. The Project. es amended. will not increase the need for
additional police and fire personnel.
h.
Noise Element
(
Noise mitigation measures included in the Environmental Impact Report
SEIR-86-04 and Mitigated Negative Declaration IS.94.19 adequately
address the noise pOlicy in the General Plan. All dwelling units within
the project will be required to be designed so as to not exceed the
interior noise level of 45 dBA. Additionally, all exterior private open
space will be shielded by a combination of earth. berm. wall. and/or
buildings to achieve a 65 dBA noise level for outside private areas.
B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. the Council certifies
that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the
region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the
residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
C. The configuration. orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the
optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities
as required by Government Code Section 66473.1.
D. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal
conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects.
X. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the foregoing Discretionary Approvals Amendments which are stated
to be conditioned on .General Conditions. ere hereby conditioned as follows:
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
~ 7;~/
Resolution No.1 7618
Page 8
Developer. or their successors in interest. shall improve the Project Site with
the Project as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. except as
modified by this Resolution.
B. Implement Mitigation Measures
Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all
mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
C. Implement the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Developer shall implement. or cause the implementation of, all portions of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pertaining to the Project and
Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-94-19 .
D. Update Documents
Twenty-five (25) copies of replacement pages. exhibits, maps and plans
reflecting the amendments approved herein shall be submitted to the Planning
Department within two weeks of approval of this resolution.
XI. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
)
1. Final assessment and determination of parkland requirements for single
family detached condominium developments shall be conducted during
the Design Review and/or Tentative Map processing staga of each
individual project. Updated cumulative parkland data shall be submitted
with each development proposal to the Director of Parks and Recreation
for review and approval.
2. Final Golf Course Trail end Golf Course Vista Point design shall be
subject to review and approval by the Director of Parks and Recreation
end the Director of Planning. Detailad design information for the .Vista
Points" shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the associated
parcels within which they are located. Said "Vista Points. shall be
improved prior to or concurrently with each development proposal.
B. Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions
Prior to epproval of the associated/applicable final map, unless otherwise
indicated, the developer shall:
GENERALfPRELlMINARY
~ 7~;Ltf,
Resolution No. 17618
Page 9
,. Comply with all unfulfilled condition of approval of the Eastlake Greens
Tentative Map. Chula Vista Tract 88-3 established by Resolution No.
'5200 approved by Council on July' 8. '989.
2. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final
maps. submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the
City Engineer and Director of Planning prior to approval of any final map
which includes phasing. Improvements, facilities and dedications to be
provided with each phase or unit of development shall be as determined
by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. The City reserves the
right to conditionally approve each final map with the requirement to
provide improvements. facilities and/or dedications as necessary to
provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of police and
fire departments. The City Engineer and Planning Director may. at their
discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should
conditions change to warrant such revision.
STREETS. RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS
3. Dedicate on-site and off-site street right-of-way for the construction of
East Orange Avenue from its intersection with Hunte Parkway to the
westerly subdivision boundary.
t
4.
Design southerly knuckle on Street PP to conform to City design
standards.
5. Provide to the City a letter from Otay Municipal Water District indicating
that the assessments/bonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated to
the City have been paid or that no assessments exist on the parcellsl.
6. Present written verification to the City Engineer from Otay Water District
that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long
term water storage facilities.
7. Grant to the City a 10-foot wide utility easement adjacent to the street
right-of-way within the open space lots in Units 4, 10, 12, 15, 18, 2'.
23,26,27,30,31, or as approved by the City Engineer.
S. Construct an S' wide sidewalk for the Golf Course Neighborhood Trail
as shown on the EastLake Greens Trails Plan along the following streets:
a. South Greensview Drive - from Clubhouse Drive to Hunte
Parkway.
b. Hunte Parkway - from So. Greensview Drive to the southerly
boundary of Unit 27.
~ //2 7
Resolution No. 17618
Page 10
c. Clubhouse Drive - along the northerly boundary of Clubhouse
Drive.
Provide additional right-of-way and lor easements as required by the City
Engineer for installation of utilities, street lights, and fire hydrants.
9. Provide for the maintenance of the proposed sewer pump station on
East Orange Avenue in accordance with Council Policy # 570-03
edopted by Resolution 17491, and the Agreement to Provide Sewer
Pump Station Maintenance for the Eastlake Greens and amendments
thereto.
10. Construct South Greensview Drive from the southeasterly limits of Unit
20 to the easterly limits of Unit 38 as shown on the approved revised
tentative map when the Average Daily Trips measured on Silverado
immediately south of Clubhouse Drive exceeds 1200.
1 1 . Prior to the approval of each final map for the subject development
acquire all off-site right-of-way necessary for the installation of the
required improvements for that subdivision. Notify the City at least 60
days prior to consideration of a Final Map by City if off-site right-of-way
cannot be obtained for the improvements. (Only off-site right-of-way or
easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are
covered by this condition).
J
After said notification the developer shall:
a. Have ell easements and/or right-of-way documents end plats
prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to
commence condemnation proceedings.
b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-
of-way or easements. said estimate to be approved by the City
Engineer. .
c. Pay the full cost. both direct end indirect, of acquiring off-site
right-of-way or easements required.
The requirements of a.b and c above shall be satisfied prior to approval
of the final map for which the off-site right-of-way or easements are
required.
All off-site requirements which fall under the purviaw of Section
66462.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act will be waived if the City
does not comply with the 120 day time limitation specified in the
section of the Act.
~ 7-02~
Resolution No. 17618
Page 11
(This condition supersedes Condition of Approval No. 19 for the
Eastlake Greens Tentative Map approved by City Council Resolution No.
15200).
12. Street sections shall be revised to reflect current street design
standards. Street design standards shall be applicable to future streets.
GRADING/DRAINAGE
13. Obtain easements in favor of City for off.site detention basin and storm
basin near East Orange/Hunte Parkway intersection as required by City
Engineer.
14. Grade 20 foot wide landscape buffer along East Orange Avenue at 5:1
ratio.
15. Relocate detention basin storm drain outlet beyond toe of southerly
slope of East Orange Avenue grading.
16. Provide energy dissipators at all storm drain outlets as required by the
City Engineer to maintain non-erosive flow velocities.
(
17. Design and line desilting basins with concrete to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
18. Provide an updated soils report or en eddendum to the original document
prepared bye registered engineer, es required by the City Engineer.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
19. Agree to grant in fee to the City public access easements over paved
walkways to Golf Course Trail vista points as Ipproved by the City
Engineer and the Director of Parks & Recreation Deplrtment.
20. Request Innexation into Eastllke Maintenance District '1 of all areas
within the tentative map boundary not currently included in the district
prior to epproval of the first finel map which includes said areas.
Deposit $3,000 to initiate Innexation proceedings. Pay III costs of
proceedings.
21. Grant in fee to the City ell open space lots shown on the epproved
tentative map to be granted.to the City end execute Ind record a deed
for each lot.
22. Submit a list of all facilities located On open space lots proposed to be
ft4
7,,21
Resolution No. 17618
Page 12
maintained by the existing Eastlake Maintenance District No.1. This list
shall include a description. quantity and unit price per year for the
perpetual maintenance of all facilities located on open space lots to
include but not be limited to: walls. fences. water fountains. lighting
structures. paths. access roads. drainage structures and landscaping.
Only those items on an open space lot are eligible for open space
maintenance. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the
number of acres of turf. irrigated. and non-irrigated open space to aid
the estimation of a maintenance budget thereof.
23. Design landscape buffer for erosion control adjacent to the right-of-way
of East Orange Avenue with plant species requiring no permanent
irrigation and maintain/replace plantings as necessary for an
establishment period of one year or as extended by the City Landscape
Architect. City Engineer and Director of Parks & Recreation. Prior to
approval of the preliminary landscaping plans. which include portions of
or the entire landscape buffer. provide to the City a bond in an amount
approved by the City Landscape Architect to guarantee installation
maintenance of said landscaping.
24. Pay additional fees on a fair-share basis into the Assessment District
Numbers 90-3. 91-' or other applicable assessment districts due to
additional units approved subsequent to District formation.
25. Make payment to reduce the debt on any parcels whose density is lower
than assumed for the assessment districts at the time of District
formation.
J
26. Pay all costs associated with apportionment of assessments for all City
assessment districts as a result of subdivision of lands within the project
boundary. Request apportionment and provide a deposit to the City
estimated at $40/unit/district to cover costs prior to approval of a final
map for the unit being finaled.
27. Prepare a disclosure form to be signed by the home buyar
acknowledging that additional fees have been paid into the Assassmant
District or the Transportation DIF Fund, and thet these additional faes
are raflected in the purchase price of the home for those units which
have a density change from that indicated in the assessment district's
Engineer's Report.
28. Submit all disclosure forms for the approval of the City Engineer.
29. The configuration of open space lot -000- shall be maintained as
originally approved.
30. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be revised to incorporate a 75'
~ 7-J8
Resolution No. 17618
Page 13
wide (average) landscape buffer along the north side of East Orange
Avenue.
31. The 75' wide landscape buffer along East Orange Avenue shall be
graded in accordance with City landform grading principles and shall be
subject to review and approval by the City landscape Architect. A
landscape plan Is) for the subject scenic highway buffer shall be
submitted to the City landscape Architect prior to or concurrently with
the first Tentative Subdivision Map or other site plan review application
submitted for Parcel R-10 or R-12.
AGREEMENTS
Enter into an agreement with the City whereby the developer agrees to:
\
32. Defend. indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents. officers
and employees. from any claim, action or proceeding against the City,
or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul
any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission,
City Councilor any approval by its agents. officers, or employees with
regard to this subdivision provided the City promptly notifies the
subdivider of any claim. action or proceeding end on the further
condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
33. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion. siltation or increase
flow of drainage resulting from this project.
34. Insure that all franchised cable television companies I.Cable Company. I
are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable
television service to each lot within the subdivision. Restrict access to
the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are.
and remain in compliance with. all of the terms and conditions of the
franchise and which are hi further compliance with all other rules.
regulations. ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the
operation of cable television companies as same may have been. or may
from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.
35. Comply with the terms and conditions of tha AcquisitionlFinanCing
Agreement for Assessment district 94-1. CO 94-064. approved by
Council Resolution R 17483 as said terms and conditions may be
.pplicable to this development.
MISCELLANEOUS
36. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System -Zone VI
119831.
~ 7-J/
Resolution No. 17618
Page 14
37. Submit copies of Final Maps in a digital format such as (DXF) graphic file
'Prior to approval of each Final Map. Provide computer aided Design
(CAD) copy of the Final Map based on accurate c.oordinate geometry
calculations and submit the information in accordance with the City
Guidelines for Digital Submittal in duplicate on 5-1/2 HD floppy disk prior
to the approval of each Final Map.
38. Update the Eastlake Greens Public Facilities financing Plan as required
by Chapter V of said approved document.
39. Fire hydrants shall be installed and operable and fire access roads shall
be usable prior to delivery of any combustible construction materials.
40. A wildland fuel modification program may be required on interface areas
between residences and open space.
XII. CODE REOUIREMENT REMINDERS
1. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista current
standards, Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
2.
Fire flow of 1,000 gpm shall be maintained within the Project area.
.J
3. Fire Department access roads shall be a minimum of 20' wide and constructed
with an all-weather driving surface.
XIII. CONSE~UENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur. or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time. if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute
litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their
violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the
City's approval of this Resolution.
XIV. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinetor to post a Notice of
Determination and file the same with the County Clerk.
~ /~32
Resolution No. 17618
Page 15
XV. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that anyone or more terms. provisions or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable,
this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and
effect ab initio.
Presented by
J
.....>.::"'/ /' / /-
/~~/I/-; t/~
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
l
(led .". f~ m y (
l 'j\~- ~ \ML.'
. Bruce M. Boog~ard
City Attorney
L
~ 7/})
Resolution No. 17618
Page 16
General
Development
Plan
(PROPOSED)
...
HI
l'IESIlENT.... oj
-- -. .... lIl!. I
m- -. .. HI
...- .... ... ....
. - ... ... -
...- .... ..... -
. .. .... .... ..
-.- .," -
1ClN-1lE!DENtW.
-- -
..... ...
r4 ...: U
=~..
...~ cr.
~ J\a tIP.
......-.. ....
---. ....,
.....,. ...i
J:::&J ... IIiIIrI ",I
....,.. ...........
)
--..-..-
EJ Areas being amended
...-----.--------
..-------
~FASTLAKE
A I\AIHD c:c:lhMHTY It W'lI.AlCI llIVEICIMNl co
~\Ilti""
!---.... ~
..-.
.,-
EJHlll ,
~ 7~J:/
Resolution No. 17618
Page 17
(
"-
~
Eastlake , \
Hills .~ \
~Eastlake -~;;;;:,..
~"Shores ~
A_
Eastlake
Village
Center
Eastlake
Business
Center
Project
Components
(neighborhoods)
I
=='
.....
~
-nEa.stlake DI
-L/
.
I.
Eastlake IV
"-
c
r.:J
IEAS'II.AKE IICllNIAAY
EAS1I.AI<E .
--,-
.....: .... .. .. ...... D_ . .~"..............
......_._A .. 0..... ..... ... ........,.
~ fASTLAKE
A PlANNED COMMUNITY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
~
~..c,..._..
~~_:
Exhibit 2
jvr+ ?~Js'
Resolution No. 17618
Page 18
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 16th day of August, 1994, by the following vote:
YES: Councilmembers:
Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, Nader
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
None
ABSTAIN: ~ouncilmembers:
None
,;:- -/7 ~/
, ~ /~~-,.
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
YiP~{ ~~:t
Beverly . Authelet. City Clerk
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO I 55.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA I
I. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California. do hereby certify that
1he foregoing Resolution No. 17618 was duly passed. approved. and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 16th day of August.
1994.
Executed this 16th dey of August, 1994.
~i:.tl (2-:tf:lll
Beverly A Authelet. City Clerk
~?~yt
Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 3
,
-
Mr. Goss stated staff could look at doing that, but there was also equipment that had to be acquired that was fairly
expensive.
Mayor Nader questioned if Woodward-Clyde bad laboratory flCilities in the region.
Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, responded they did.
RESOLUTION 17617 OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed md approved
unanimously.
· · END OF CONSENT CALENDAR · ·
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
II. PUBLIC HEARING PCA-'4-04; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1'-'4
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CONDOMINIUMS
WIDCH ARE NONCONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO DENSITY - CITY INITIATED - Recently, potential
buyers of an individual condominium unit could not obtain financing because the project within whicb the unit is
located is nonconforming with respect to present density limitations. Therefore, the same Dumber of units could
Dot be rebuilt if the project was more than 60lli destroyed pcor Section 19.64.150 of the Municipal Code. Staff
believes this is a problem unique to condominiums wbicb mould be addressed by amending the code to allow
replacement in sucb cases. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Plaooing)
(
ORDINANCE 2599 AMENDING SECTION 1'.64.150 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING SECTION 1'.64.155 TO MODIFY THE NONCONFORMING USES REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO THE REPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS /first .....d;,"')
Mayor Nader stated be owned and lived in a condominium and had been advised by the City AltonIey that be abould
abstain from participation.
Councilmember Rindooe Ilated be owned apartments and felt be abould also abstain from participation.
Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney, stated it was a matter of caution. The ellception was whether or DOl the matter
affected the public generally or if the affect was distinguiabable on the Councilmember from the public generally.
Mayor Nader stated be would trail the item until Councilmember Horton arrived.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public bearing was opened by Mayor Pro Tern Horton. Mayor
Nader and Councilmember Riodooe left the dias. There being DO public testimony, the public beario. was closed.
ORDINANCE 2599 PLACED ON FIRST READING BY COUNCo..MEMBER MOORE, readin& or the text
was waived, passed and approved 3~2 with Nader and Rindone abstaining.
~
12. PUBLIC HEARING PCZ-NDIPCM-lI4-24IPCM-lI4-27IPCM-9UfPCS.88.3A; CONSIDERATION
OF !'REZONING AND INCORPORATING APPROXIMATELY 22.7 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN
EASTLAKE GREENS AND AMENDING THE EASTLAKE D (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION) GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS SPA PLAN, EASTLAKE D (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION)
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, EASTLAKE GREENS AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS WATER CONSERVATION PLAN, AND EASTLAKE
GREENS MASTER TENTATIVE MAP (TRACT 88-3) - EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The
EastLake Development Company has requested amendments to the EastLake II General Development Plan, EastLake
Greens Sectional Plaooin. Area (SPA), EastLake II Planned Community District RelDlalions, East! .Ir~ Greens Air
Quali!y and Water Conservation Plan, EastLake Greens Master Tentative Map, and a prezone and addition of
approximately 22.7 ICreS of unincorporated land to the existing EastLake Greens SPA area. The purpose for the
request is to: (I) Incorporate into the planning and regulatory framework of the EastLake Greens SPA Plan those
~ 7~J?
...-c- .
parcels of the EastLake Greens General Plan Amendment whicb take access from the internal circulation of the
EastLake Greens Planned Community (northeast of the SDG&E transmission lines); (2) Improve the spatial and
functioilal relationship of residential density/product distribution within the EastLake Greens Planned Community
area; and (3) Update the EastLake Greens SPA Plan and supplementary documents 10 reflect current statistics and
technical refmements based on site plan approvals and market considerations. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinances on first reading and approve the resolution. (Director of Planning)
...~-
A. ORDINANCE 2600 APPROVING TIlE PREZONING OF 22.7 ACRES OF UNINCORPORATED
LAND TO P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY AND ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ON 15-94-1' AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THERETO (first readil...\
B. ORDINANCE 2601 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE n (EASTLAKE I
EXPANSION) PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (LAND USE DISTRICT MAP ONLY)
AND ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON 15-'4-1' AND MITIGATION
_ MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THERETO !first readin~\
C. RESOLUTION 17618 APPROVING AND IMPOSING AMENDMENTS AND CONDITIONS ON
THE EASTLAKE U (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION) GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE
GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
PLAN, EASTLAKE GREENS WATER CONSERVATION PLAN AND EASTLAKE GREENS MASTER
TENTATlVESUBDMSION MAP AND ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF 15-94-
l' AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THERETO
Ken Lee, Assistant Director of Planning, summarized the issues involved with the project. Condition IC of the
ordinance refened 10 the Dorth side of parcel R27 (trail system) and should be corrected to read the north side of
Clubbouse Drive.
· · · Councllmember Horton urived at 6:26 p.m. · · ·
Mayor Noder stated the Resource Conservation Commission minutes should have been iDcJuded in the packet. He
had read the minutes which reflected a S~ vote for the mitigated negative declaration.
This being !be time and place as odvertised, the public bearing was declared ope.o.
J
. Bruce Sloan, 900 Lane Avenue, '100, Cbula Vista, CA, representing Eas,1.olte Developmetlt Company,
c:oncurred with the staff recommendations.
There being DO further public testimony, the public bearing was closed.
ORDINANCES %600 AND 2601 PLACED ON FIRST READING AND RESOLUTION 17618 OFFERED BY
COUNCn.MEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously,
13. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF PROGRAM CHANGES OF RESIDENTIAL YARD
WASTE RECYCLING SERVICES FROM AN OPTIONS PROGRAM TO A UNIVERSAL MANDATORY
RATE STRUCTURE -The City's residential yard waste collection propm began 1/1/94 as a unique 'options'
program which allows &ingle-family residents the choice ofbow they will participate, based on their own. '-""It
of their yard waste Deeds. A review of the participation, costa, and _enue of the first sill months of the voluntary
.options' program show that costa are far elI~ing reveaue and continuation of the program is dependent upon
a rste odjustmetlt to cover collection and prooessing costa. Letten were .-ived from Laidlaw ~
consideration of an _dment 10 the yard waste fee IlnIcIure effective 9/1/94 which would involve a change 10
a universal mandatory rate stNCture 10 be spread to all &ingle-family residents. Staff recommends approval of the
naolution. (Deputy City M~er Krempl)
RESOLUTION 17619 APPROVING A UNIVERSAL RESIDENTIAL YARD WASTE
COLLECTION RATE CHANGE TO S1.48 PER SINGLE-FAMll.Y HOME
J
~?~)'r
EXlft(31TC2.
Revised 7/25/:
RESOImION 00. 15 200
RESOImION 01' THE CITY CXlUICIL OF THE CITY OF 0lUIA VISTA
APPROVING TENI'ATIVE /'lAP Pm Eo'SI'LAKE GREENS, 0lUIA VISTA
'lRJ.C1' 88- 3
...
-
follows:
'nle City Council of the City of Olula Vista does hereby resolve as
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision for the EastLake Greens area
~s 830 acres of land located in the eastern portion of the City of
Chula Vista east of I-80S and south of otay Lakes R:>ad, and
~, the subdivision includes streets, open space, church sites,
commercial lots, park sites, school sites, condominium lots and single-family
lots, and
WIIEREAS, the Envirolllllental Impact Report EIR-86-4 was considered
previously, and
WIIEREAS, on June 21, 1989, the Planning camtission, by a vote of
6-0, reco"".ended that the COlIlcil approve the EastLake Greens Tentative Hap
subject to the .fOllowing:
On an interim basis, Parcels R-24, R-25, R-26, R-27, and R-28 shall
be zoned at the target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acres. A maxinum of
4,034 units will be approved for EastLllke II until such time as the
guidelines for exceeding the target density for the General Plan Update are
resolved. 'ftIe following procedure will occur to determine additional
density, if any, for the EastLake project.
a. Specific guidelines for exceeding the target General Plan
density will be adopted,
b. 'ftIe adopted General Plan policies will be applied to determine
the incremental units to be added to EastLake II.
c. '!be units from the new calculation will be distributed to these
five parcels or other unsubdivided. portion of EastLake Greens
Tentative Map.
d. 'nle SPA Plan and Tentative Map will be returned to the Planning
cam.ission and City Council for adoption of the increased
density, if any.
tOi, ~, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Olula Vista does hereby approve the tentative map for EastLllke Greens, Olula
Vista Tract 88-3, based on the findings set forth herein and subject to the
fOllowing conditions:
Enqineer!ng Department COnditions:
1. Publie iaprovements required in this resolution shall include, but not
be limited to: A.C. pavement and base, concrete curb, gutter and
V7~J}
sidewalk, traffic signals, street lights, traffic signs, street trees,
fire hydrants, sanitary sewers, water and drainage facilities.
All i""rovements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
City standards.
..
-
..... ,
2. The developer shall be responsible for:
a. The construction of public street improvements of all streets shown
on the tentative map within the subdivision.
b. The construction of public street improvements for all off-site
portions of Olay Lakes Road, Hunte Parkway, Palomar Street and
Orange Avenue along the full length of the subject property. Full
width i""rovements shall be required unless the developer can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that partial
i""rovements will meet the Cittl standards for traffic, bicycles,
pedestrians and parking. Transitions to existing improvements shall
be provided as required by the City Engineer.
3. a. The developer shall guarantee the construction of the following
inprovements prie'r to the approval of the final map for any of the
phases of development identified in the EastLake Greens phasing
plan. The developer may submit an alternate proposal to provide
access to any individual or group of phases identified herein. Said
proposal shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Engineer.
Phase Facilities Needed · (see table I for description of
each facility.)
1A 1, 2
18 1, 3, 4, a, 15
lC 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, a, 9, 13, 15
10 1, 2, 6, 7, a, 9, 10, 13, 15
2 1, 2, 6, 7, a, 9, 10, 15
3 1, 2, 28, 6, 7, a, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15
· Facilities that shall be guaranteed prior to approval of final
map for the corresponding phase and conpleted prior to permits
being iBBued for the subsequent phase (i.e., facilities for lA
through D COI1pleted before permits for Phase 2 are issuedl.
b. The developer shall CJUarantee the construction of all interior public
inprovements required for development of any unit of developnent
prior to approval of the Pinal Subdivision Map for said unit.
4. Right turn lanes and dual left turn lanes shall be provided at the
intersection of any of the following street classifications: major-major,
major-prime arterial, prime arterial-prime arterial.
5. Palomar Street from the westerly subdivision boundary to EastLake Parkway
shall be constructed as a 4-lane ex>llector (74 feet from curb-to-curbl.
P ?-Yt/
6. No direct access for residential driveways will be allowed to Street "A.,
EastLake Parkway, mInte Parkway, street "E", "D. Street, street "F., Otay
Lakes Road, Orange Avenue and Palomar Street. The location of streel
entries and major entries for IIUlti-family projects to the above streets
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
,
7. Lot frontage on cul~sacs ~d knuckles shall not be less than 35 feet-
unless approved by the City Engineer.
8. a. A transition to eXisting inprovenents is required on otay Lakes Road
east of Hunte Parkway. Baid transition shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
b. 'nle intersection of Hunte Parkway and Orange Avenue shall require
special treatment to transition to the prime arterial status of Hunte
Parkway southerly of said intersection.
TABLE I
DESCRIPl'ION OP ORSI're 'DlANSPORTATION PACILITIES
-
Pacility No.
I
2
Street
Portion
EastLake Parkway
EastLake Parkway
Olay Lakes Road to Street "D"
street "D" to the Interim
Terminus South of the SDG&E
Easement
2a
EastLake Parkway
Palomar street to the Interim
Terminus SOuth of the SDG&E
Easement
3 street D
4 North Street "A"
5 North street "A"
6* South Street "A"
7 Street "E"
e HlD'Ite Parkway
9 HlD'Ite Parkway
10 HlD'Ite Parkway
EastLake Parkway to North
Street "A"
Street "0" to Hunte Parkway
Street "0" to Street "E"
Street "0" to HlD'Ite Parkway
EastLake Parkway to Street "A"
Olay Lakes Road to South
Boundary of Phase 18
Street "E" to North Boundary
of Phase lC
Street "E" to South Street "A"
_1_
~ ?~r/
11 Hunte Parkway South Street "A" to Orange
Avenue
-
12 Orange ~venue Runte Parkway to West
Boundary of SUbcli vision .. .
-
13 Street "E" Street "A" to Hunte Parkway
14 Palomar Street EastLake Parkway to West
Boundary of the Subdivision
15 otay Lakes Road Lane Avenue to Hunte Parkway
.
In conjunction with developnent at Phase lD, developer IIIiIY construct
eidler that portion of South Street A to connect Street 00 to Street "D"
or that portion to Bunte Parkway.
9. Underground traffic signal equipment and traffic signal standards shall be
installed at the follOWing intersections:
.
EastLake Parkway and OtlIy Lakes Iald
EastLake Parkway and "D" Street
EastLake Parkway and "E" Street
EastLake Parkway and Palomar Street
Bunte parkway and OtlIy Lakes Iald
Hunte Parkway and north Street "A"
Bunte parkway and "E" Street
Bunte Parkway and south Street "A"
Hunte Parkway and Orange Avenue
"E" Street and Street "A"
"D" Street and north Street "A".
Mast ams, signal heads and associated equipment shall not be installed
unless approved by the City Engineer.
10. Interconnect concl1it, pull boxes and pullrope shall be installed to
connect fOllowing intersection signal syBtems.
Olay Lakes lald/llDute 125 to OtlIy Lakes lald/EastLake Parkway
Clay Lakes Road~ke Parkway to otay Lakes Road,1lunte Parkway
Olay Lakes Iald/llUtLake Parkway to EastLake Parkway/"D" Street
EastLake Parkway!"D" Street to fCorth Street "A"/"D" Street
EastLake parkway!"D" Street to EastLake Parkway!"E" Street
EastLake Parkway!"E" Street to EastLake Parkway/Palomar Street
Bunte Parkway/t)tay Lakes Iald to Bunte Parkway~rth Street "A"
Bunte Parkway/Street "A" to Bunte Parkway/"E" Street
EastLake Parkway!"E" Street to Street "A !"E" Street
Street "A"!"E" Street to Bunte Parkway!"E" Street
Bunte Parkway!"E" Street to Bunte Parkway~rth Street "A"
Bunte Parkway/south Street "A" to Bunte Parkway/Orange Avenue
Orange Avenue east of IUlte Parkway to subdivision boundary.
0' ?-tjc:L
,
Locations where CJ?lf course crossings of streets are provided shaIl
be clearly signed and marked. . Where streets being crossed are
classified to carry traffic at a speed greater than 2S ~, such
crossings shall only be at intersectioos or through the use of grade
separation structures.
'!he developer or other subsequent owner of the golf course shall
agree to be responsible for the payment to the City of oogoing repair
and maintenance costs of any grade separation structures which may be
required for the benefit of the golf course.
Golf course safety features shall be reviewed by the City Engineer in
conjunctioo with constructioo of the golf rourse.
12. All streets which intersect other streets at or near horizontal or
vertical curves IlUSt meet intersectioo design sight distance requirements
in aoc:ordance with Ci~ standards.
11. a.
A conditional use permit shall be filed with the City for the golf
course, clubhouse, and related swimming and tennis facility prior to
issuance of building permits for purposes of regulating operations,
uses, and site design.
b.
c.
d.
13. a. Il1s stops with concrete benches shall be provided along both sides of
Street "A" adjacent to the intersections with the fOllowing streets:
street "E", street "G", street "D", street "00" and Street "1"'".
Il1s turnouts shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
b. Il1s stops with concrete benches shall be provided along both sides of
Hunte Parkway adjacent to the intersections with street "E" and south
Street "A". Il1s shelters as approved by the City Engineer shall be
provided along both sides of EastLake Parkway adjacent to the
intersection with street "E" or appropriate alternative locations.
14. Right turn lanes shall be provided on Street "A" at the intersections of
street "A" with street "D" and SOUth street "A" with Hunte Parkway. A
right turn lane shall be provided on EastLake Parkway at its intersection
with street "E".
15. a. All streets within the III1lti-family developnents and the access road
to unit 29 shall be private. Detailed horizontal and vertical
alignment of the centerline of said streets shall be reflected on the
1Rprov~t plans for said developments. Design of said streets
shallllll!et the City standards for private streets.
b. Private streets in units 1 and 2 (single family detached units) shall
meet City standards for public streets or standards acceptable to the
City Engineer.
c. All 8Ubdivisions proposing private streets with controlled access
devioea, such as 94tes, shall cor:tain the fOllowing features:
o 7--1/)'
ll) Gates shall be approved by the City Engineer. Gates shall be
located to provide sufficient room to queue up without
interrupting traffic on public streets.
-
(2) A turn around ~hall be provided at the location of the gate.
'ftIe size and lacation of said turn around shall be approved by .
the City Engineer.
(3) 'ftIe border between public street and private street shall be
delineated through the use of distinctive pavement.
(4) Provisions shall be _de for emergency vehicle access.
16. All the streets shown on the subject tentative nap within the subdivision
boundary, except as described above, shall be dedicated for public use.
Detailed horizontal and vertical "alignment for said streets shall be
reflected 011 the iJlprovements plans for the subject subdivision or any
unit thereof. Design of said streets shall meet all City standards for
p.Iblic streets.
17. 'ftIe owner shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance
easements along all publ!'c: streets within the subdivision as shown on the
tentative map. said easement shall extend 10 feet fran the back of the
sidewalk except on Runte Parkway and portions of BaatLake Parkway as
provided below. Along Runte Parkway, said easement shall extend 10 feet
fran the property line and ahall contain no slope steeper than 5:1
(horizontal to vertical ratio). 'ftIe entire area of said tree planting
easement along Runte Parkway shall be offered for dedication on the
subdivision IIIlp8 for future street plrposea. 'ftIe tree planting easement
along those portions of BaatLake Parkway containing ~ring sidewalks
shall coincide with the proposed sidewalk easement as shown on the
'1'entati",. flap.
18. 'ftIe owner shall grant to the City a 10 foot sidewalk easement adjacent to
the property line for the installation of a IIlHlldering sidewalk at the
following locations:
a. Otay LIlkes Road along the full length of the frontage of Unit 17.
b. BastLake Parkway - along the frontage of "nits 29, 34 and 32 (north
of the intersection of "E" Street).
e. Street B
Betwe'l BastLake parkway and Street - along the frontaqe of unit
25.
Between street A and Bunte Parkway - along the frontage of Units
28, 29, 37 and 39.
19. Prior to the approval of any final np for subject subdivision or any unit
thereof, the subdivider shall obtain all off-site right-of-way necessary
for the installation of required inprovements for that unit.
""~ ?~f/7
If the developer requests the City to use its powers to acquire said
off-site right-of-way, the developer shall pay all costs, both direct and
indirect incurred in said acquisition.
-
20. The developer shall ~ant to the City l' control lots adjacent to the
follC7tfing streets: _ ~. ·
a. South end of BastLake Parkway.
b. SOUth end and east side of Hunte Parkway.
c. 8:lth ends of Street A.
d. 8:lth ends of Orange Avenue.
e. West end and southerly side of Palanar Street.
f. Both sides of Orange Avenue.
21. Striping plans shall be provided for the following streets: Street "A",
Street "D", Street "E", EastLake Parkway, Hunte Parkway, Orange Avenue,
Olay Lakes RoIld and palanar Street. Striping plans shall be approved in
conjunction with inprovement plans for said streets.
22. Prior to the approval of any final subdivision map which includes a
portion of the streets listed below, the developer shall submit plans
demonstrating the feas1bility of the extension of the said streets:
a. EastLakeParkway - from palanar Street to Orange Avenue.
b. Hunte Parkway - from Otay Lakes RoIld to East "H" Street.
c. palanar Street - from the subject subdivision a minilllJlll distance of
1,000 ft. westerly.
d. orange Avenue - a minilllJlll distance of 1,000 ft. westerly.
23. a. The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate canpliance
with all drainage requirements of the &1bdivision Manual to include,
but not be limited to, dry lane requirements. CAlculations shall
also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage
structures, pipes and inlets.
b. ~fic IIethods of handling stonn drainage are subject to detailed
approval by the City Engineer at the tilll8 of 8Ubmission of
inprovement and grading plans. Design shall be aCCXlllplished on the
basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading
Ordinance (11797 as amended).
c. Graded aexes. shall be provided to all storm drain structures
inclUding inlet and outlet structures as required by the City
Engineer. Paved access shall be provided to drainage structures
located in the rear yard of any residential lot.
24. a. The developer shall obtain notarized letters of permission for all
off-site grading work prior to issuance of grading permit for work
requiring said off-site grading.
b. Lots shall be 80 graded as to drain to the street or to an approved
drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes.
~ 7~?/3
25. Sewer 1MJlholes shall be provided at all changes of alignment and grade.
Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a mininum
grade of 1\.
--
26. '1he developer shall ~ly with all relevant Federal, state and local
regulations, including:. the Clean Water Act. '1he developer ahall".bl!
responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to
denonstrate Aid CXlIIplianoe as required by the City Engineer.
27. A paved acoeas road with a IlliniJlum width of 12 feet shall be provided to
all sanitary sewer III4I'lholes. '1he roadway shall be designed for an 8-20
Wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer.
28. 'DIe developer shall grant easements for all off-site public storm drains
and sewer facilities prior to approval of any final map requiring those
fa~ilities. Basements shall be a IllinillLllll width of six feet greater than
pipe size, but in no ClUe, less than 10 feet.
29. An erosion and 8edimentation oontrol plan shall be included as part of the
grading plans.
30. 'DIe developer shall elft:er into an agr_nt whereby the developer agrees
that the City NY withhold building permits for any units in the subject
subdivision if traffic on Otay Lakes RolId, ~legraph Canyon RolId, EllstLake
Parkway, or East -8- street exceed the levels of service identified ill the
City's adopted thresholds.
31. a. 'DIe property owner shall agree to not protest formation of a district
for the Nintenance of the drainage channel in Telegraph Canyon.
b. 'DIe property OlIlIer shall agree to not protest formation of a diatrict
for the Ilaintenance of landscaped ~ians and parkways along streets
within and adjacent to the subject property.
c. 'DIe property owner shall enter into an agreeBlt wherein he agrees to
not protest formation of an asses_nt district for the ClOll8truction
of street inprovements to connect Or~ AverM.Ie and Palomar street to
existing inprovements to the west of the subject property and to not
protest inclusion of the subject lnprovements as projects in the
Eastern ~rritories Developllllnt Inpact Pee system.
32. a. All sanitary _r facilities required for development of lII'Iy lot,
unit or phase shall be 91aranteed prior to recordation of a
subdivision _p for said lot, unit or phase.
b. 'DIe developer shall provide for the ClllBts asaoclated with Ilaintenance
of the _r pJIlp stations prior to approval of any subcUv!sion _pe
whidl aha11 require said punp stations to provide sanitary HIler
service.
c. 'DIe developer shall cbtain peral88ion frQll the City to deposit _age
in a foreign buin prior to approval of.. any subdivision I8P which
ahall require any aewage to be transferred frail an existing basin
~ ?-yt
into another basin. The permission shall be in the form of an
agreement whe~eby the City shall agree to such transfer, and the
developer shall agree to the construction of certain improvements 1n
the system that will accept said sewage and to the cir~s
under which said ~rmission may be revoked.
-
... ,
33. Prior to the approval of any final map for any lot or unit, the owner
shall guarantee the construction of all improvement (streets, sewers,
drainage, utilities, etc.) deemed necessary to provide service to such lot
or unit in aooordance with City standards.
34. Prior to approval of any subdivision map for single family residential
use. The developer shall submit a list of proposed lots indicating
whether the structure will be located on fill, cut, or a transition
between the two situations.
35. South Street -A- and Street -E- (between Street -A- and IIUnte parkway)
shall be 52 feet wide (curb-to-curb) within 72 feet of right-of-way to
provide for on-street parking on one side of each street.
36. Off-site CIlITIUlative transportation impacts shall be mitigated to
insignificant levels- by participating in the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan on a fair share basis with other area
developers.
37. EastLake Greens will be subject to any new City resolution or ordinance
regarding cable television.
Planning Department COnditIons
38. a. Applicant shall request the formation of an open space district.
Maintenance of specific areas may be required to be performed by the
master homeowner's association. ~n space slopes shown adjacent lo
public and private neighborhood parks shall be included in the
established maintenance program.
b. Park dedication and improvement crerJit for private parkS (up to 50\)
IIIlY be considered subject to approval of improvements, park acreage
and activity areas prOVided.
c. Development of all public and private park areas receiving park
credit designated on the subdivision map shall be subject to thf'
approval of the City's Director of Parks and Recreation. Sairl
approval shall comply with the standards listed in Section l7.l0.05Cl
of the tlInicipal COde.
d. Maintenance and credit for the proposed open space trail system shall
be subject to approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation. 'I'll<'
trail ahall consist of an approved D.G. base.
e. Park dedication credit for the COIIIIIUnity park shall not include thf'
alope area adjacent to proposed .125, however, credit shall be given
when park improvements in excess of the Municipal COde requirement!'
are provided.
y-<1 7-~7
f. Any PAD fees to be waived shall be done so upon CXlIlIpletion of parks
or bo.lded guarantees of park collilletion. Bonds provided to the
Department of Real Estate may be sufficient guarantee for private
plIrk i"llrovements. -
..
g. No waiver of Re&l.dential COnstruction Tax is made or i"lllied.. ~y
approval of this _p.
39. Park acreage of 24 acres shall be provided subject to the approval of park
i"llrovement plana by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
40. The open space corridor ~ssing the SDG&E easement and the San Diego
water line shall be incorporated into adjacent land use plans as usable
open space and/or parking. The adjacent land use lots shall be graded to
acccmplish an acceptable interface.
41. The 5:1 qrading shown on EastLake Parkway (reference sheet 12) shall be
eliminated and lIhown as 3:1.
42. A mininum 15 ft. wide landscaped area shall be provided between the
sidewalk and wall areas created along sinqle-family areas an street -A-.
tOrE: Down slopes sha1l COIIIIIence at a mininum distance of 10 ft. fran the
public sidewalk. Alternate tree plantings in approved concrete cone root
containers will be considered for limited are~,I.
43. Q:lpies of proposed (nR's 8hall be filed with the City.
44. A low and IIIOderate illCOll'e housing program with an established pI of 5'
low and 5' IIlOderate shall be i"Illemented subject to the lIpproval of the
City's housing c:oordinator.101'E: A 1\ change resulting in 4\ low and "
IIIlderate is deamed an acceptable tolerance. 'l'his condition ahall be
deferred and further evaluated as a factor in the analysis of the General
Plan denaity policies as they relate to plIrcels R-24, R-25, R-26, R-27,
and R-28.
45. All paved access to sewer and drainage outlets shall be subject to
approval by the Director of Planning.
46. A mininum of three church sites totaling 7 acres shall be designated prior
to recordation of the final map.
47. Qlen space ...ements shown at the rear of various lots backing onto the
qolf couree shall be included in the qolf course maintenance program.
48. All lots adjacent to intersectiona subject to road widening requirements
shall require further review by the Planning Director to determine
acceptability.
49. SChool drlelopnent shall be phased to provide facilities with adequate
capacities to serve residential ocx:upancy. Mello-Roos COImunity
Plcilities District has been formed by the respective school districts.
.y-tD ?-f'r
50. Provide street names on the tentative map.
51.
A conceptual landscape plan, together with a water management plan, shall
be provided prior to City Cowlcil approval of the tentative ma~d
subject to the approval of City's Landscape Architect.
.
-
-. .
52. Development of all parcels shall be in accordance with EastLake Greens SPA
Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan and Design Manual.
53. The developer shall annex all areas within the subdivision boundaries
prior to recordation of any final map.
54. The phasing plan shall be deSigned to connect interior subdivisions within
Phase I to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
55. All lota without approved private or public access shall be shown as a
single lot.
56. The open space shown adjacent to easterly side of Route 125 corridor shall
be dedicated to the City across ita entirety for future transfer to the
State of california as part of future freeway right-of-way. School
District has option o~putting in retaining wall acroas the high school
site.
57. Lotting approval for Unit 14 shall be continued until a precise plan
detailing the design of the project is revi~ by the Design Review
COIIInittee. Thereafter, the lotting of Unit 14 will be considered by the
City ())uncil for tentative subdivision IIIIp approval.
58. Orange Avenue corridor desi9JI shall be subject to approval of the Director
of Planning regarding grading, slope grading, landacaping and fencing.
59. All lota in OniU 4, 7, and 8 shall be . lllininwn of 50 feet wide and 20t
of 10U in OniU 11 and 13 shall be . mininwn of 50 feet wide.
A lllininwn of twnty (20) percant of .11 lots within Units 4, 7. and 8, 11.
and 13 are intended to ...........wdate one-atory units or units with .
one-story plateline .long the street frontage. . said one-story units shall
be pl.ced on lots with a mininun width of 50 feet.
1Iny units diapl8Cllld .s . result of revision to the subdivision _y be
considered for transfer to another unit within EastLake Greens.
60. Major entry poinU to the BastLake Greens development Shall require
.pproval of the Director of Planning with respect to grading, slope
gradient and landacaping.
61. W of the open apace lots shall be dilll!nsioned (see Loop Street "A"
adjacent to Onits 14. 39 and 13).
62. ~n apeCl 10t:8 .djaClnt to priv.te parks shall be included in the priv.te
parka to be nainUined by the 80.._e;:s' Aasociation.
~ 7~Y!
63. A water agreement with otay Municipal water District regarding terminal
storage and water supply shall be required prior to approval of the final
IIIlp.
64. A pedestrian bridge or ~ alternative acceptable to the City Engineer
llhall be OOIl8tructed over~y Lakes Road to connect the COIIIlLUlity trail. .
from EastLake I to EastLake II.
EIR Mitigation Measures - Planning
65. Residential land uses planned adjacent to or near conmercial and
industrial uses shall be adequately buffered. Necessary measures will
include a wall or fence to decrease noise and increase privacy I a
physical, vertical or horizontal separation bet-.. land uses, l.e., a
road, slopes or a landscaped open space bufferl or some type of vegetative
.creen. Inpcta occurring as a result of site-specific. designs will be
mitigated on a site--specific basis. (pg. 4-15)
66. In order to lllitigate the site specific impacts, the. following IIIl8t be
COIIPleted in eocordance with the thresholds policy and the East Olula
Vista Transportatioo Phasi~ Plan:
. -
a. Inprove Telegraph Canyon Road between state Route 125 and the
EastLake Greensl1'rails boundary to six-lane prime arterial standards.
b. Omstruct IfUnte Parkway and EastLake Parkway as _jor roads between
Telegraph Canyoo Road and Orange Avenue.
c. Omstruction of a 8OUthbound state Route 125 to eastbound Telegraph
Canyoo Road loop ranp at the state Route l25/1'elegraph Canyoo Road
intersection or extend state Route 125 SOUth to East Palomar street
(which tIOuld connect to the EastLake II street
ayatem). (pg. 4-37)
67. The on-site water storage tank llhall receive additional landscaping. 'l'his
shall include the use of additional vegetation within the site 0Clql0unc:l to
obscure the tank itself, as well as .xterior landscaping of the perimeter
fence to provide a IIIOre .esthetic ac:reen.
68. Residential units in the vicinity of the SDG&i: transmission line shall be
spaced and oriented to lIlinimize views of those facilities. '1'he 50-fool
buffer along both sides of the roadway traversing the northern site
boundary shall receive sufficient landscaping to effectively screen
deYelopnent associated with EastLake I. Additionally, residential units
in the northern project site shall be spaced and oriented to lIlinimize
views to the north where appropriate. .
69. A prelilUnary geotechnical report has been prepared for the EastLake
Greens property by san Diego SOils Engineering, Inc. (1986). 'l'his reporl
conta1na various ~_.....ndations to provide adequate surface ann
subeurface drainage and eroaiooccntrol that shall be incorporated into
the project design. .............nc:led mellllUres include, but are not limited to,
the following:
~ /~5'b
. Surface and Subsurface Drainage: Surface runoff into downslope
natural areas and graded areas should be minimized. Where possible,
drainage should be directed to suitable disposal areas via nonerosive
devices (I.e., paved swales and storm drains).
Pad drainage sho\l1(l be designed to collect and direct surface wal:.el."s
away fran proposed structures to approved drainage facilities. For
earth areas, a minilll.llll gradient of two percent should be maintained
and drainage should be directed toward approved swales or drainage
facilities. Drainage patterns approved at the time of fine grading
should be maintained throughout the life of proposed structures.
70. Subdrains shall be placed under all fill located in eXisting drainage
courses at identified or potential seepage areas. Specific locations
shall be evaluated in the field during grading with general subdrain
locations indicated on the approved grading plan. The subdrain
installation shall be reviewed ~ the engineering geologist prior to fill
placement.
71. Drainage devices are required behind stabilization fills to minimize the
build-up of hydrostatic and/or seepage forces. (See Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigations, san Diego Soils Engineering, Inc. (1986) for
details and r.oo.....ended locations of these backdrains.) Depending on
Slope height, at least one tier of drains would be required for
apprOXimately every 30 feet of slope height. Drains may al80 be needed at
contacts bet_n permeable and non-permeable forlllltions.
72. Slopes shall be planted with appropriate drought-resistant vegetation as
r~....nded by a landscape architect illl1ll!diately fOllowing grading.
Erosion control and drainage devicea shall be installed in c:anpliance with
the requir...nta of the City of Chula Vista.
73. water shall not be allowed to run over the top of or flow down graded or
natural slopes.
74. Devices constructed to drain and protect slopes, including brow ditches,
berms, retention basins, terrace drains (if utilized) and down drains
shall be naintained r89ll1arly, and in perticular, should not be allowed to
clog 80 that water can flow unchecked over ilope faces. Subdrain outlets
shall be lIIlintained to prevent burial or other blockage.
75. To enSUre that si9llificant and potentially unique fossils and
paleontological resources are not destr~ed without examination and
analf8is, it shall be required that a qualified paleontologist monitor the
initial 9rading I '.ivities during developnent of the EastLake Greens site.
76. a. walls and/or berms shall be installed to the eatisfsction of the
Director of Planning to reduce noise exposure to acceptable levels
onsita.
'ftIe applicant has proposed an optional 5-foot fence enclosing the
perimeter of the residential boundary (Figure 2-10), and the 5-fool
wall height was factored into the model to analyze the effectiveness
Y'5 /~f!
of such a wall on the significant noise impacts projected onaite. In
sane cases, a 5-foot wall height was determined not to be required
and a lower wall height was evaluated.
It was determ1~ that a 5-foot barrier along the top of Slope on
(X)rtiona of the~tern side of EaatLake ParkleY and (X)rtions of J:.he
internal loop road, and contiguous to the northern and BOUthern-imtry
roads, would rec1.Joe projected onsite noise levels below 65clB(A) am.
("igure 4-17). A J-foot barrier would also be required along the
central golf course roed to further attenuate onsite noise levels.
lbiae levels at the park could be reduced through the incof(X)ration
of barriers of lII1nimal height (1.e., 1 to 2 feet). walls are not
r~.._1Ided because of aesthetic considerations and because the
attenuation required is only tw decibels. Attenuation at the pIIrk
could be achieved by raising the pIId elevations near the contributing
roadweya by 2 teet instead of inoor(X)rating a barrier. '!'he barriers
along residential portions of the site should consist of walls, earth
berma, or a COIltlination of walls and berlllll. Noise levels above 65
d8(A) and below 75 d8(l) OfEt. are considered ClOqlatible vith the
pro(X)8ed COlllllercial area in the northwst corner of the project. area
and no barriers are required to attenuate the noi.. levels in this
area of the si!'..
BuecS on the current vrading plan, t.he identified noise walls would
IIiti911t.e the projected exterior noi.. levels below the required 65
am. standard and to a level of insi\ll1ificallC8 with the exception of
the park Ilhere .light excaedancea would occur. If the pad elevation
i. rai.ed, as r_.....Ilded, no adver.. noi.. ilIpacts would occur
onaite.
b. For those portions of the site exposed to 60 OfEt. or vreater
(identified in 'i9\lre 4-17), an interior aCOUltical analyais will be
required once building plana and slte plana are _de avsilable to
ensure the use of appropriate construction Mterisla to attenuate t.he
interior noi.. levels below a leval of si9lllfiClllC8.
77. on an interi. buis, 'areals R-24, R-25, R-26, R-27, 8Ill2 R-28 shall be
mned at the tar98t density of ..5 dwlhng units par acres. A _xi_ of
4,034 units will be approwd tor lutLake It until wch U_ .. the
9IIidel1nes tor eXCHding the tar98t density for t.he Oaneral 'Ian updat.e
. are re80lwd. 'l'tla tollowin; procedure will occur to det.sf1Iine additional
density, it any, tor the IutLake project.
a. 8pacific 9IIidelill88 tor eXceeding the terget Ganeral Plan
density will be adopted,
b. '1'he adopted OInersl Plan poliCies will be applied to detenl1ne
the incr8lllllntal unite to be addad to Iast.Lake It.
c. '1'he units trCllll the new calculation will be distributed to these
rift pereals or other unaubdivided portion of EaatLake Greens
'l'entsti". flip.
. ~ ?~5...2-..
d. The SPA Plan and Tentative Map will be returned to the planning
Camdsa10n and City Council for adoption of the increased
density, if any.
-
78. Prior to the recor~ion of the final nap, the EastLake I private park
agreement all be aRlrovec:l by the City Council. -. ·
79. '1'he r.utLake Gr~ Development Agreement shall contain a provision
IIllking the !astLake Greens project subject to the Transportation
Phasing Plan and the Growth ManBqell'ent Elenent of the General Plan.
80. Prior to recor<ion of the final_p, the applicant shall aublllit an
I19r_nt to the City r.rding pJblic use of the golf cour... This
fIIr/ be addressed in the conditional use permit required for the golf
CIOUr.. .
81. The Planning o:.d..ion r........_.'ldation r.rding the recb:tion of
dwe11ill9 unita contaiMd in Condition 13 of the r.utLake II General
Development Plan is incorporated into this resolution (EastLake Greens
reduced from 3609 dwelling unita to 2774 dwelling unital.
'IND INCSI
Purauant to Section 66473.'5 of the $Jbdivision Map Act, Tentative
SUbdivision Map for !UtLake Greens Tract 88-3 is found to be consiatent
with the OIula Vista General Plan .. adopted by the Chula Vista City
Council baaed on the following findill9sl
.
1. Land UM Il_t
The OIneral Plan desi9118tas the lutLake Greens ar... for Len.: Mlclilllll
Residential .. well .. CllCllllWrclal, pJbUc, quul-pJbUc (8Chools,
parks, ehurchHl and 8011I open apace. The r... Indtd 2,774.
resldential unlta ls within the dtnalty (between tarqet and _xllulI)
ranqe of the Ganeral Plan r..ldential desl9l\atlon of low/Mdi\IJI
resldential 13-6 dU/gr. AC.), lncludlng denslty transfers fran the
park, 8Chool, and ljDlf CIOUr.. to the residential ar.. (327 clUl.
2. Circulatlon Ilement
All of the on-alte and off-alta pJblic atreets requlred to aerve the
aubdlvialon will be conatruct.ed or DI' f_ paid by the developar ln
~rctanc. wlth the lutLeke Greena Public 'acilltiea ,1nanc11l9 Plan
and oavelopllant A9r~t.
3. flDualnv Il_nt
'1'ha 1It"'l ~ 1<<1 project will provide a lIinhum of 10'
housing includlng a Ill. of houaill9 typea and lot
8irl91e-fuUy, t.cM'lhclUMa, condDminl\lll and various
dlnaitl. that will provlde a vide apeetr\lll of housing
paraona of various i~a.
affordable
al.a for
aparu.nt
prlcee for
v
7-p3
4. Parks and Recreation Element
The subdivision will provide approxilMtely 40 acres of inproved
COI1I1I1Ility and neighborhood parks in acx:ordance with locatio-a:. ..nd
standards of tile General Plan. The required park acreage for
EastLake Greene Is 29.2 acres. ... ·
5. Public racilities Element
The project is obligated in the conditions of approval to
participate in providing the water facilities, wastewater facilities
and eSrainage facilities required by the policies of the General
Plan. 'l'hese inclucSe emergency water storage reservoir, construction
of a 50 1111 1 lion gallon facility by CI1WD, provisions for additional
wastewater facilities by parallel sewer pipelines and constructing
on-lite cSetention basins to recSuce peak Itorm flows.
6. Open Space and ConIervatioo Element
The proposecS .ubdivision is in conformance with the goals and
policies of the el--.t. '1'here are no land resources,. water
resources, plan~ or animal resources or open space areas icSentifiecS
for preservation in the General Plan for this site.
7. Safety Element
'1'he project .its i. considered a .ei8lllically active area, although
there are no known active faults 00 or adjacent to the property.
'1'he fire protection facilitie. and .ervie>>1 needleS to ..rve the
project have been reviewed by the rire DepertMnt. other ...rgency
..rvie>> agencie. have reviewecS the proposecS .ubdivilion for
conforlllllJlCl with safety policy. '1'he project will incr.... the need
for adcSitional police and fire .personnel, however, the City il
planning to ..t the need with adcSitional r....enu.. provicSed by the
project.
Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the SUbdivilion Map Act, the effectl of
the tentative IllIP for EutLake Greens Tract 88-3 on the housing neecSs of
the region has been coneicSered in that the .ubdivilion will provide a
variety of housing types that will serve all ..peets of the COIIIIWIity.
'l'he council has further balanced the neecS for housing against public
service needs of its re.icSents and available fi.cal and environmental
resource. in that the City hn weighed the fiscal effectl of the project
and finds that it will not cSeplets current resources and has further
balanced the environmsntsl effecta by incorporating mitigation _nures.
Pursuant to section 66473.1 of the Subdivisioo Map Act, the EastLake
Greens Tract 88-3 has provicSed to the extent feasible for future pauive
or natural h..ting or cooling opportunities in that the propos.d cSesign
has a predominant north-south orientation of long, narrow parcels
~ 7~;i(
enOOllraglng Hst-west orientation of buildings and creating southern
exposure tor pitched longitudinal roofs to facilitate solar energy.
-
Presented by
.
Approved u to form by
- .
4~~!of
Plannng
5930a
orney
-
.
~ ?~~~
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C'TY OF
CHl.l.A VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 18 day of July -
19 89 , by the following ~Ie, to-wit: -. .
AYES: Counc llllll!ntlers Cox, Malcolm, Moore
NAVES: Councfll11l!ntlers McCandI1.., Nader
ABSTAIN: Counc11mentlers None
ABSENT: Councflmentlers None
-"-"" u.1f1J ~ ~ ~
ATTESjZ.",~:" 10/ o:t~'7'
City Clerk
STATE ~ CALIFORNA )
COUNTY ~ SAN DIEGO ) Ia.
C'TY OF CHUlA VISTA )
I, JENNE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of lhe Cily of ChuIo Vi.ta, Co/.forn,'
JO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and forlgoing i. a full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 15200
,and thaI ,he IOmI has not beln amended or repeal.
ATEO
~.H h/~
~~
~_'h ~'tl
f:::liJt;3-~:~~~,(;~~
7:-:F:...JI..,' .t. .'~'" '
':/:',',/,:': I. .\..~.
~
~-..~-:...j( :.,-:~-
. "':'7i....; ...... 4
- 0-1----
City Clerk
y-rt //;;2
A
~
El ~IT"O_
CHULA VIST A TRACT NO. 95-02
EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS UNIT 15
+
~
I~)
~
100
100 100 0
200
<<)0
-- -
- -
GRAPHIC SCALE 11= 200'
"0
V
~
LOT J
32
33
34
35.
LOT 4
, .
- Thzs Page Blank -
~ 7-5Y
MAR. -14' 95 (TVE) 14: 12 EASTLAIIE
TEL:619 ~21 1830 I:;.)(H"O I' -..::;;
P.002
rHB em ~'. CHVL4 YlST.A PoUt"" D1SCLOS~RB.STA.TBMBN7
SIDte~ent of e1i.cia.me of ccrWn Nonhiptntereau, paymentl, or ~mpal&n c:ontrib\lUons, on ,11 matten
whitt! WI1l'r.q~iie dilcretionllry aedon Oft tJ\e plrt of the C1C)' Couneil, Pllnnllli Cc~I.&ion. and all other
'. offlc.llll bC!die.:The tQUowtnl.iAfQrma~.mU'l b'.dilc1oaed: .' , . .
.1~'. Uai .the 'Ilamea'of an 'person. ba'fiftl . finanofallntcrcu in .'~~ cOntra=. .i.e., ccm~.
,ubcon~ctOr, material supplier, . ". ". . .
EastLake Development Company . .
I"
i
I.'
, .
. . ,.
.2. . II .~ penClD identified: purauant to (1) abClVO II . c:orporlt1on or puulerahip, Hat the names 01 all
. IncSMduaJl ownml more than 10% of tho abares in the corporltl.On or .ownlns &!If plfUlerahlp
IlIttrl'& in ,the plntlenbip.' .' . :.
. Boswell Properties Incorporated
. -iu1a.lZo Com~'anv
, . .
'S. . . u -n-i pCUOll SlSenllf1ed puravant 10 (1) Cove. II non.profit orpnliatloD or. tnJal,'Ust C11e 1l&meI'
Of any per.em HrWIIU director of the DOli-prOfit organization or II tnlJree .or bcnot1cllry.or
trultor 01 the tru'l< . . . . . . .
;.Ji/A' . .' , .
.
,
.. ~
.. '. ".'. . . '
'. (. .' 14. '.' Hive yoi.1l1l.s rD~ '. S250' worth' of l;l1li1lea tranallltld 'with .try member ci dlo CIty Itd,
. Bo.ard~, ~.....n~slon', Committees atl4 eaulldhvlthln ~bo put twelve snpll~7 Yea - .' .
No--.. If y~~ p1e..~ ~ie~te' penone')1 .' .... . . . .
. " ,.' '. . . . .'"
S. '. Plo... k10zrtify lladl.~d OYCIY penon. fnc1ucIJn. Izsy apnta, employeel, COftIultl~ or bldepenc1ei1t
. .' '.l:aJltl'llctOU'who you have .ulsnsd 10 reFe.ent yOu before tbe CIty lit thi. marter,
Gary Cinei - Cinti Land Planning Bill 05tre~.- EastLake Dev~ Co,
. -J'MAr B~,q -. Ri,* Enll~-rteer1tig Co. . . ..Bi"tice~foan -' r;a~ tLake Dav.. Co.
'.
6.
. . .... . .
.' . , '. . "
Have. you iDdJor, y,D\Ir .OffillOl'I ar .Ien~ in the. .wellleo Contributed moil rihan '51,000 to .
CouftO:!lmember In;the;\lrrent or preecdiDa elecrion period? Ye.:_ 'No xx Uya, .tate wblch
~W1ctl~.mbe~(')1 '. .' . .' ". .' . . '. .'
. .
'".
. . .'1:''''11 i& daOl\i4..1 "Af/1IUMlllltil. f/rin. ....PfI""InIlIp,Jflnt _III", /III~""'. adnl ~.... f-II/fIII..p1I1ItU1M. ..",.,.,.""",
C'111l", IfIIlt, 1ftfiIiII. .1)'IIIUcIlII, ,ltl, ft4 ""Y 01"" _110\ . CIII4 _1111)', dty, ItlWllC/p11l1ty, dJ.IlrlCI ., _n}NIJIJI"'" 611Iot1M11f1t"
tit' "101 011I" IfPC" 01'401t1~1." _ill, (fU'"I1II," . '.'
. .
. " (/'IOTaI . AI". Jlldlllonal p.... I' IlOCIlIIIlYl
'Dllte: ,~-14..fjS.
Sill
"
.
1.\.Il.I,\IOIl~OSTl.~'11 .
Ga~ Crocenzi; Assistant Project Mgr
.dLrPrlllt or type muna of conlrllctor/appllcant
~. _ 7-f/ . 11l~11l1_1
MAR-13-'95 MaN 10:15 ID:CITY~..9:U:A UISTFi TEL NO:,
~. '..
ll440 P02
mE CITY OF CHULA. VISTA PARn'DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statc:ment of diac10sure of cenain oWnership intereau, payments, or campaign contributions, on aU ma. ;
which wm require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Plannlni Commission, and all other
official bodies. The followina iDformatlon must be duclosed:
1. Ust the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, I.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
Eastlake Development Company The Tulago Company
Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc.
Boswell ProDerties. Inc.
2, If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or panncrahlp, lilt the namea of all
individuals ownlna more than 10% of the abares in the corporation or owning BDy paTtneflhip
interest in the partnership.
, 3. U any penon Identified pursuant to (1) above u non-profit orpnization or. trust, list the nama'
of any person .emnS as director of the non-prOfit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the tnI.t.
N/A
( 4.
Have you had more than S250 wonh of business tranaacted with any member of the at)' staff,
Boarda, Commissions, Committees and Counell wlthin the put twelve months? Yea_
No ~ 'If yes, please indicate per.on(.):
5, Please identify each and every penon, inc1udina any asents, employeea, c:omultaDtI or independent
contractors who you have assigned to repreaent you before the City in thla matter.
Wi11hm Ostrem
Greco Linhoff
John Ful bri aht
6. Have you anellor your officeo or asents, in the alBrepte, contributed mole than '$1,000 to a
Councilmember in the eurrent or preceding election period? YCI_ No _ IC yes, .tate which
Councilmember(I): '
fEwm II deDDtd u: .AII,)' l114i,,;dllll~f/rm. COoptl"".,shfp,joIllr _~ _tIC/iliUm, nxitJl c1ub.f_1 """"""'riM, COIpfNllr/on.
rsltl/r, Irwr, nui"." l)'NIkll"- IhiI./ld 1111,)' oth., COUIII)I, c/rylUld COU/l",.. c/I)I /laulJclpiI1lry, dUmaOf' other poIlrlctlllUbdMs;un.
IN III~ other /I'fRIP IN _,/HIuuiOllIlClin, tIS 111111;1,.
, DlIIe:
(NOTE: A11aC11 additional paSU as Deccala!)') ,
3';;~/qS
(.\.II.I.\:DISCLosn:t"ll
Signa ntractor/appllcant,
GI<.E:GC; U N/oJoPF AUFMAN ANO BROil 0 AI-J OIUO
,Print or type nil me 0 contractor/applicant
[1<<_: 11/-1
?--~tJ
/,
.
~
RESOLUTION NO.
J7S'Y 7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRING DEVELOPER TO
COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF
RESOLUTION NOS. 17797, 17618 AND 15200 AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, on January 24, 1995, by Resolution 17797 the
City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chu1a vista
Tract 95-02, Parcel R-15 of East1ake South Greens; and
WHEREAS, previous Council actions affecting this
development include: 1) Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula vista
Tract 88-03, East1ake Greens (original TM) on July 18, 1989, by
Resolution 15200 (Exhibit B); and 2) Amended Tentative subdivision
Map for Chula vista Tract 88-03, Eastlake Greens (amended TM) on
August 1994, by Resolution No. 17618 and all three of these
resolutions contain conditions of approval for development of
Parcel R-15; and
WHEREAS, the developer has
Subdivision Improvement Agreement to
conditions:
executed
satisfy
a Supplemental
the following
1. Condition Nos. 30 and 31c of Resolution 15200.
a. Condition No. 30 requires the developer to agree
that the City may withhold building permits for any
units in the subdivision if traffic on Otay Lakes
Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, EastLake Parkway, or
East "H" Street exceed the levels of service
identified in the City'S adopted thresholds.
b. Condition 31c requires the developer to agree to
not protest formation of an assessment district for
the construction of street improvements to extend
Orange Avenue and Palomar Street and to not protest
inclusion of the subject improvements as projects
in the Eastern Territories Development Impact Fee
system.
2. Condition No. 35 of Resolution 17618 requires the
developer to comply with the terms and conditions of the
Acquisition/Financing Agreement for Assessment District
94-1, CO 94-064.
3. General Condition "D" and Condition Nos. 23-25 of
Resolution 17797.
7//- /
a. General Condition "0" requires the developer to
comply with all unfulfilled conditions of approval
of the Eastlake Greens Tentative Map, Chula vista
Tract 88-3 established by Resolution No. 15200, and
amended by Resolution 17618, and to remain in
compliance with and implement the terms, conditions
and provisions of Eastlake Greens Sectional
Planning Area, Eastlake Greens Planned Community
District Regulations, the Eastlake Greens
Development Agreement, the Water Conservation Plan
and the Air Quality Plan, Design Guidelines and the
Public Facilities Financing Plan.
b. Condition 23 requires the developer to agree to
indemnify and hold harmless the City from any
claims, actions or proceedings against the City to
attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by
the City with regard to the subject subdivision.
c. Condition 24 requires the developer to agree to
hold the City harmless from any liability for
erosion, siltation, or increased flow of drainage
resulting from the subject subdivision.
d. Condition 25 requires the developer to agree to
insure that all franchised cable television
companies are permitted equal opportunity to place
conduit and provide cable television service to
each lot within the subject subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby approve Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreement requiring developer to comply with certain
unfulfilled conditions of Resolution Nos. 17797, 17618 and 15200,
a copy of which is on file in the office of the city Clerk as
Document No. (to be completed by the Clerk in the final
document) .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
C:\rs\unit15.ELG
7/9 ~ rJ.-
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City Clerk
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance
to a public agency of less than a fee interest
for which no cash consideration has been
paid or received.
Developer
Above Space for Recorder's Use
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
EastLake South Greens Unit 15
(T.M. Conditions, Tract 95-02)
This Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("Agreement") is made
this day of , 1995, by and between THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, California ("City" or "Grantee" for recording purposes only) and
KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF SAN DIEGO, INC., a California Corporation ("Developer"
or "Grantor"), with reference to the facts set forth below, which recitals constitute a part
of this Agreement:
RECITALS
A. This Agreement concerns and affects certain real property located in
Chula Vista, California, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein ("Property"). The Property is part of a project commonly known as
EastLake South Greens Unit 15.
March 14, 1995
Supp. SIA for EastLake South Greens Unit 15
Page 1
7/l~3
B. Developer has applied for and the City has approved a Tentative
Subdivision Map commonly referred to as EastLake Greens Chula Vista Tract 95-02
("Tentative Subdivision Map") for the subdivision of the Property.
C. The City has adopted Resolution No. 17797 (Tract 95-02) ("Resolution")
pursuant to which it has approved the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to certain
conditions as more particularly described in the Resolutions. The description of the
conditions in this recital section of this Agreement is intended only to summarize and
paraphrase such conditions in the Resolutions, and is not intended herein to modify or
explain them, and is not intended as a basis for interpreting them.
D. Condition No. 30 of Resolution No. 15200 requires the Developer to enter
into an agreement with the City for the withholding of building permits if traffic in Otay
Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, EastLake Parkway, or East "H" Street exceed
the level of service identified in the City's adopted thresholds.
E. Condition No. 31.C of Resolution No. 15200 requires the Developer to
enter into an agreement with the City wherein Developer agrees to not protest the
formation of an assessment district for the construction of street improvements to
connect Orange Avenue and Palomar Street to existing improvements west of EastLake
Greens and to not protest inclusion of the subject improvements as projects in the
Eastern Territories Development Impact Fee System.
F. Condition No. 35 of Resolution No. 17618 requires the Developer to
comply with the terms and conditions of the Acquisition/Financing Agreement for
Assessment District 94-1, CO 94-064, approved by Council Resolution R17483 as said
terms and conditions may be applicable to this development.
G. Condition No. 23 of Resolution No. 17797 requires the Developer to enter
into an agreement to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any claims, actions or
proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City
with regard to the EastLake South Greens Unit 15 project.
H. Condition No. 24 of Resolution No. 17797 requires the Developer to enter
into an agreement to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any liability for erosion,
siltation, or increased flow of drainage resulting from the EastLake South Greens Unit
15 project.
I. Condition No. 25 of Resolution No. 17797 requires the Developer to enter
into an agreement with the City relating to the provision of franchise cable television
services as more particularly set forth in Condition No. 34 of Resolution No. 17618.
March 14, 1995
Supp. SIA for EastLake South Greens Unit 15
Page 2
7/J; '/
J. Condition "D" of General Conditions of Approval of Resolution No. 17797
requires that the Developer implement previously adopted conditions of approval
pertinent to project. Unless otherwise conditioned, Developer shall comply with all
unfulfilled conditions of approval of the EastLake Greens Tentative Map, Chula Vista
Tract 88-3 established by Resolution No. 15200 approved by Council on July 18, 1989
and shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions
of EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area, EastLake Greens Planned Community
District Regulations, the EastLake Greens Development Agreement, the Water
Conservation Plan and the Air Quality Plan, Design Guidelines and the Public Facilities
Financing Plan.
K. City is willing, on the premises, security, terms and conditions herein
contained to approve the Final Map for which Developer has applied commonly known
as EastLake South Greens Unit 15 as being in substantial conformance with the
Tentative Subdivision Map and Amended Tentative Subdivision Map for the territory of
such Final Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants, terms and
conditions herein contained, the parties agree as set forth below.
1. Agreement Applicable to Subsequent Owners.
1.1 Agreement Binding Upon Successors. This Agreement shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors, assigns and interests of the
parties as to any or all of the Property until released by the mutual consent of the
parties.
1.2 Agreement Runs with the Land. The burden of the covenants
contained in this Agreement ("Burden") is for the benefit of the Property. The Burden
touches and concerns the Property. It is the intent of the parties, and the parties agree,
that this covenant shall be binding upon, and run with, the ownership of the land which
it burdens. The Burden of this Agreement shall be released from title, of any individual
lot within the Project upon sale of such lot improved with a residence. However, as to
any lots which have not been released, the Burden of this Agreement shall continue to
encumber such lots and shall be binding upon, and run with, the ownership of such lots
until such lots are released. The City may refuse to issue Building Permits for any such
unreleased lots while Developer is in breach of any terms or conditions of this
Agreement or the Tentative Map. If requested by Developer, the City shall execute a
quitclaim releasing the Burden of this Agreement, from the title to any such lots.
?/I,5
Supp. SIA for EastLake South Greens Unit 15
Page 3
March 14, 1995
a. Developer Release on Guest Builder Assignments. If
Developer assigns any portion of the Project, Developer shall have the right to obtain
a release of any of Developer's obligations under this Agreement, provided Developer
obtains the prior written consent of the City to such release. Such assignment shall,
however, be subject to this Agreement and the Burden of this Agreement shall remain
a covenant running with the land. The City shall not withhold its consent to any such
request for a release so long as the assignee acknowledges that the Burden of the
Agreement runs with the land, assumes the obligations of the Developer under this
Agreement, and demonstrates, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City, its ability to
perform its obligations under this Agreement as it relates to the portion of the Project
which is being acquired by the Assignee.
b. Partial Release of Developer's Assignees. If Developer
assigns any portion of the Project subject to the Burden of this Agreement, upon
request by the Developer or its assignee, the City shall release the assignee of the
Burden of this Agreement as to such assigned portion if such portion has complied with
the requirements of this Agreement and such partial release will not jeopardize, in the
opinion of the City, the likelihood that the remainder of the Burden will not be
completed.
2. Condition No. 30 of Resolution No. 15200 - Building Permits Not to
Issue While Thresholds Deficient. In satisfaction of Condition No. 30 of Resolution
No. 15200, Developer agrees as follows:
2.1 Developer hereby grants to the City the right to withhold building
permits for any dwelling units on the Property at such time as traffic volumes on Otay
Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, EastLake Parkway, or East "H" Street exceed
the level of service identified in the City's adopted thresholds.
3. Condition No. 31.C of Resolution No. 15200 - No Protest of
Assessment District or Development Impact Fee. In satisfaction of Condition No.
31.C of Resolution No. 15200, Developer and their heirs, assigns, transfers, and other
successors-in-interest, hereby agrees to not protest the formation of an assessment
district for the construction of street improvements to connect Orange Avenue and
Palomar Street to existing improvements west of EastLake Greens boundary and to not
protest inclusion of the subject improvements as projects in the Eastern Territories
Development Impact Fee System.
4. Condition No. 35 of Resolution No. 17618 - Comply with Acquisitionl
Financing Agreement. In satisfaction of Condition No. 35 of Resolution No. 17618,
Developer agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the Acquisition/Financing
Agreement for Assessment District 94-1, CO 94-064, approved by Council Resolution
R17483 as said terms and conditions may be applicable to this development.
March 14. 1995
Supp. SIA for EastLake South Greens Unit 15
Page 4
7/J - ~
5. Condition No. 23 of Resolution No. 17797 . Subdivision Map
Indemnity. In satisfaction of Condition No. 32 of Resolution No. 17618, the Developer
agrees that, on the condition that City shall promptly notify the Developer of any claim,
action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the
defense, the Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its
agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City,
or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by
the City, including approvals by its Planning Commission, City Council, or any approval
by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to the EastLake South Greens Unit 15
project.
6. Condition No. 24 of Resolution No. 17797 . Erosion and Drainage
Indemnity. In satisfaction of Condition No. 33 of Resolution No. 17618, the Developer
agrees that, on the condition that City shall promptly notify the Developer of any claim,
action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the
defense, the Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its
agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City,
or its agents, officers or employees, for any liability for erosion, siltation or increased
flow of drainage resulting from the EastLake South Greens Unit 15 project.
7. Condition No. 25 of Resolution No. 17797 - Cable Television
Easements. In satisfaction of Condition No. 34 of Resolution No. 17618, the
Developer agrees to permit all cable television companies franchised by the City of
Chula Vista equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide cable television service
for each lot or unit within the Project. Developer further agrees to grant, by license or
easement, and for the benefit of, and to be enforceable by, the City of Chula Vista,
conditional access to cable television conduit within the properties situated within the
Project only to those cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista
the condition of such grant being that (a) such access is coordinated with Developer's
construction schedule so that it does not delay or impede Developer's construction
schedule and does not require the trenches to be reopened to accommodate the
placement of such conduits; and (b) any such cable company is and remains in
compliance with, and promises to remain in compliance with, the terms and conditions
of the franchise and with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures
regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have
been, or may from time to time be, issued by the City of Chula Vista. Developer hereby
conveys to the City of Chula Vista the authority to enforce said covenant by such
remedies as the City determines appropriate, including revocation of said grant upon
a determination by the City of Chula Vista that they have violated the conditions of the
grant.
March 14. 1995
Supp. SIA for EastLake South Greens Unit 15
Page 5
7/7 ~ 7
8. Condition "0" of General Conditions of Approval of Resolution No.
17797. In satisfaction of Condition "0" of General Conditions of Approval of Resolution
No. 17797, the Developer agrees to implement previously adopted conditions of
approval pertinent to project. Unless otherwise conditioned, Developer agrees to
comply with all unfulfilled conditions of approval of the EastLake Greens Tentative Map,
Chula Vista Tract 88-3 established by Resolution No. 15200 approved by Council on
July 18, 1989 and shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions
and provisions of EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area, EastLake Greens Planned
Community District Regulations, the EastLake Greens Development Agreement, the
Water Conservation Plan and the Air Quality Plan, Design Guidelines and the Public
Facilities Financing Plan.
9. Satisfaction of Conditions. City agrees that the execution of this
Agreement constitutes satisfaction of Developer's obligation of Conditions 30 and 31.C
of Resolution No. 15200, Condition 35 of Resolution 17618, and Conditions 23, 24, 25,
and Condition "D" of General Conditions of Agreement of Resolution No. 17797 as it
applies to the territory of the Final Map for Chula Vista Tract 95-02, EastLake South
Greens Unit 15.
10. Recording. This Agreement, or an abstract hereof prepared by either or
both parties, may be recorded at the option of either party.
11. Miscellaneous.
11.1 Notices. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by law,
any and all notices required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on
or delivered to either party shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served,
delivered, and received when personally delivered to the party to whom it is directed,
or in lieu thereof, when three (3) business days have elapsed following deposit in the
U.S. mail, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, first-class postage
prepaid, addressed to the address indicated in this Agreement. A party may change
such address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice to such change
to the other party. Facsimile transmission shall constitute personal delivery.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Director of Public Works
Developer:
KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
12626 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Attn: Gregg Linhoff
March 14. 1995
Supp. SIA for EastLake South Greens Unit 15
71- r Page 6
A party may change such address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written
notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided in this paragraph.
Facsimile transmission shall constitute personal delivery.
11.2 Captions. Captions in this Agreement are inserted for convenience
of reference and to not define, describe or limit the scope or intent of this Agreement
or any of its terms.
11.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement
between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof. Any prior oral or written
representation, agreements, understandings, and/or statements shall be of no force and
effect. This Agreement is not intended to supersede or amend any other agreement
between the parties unless expressly noted.
11.4 Preparation of Agreement. No inference, assumption or
presumption shall be drawn from the fact that a party or his attorney prepared and/or
drafted this Agreement. It shall be conclusively presumed that both parties participated
equally in the preparation and/or drafting of this Agreement.
11.5 Recitals; Exhibits. Any recitals set forth above are incorporated
by reference into this Agreement.
11.6 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute arising out of this
Agreement, the prevailing party in any action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys'
fees in addition to any other costs, damages, or remedies.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth.
By: CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Shirley Horton, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF SAN
DIEGO, INC.
a California C
Approved as to Form:
By:
Name:
Title:
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
Date:
March 14, 1995
7/}-1
Supp. SIA for EastLake South Greens Unit 15
Page 7
s'\
,,~
~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA /' D
COUNTY OF ,?(l t1. " f'J U
On 3-/(0-9';- ,beforeme,~~ Iln Jp_rSjn-p J
personally appeared ~ ~.5 ~ 1- I VI !, (y-{ f' +- ,J I '\ ~ " .
. r , personally known to me
(or proved to me on the sis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
}
}ss.
}
WrTNESSD hood ,"d offiO'al "'a~
Si,oaturn ~ -7 U04<R-J
~~~
Cl
~
Anne-Marie L [Jugre t
Comm. "026, So ~
NOTARY PUBLIC. CALlrQRN\
SAN DlEGO COUNTY
Comm. Expires May 8. 1a98 .l
(This area for official notarial seal)
Title of Document
Date of Document
Other signatures not acknowledged
No. of Pages
7/?-t/tJ
3008 (1 '94) (General)
First American Tille Insurance Company
RESOLUTION NO.
/78'J/<i
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA
TRACT 95-02, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS, UNIT 15,
ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE PUBLIC
STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP, AND THE
EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID
SUBDIVISION, REJECTING THE OFFER OF DEDICATION
IN FEE OF LOTS A, B AND C, APPROVING
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID
SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
The City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista hereby finds that that certain map survey
entitled CHULA VISTA TRACT 95-02, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS, UNIT 15,
and more particularly described as follows:
Being a subdivision of Lots 6 and 7 of Chula vista Tract
No. 88-3A, Eastlake South Greens, Phase 1, in the city of
Chula Vista, County of San Diego, state of California
according to Map thereof No. 13180, filed in the office
of the County Recorder of said County, January 17, 1995.
Area: 11.926 acres
Numbered Lots: 65
No. of Lots: 68
Lettered Lots: 3
is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to
the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land
shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the public the public streets, to-wit crystal Spring
Drive, Boulder Creek Street and a portion of South Greensview
Drive, all as shown on the final map and said streets are hereby
declared to be public streets and dedicated to the public use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts
on behalf of the City of Chula vista the easements tendered with
the right of ingress and egress for: street tree planting and
maintenance; general utility easements within Lots A, B, and C; a
5.5 foot sidewalk easement along South Greensview Drive; and a
1
7B-/
as granted and shown on said map within said subdivision, subject
to the conditions set forth thereon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said council hereby rejects
on behalf of the city of Chula vista the offer of dedication in fee
of Lots A, B, and C as shown on said map noting that section
66477.2 of the Subdivision Map Act of the state of California
provides that an offer of dedication remain open and subject to
future acceptance by said city.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of
Chula vista be, and is hereby authorized and directed to endorse
upon said map the action of said Council; that said Council has
approved said subdivision map, and that said public streets are
accepted on behalf of the public as heretofore stated and that
those certain easements with the right of ingress and egress for
the construction and maintenance of street tree planting, sidewalk,
general utility, and public access as granted thereon and shown on
said map within said subdivision is accepted on behalf of the city
of Chula vista as hereinabove stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be, and is
hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of the county of San Diego.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision
Improvement Agreement dated the day of , 1995, for
the completion of improvements in said sUbdivision, a copy of which
is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, the same as
though fully set forth herein be, and the same is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista be, and he 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
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
M:\shared\engineer\u15reso.l.c
2
7B-".2
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City Clerk
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
OITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to
a public agency of less than a fee interest for
which no cash consideration has been paid or
received.
Declarant
Above Space for Recorder's Use
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
1994, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter called "City", and KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF SAN DIEGO, INC., 12626
High Bluff Drive, Suite 400, San Diego, California 92130 hereinafter called "Subdivider";
WlINESEIH:
WHEREAS, Subdivider is about to present to the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista for approval and recordation, a final subdivision map of a proposed
subdivision, to be known as EAST LAKE SOUTH GREENS UNIT 15 pursuant to the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with
the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to the filing,
approval and recordation of subdivision map; and,
WHEREAS, the Code provides that before said map is finally approved by the
Council of the City of Chula Vista, Subdivider must have either installed and completed
all of the public improvements and/or land development work required by the Code to
be installed in subdivisions before final maps of subdivisions are approved by the
Council for purpose of recording in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, or, as an alternative thereto, Subdivider shall enter into an agreement with City,
secured by an approved improvement security to insure the performance of said work
pursuant to the requirements of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, agreeing
to install and complete, free of liens at Subdivider's own expense, all of the public
improvements and/or land development work required in said subdivision within a
definite period of time prescribed by said Council, and
-1-
?!3~3
WHEREAS, Subdivider is willing in consideration ofthe approval and recordation
of said map by the Council, to enter into this agreement wherein it is provided that
Subdivider will install and complete, at Subdivider's own expense, all the public
improvement work required by City in connection with the proposed subdivision and will
deliver to City improvement securities as approved by the City Attorney, and
WHEREAS, a tentative map of said subdivision has heretofore been approved,
subject to certain requirements and conditions, as contained in Resolution No. 17797,
approved on the 24th day of January, 1995 (Tentative Map Resolution).
WHEREAS, complete plans and specifications for the construction, installation
and completion of said public improvement work have been prepared and submitted
to the City Engineer, as shown on Drawings Nos. 95-31 through 95-27 inclusive, on file
in the office of the City Engineer, and
WHEREAS, an estimate of the cost of constructing said public improvements
according to said plans and specifications has been submitted and approved by the
City in the amount of $633,200.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUAllY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED AS
FOllOWS:
1. Subdivider, for itself and his successors in interest, an obligation the burden
of which encumbers and runs with the land, agrees to comply with all of the terms,
conditions and requirements of the Tentative Map Resolution; to do and perform or
cause to be done and performed, at its own expense, without cost to City, in a good
and workmanlike manner, under the direction and to the satisfaction and approval of
the City Engineer, all of the public improvement and/or land development work required
to be done in and adjoining said subdivision ("Improvement Work"); and will furnish the
necessary materials therefore, all in strict conformity and in accordance with the plans
and specifications, which documents have heretofore been filed in the Office of the City
Engineer and by this reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
2. It is expressly understood and agreed that all monuments have been or will
be installed within thirty (30) days after the completion and acceptance of the
Improvement Work, and that Subdivider has installed or will install temporary street
name signs if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
3. It is expressly understood and agreed that Subdivider will cause all necessary
materials to be furnished and all Improvement Work required under the provisions of
this contract to be done on or before the third anniversary date of Council approval of
the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
-2-
7 !J~r
4. It is understood and agreed that Subdivider will perform said Improvement
Work as set forth hereinabove, or that portion of said Improvement Work serving any
buildings or structures ready for occupancy in said subdivision, prior to the issuance of
any certificate of clearance for utility connections for said buildings or structures in said
subdivision, and such certificate shall not be issued until the City Engineer has certified
in writing the completion of said public improvements or the portion thereof serving said
building or structures approved by the City; provided, however, that the improvement
security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph.
5. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Subdivider that, in the
performance of said Improvement Work, Subdivider will conform to and abide by all of
the provisions of the ordinances of the City of Chula Vista, and the laws of the State
of California applicable to said work.
6. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista,
simultaneously with the execution of the agreement, an approved improvement security
from a sufficient surety, show sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of
THREE HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO
CENTS ($316,600.00)
which security shall guarantee the faithful performance of this contract by Subdivider
and is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
7. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista
simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security
from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum
of THREE HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO
CENTS ($316,600.00)
to secure the payment of material and labor in connection with the installation of said
public improvements, which security is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "8" and made
a part hereof.
8. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista,
simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security
from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum
of TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($12,000) (per private engineer's
estimate) to secure the installation of monuments, which security is attached hereto,
marked Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof.
9. It is further agreed that if the Improvement Work is not completed within the
time agreed herein, the sums provided by said improvement securities may be used
by City for the completion of the Improvement Work within said subdivision in
accordance with such specifications herein contained or referred, or at the option of the
City, as are approved by the City Council at the time of engaging the work to be
performed. Upon certification of completion by the City Engineer and acceptance of
said work by City, and after certification by the Director of Finance that all costs hereof
are fully paid, the whole amount, or any part thereof not required for payment thereof,
may be released to Subdivider or its successors in interest, pursuant to the terms of the
-3-
7g-5
improvement security. Subdivider agrees to pay to the City any difference between the
total costs incurred to perform the work, including design and administration of
construction (including a reasonable allocation of overhead), and any proceeds from
the improvement security.
10. It is also expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto that in no
case will the City of Chula Vista, or any department, board or officer thereof, be liable
for any portion of the costs and expenses of the work aforesaid, nor shall any officer,
his sureties or bondsmen, be liable for the payment of any sum or sums for said work
or any materials furnished therefore, except to the limits established by the approved
improvement security in accordance with the requirements ofthe State Subdivision Map
Act and the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
11. It is further understood and agreed by Subdivider that any engineering costs
(including plan checking, inspection, materials furnished and other incidental expenses)
incurred by City in connection with the approval of the Improvement Work plans and
installation of Improvement Work hereinabove provided for, and the cost of street signs
and street trees as required by City and approved by the City Engineer shall be paid
by Subdivider, and that Subdivider shall deposit, prior to recordation of the Final Map,
with City a sum of money sufficient to cover said cost.
12. It is understood and agreed that until such time as all Improvement Work
is fully completed and accepted by City, Subdivider will be responsible for the care,
maintenance of, and any damage to, the streets, alleys, easements, water and sewer
lines within the proposed subdivision. It is further understood and agreed that
Subdivider shall guarantee all public improvements for a period of one year from date
of final acceptance and correct any and all defects or deficiencies arising during said
period as a result of the acts or omission of Subdivider, its agents or employees in the
performance of this agreement, and that upon acceptance of the work by City,
Subdivider shall grant to City, by appropriate conveyance, the public improvements
constructed pursuant to this agreement; provided, however, that said acceptance shall
not constitute a waiver of defects by City as set forth hereinabove.
13. It is understood and agreed that City, as indemnitee, or any officer or
employee thereof, shall not be liable for any injury to person or property occasioned by
reason of the acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee,
related to this agreement. Subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the City, its
officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action,
liability or loss of any sort, because of or arising out of acts or omissions of Subdivider,
its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement; provided, however,
that the approved improvement security shall not be required to cover the provisions
of this paragraph. Such indemnification and agreement to hold harmless shall extend
to indemnification and agreement to hold harmless shall extend to damages to adjacent
or downstream properties or the taking of property from owners of such adjacent or
downstream properties as a result of the construction of said subdivision and the public
improvements as provided herein. It shall also extend to damages resulting from
diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow, modification of the velocity of the
-4-
7g--j..
water, erosion or siltation, or the modification of the point of discharge as the result of
the construction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of plans
providing for any or all of these conditions shall not constitute the assumption by City
of any responsibility for such damage or taking, nor shall City, by said approval, be an
insurer or surety for the construction of the subdivision pursuant to said approved
improvement plans. The provisions of this paragraph shall become effective upon the
execution of this agreement and shall remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years
following the acceptance by the City of the improvements.
14. Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of
the City, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning a subdivision,
which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37 of the
Government Code of the State of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be
executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBDIVIDER: KAUFMAN A
SAN DIEGO, INC.
ROAD OF
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
ATTEST
City Clerk
Approved as to form by
City Attorney
(Attach Notary Acknowledgement)
-5-
7g~1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A"
Improvement Security - Faithful Performance
Form:
Bond
Amount:
$316,600.00
Exhibit "B"
Improvement Security - Material and Labor:
Form:
Bond
Amount:
$316,600.00
Exhibit "C"
Improvement Security - Monuments:
Form:
Bond
Amount:
$ 12,000.00
Securities approved as to form and amount by
City Attorney
Improvement Completion Date: Three (3) years from date of Council approval of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement
-6-
7.B~f5
CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
NO. 5907
State of
County of
CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO
On
MARCH 10. 1995
before me,
PAMELA J. ARAGON
DATE
NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G.. "JANE DOE. NOTARY PUBLIC"
personally appeared JOHN W. FULBRIGHT and GREGG LINHOFF
NAME(S} OF SIGNER(S)
B personally known to me - OR - D proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and ac-
knowledged to me that he/she/they executed
the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
t. . ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I
@ PAMELAJ. ARAGON
- COMM 1963931 iO
I. Notary P\bic.calfolrla S
SAN DIEGO COUNTY -
l;:. . .~c~.~~ 1~.1~.1
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law. it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent
fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
D INDIVIDUAL
D CORPORATE OFFICER
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
TITLE(S)
D PARTNER(S)
D LIMITED
D GENERAL
D ATTORNEY.IN-FACT
D TRUSTEE(S)
D GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
D OTHER:
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
\; NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES)
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
01993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION 10 8?~,,) Remmel Ave., P.O. Box 7184. Canoga Park. CA 91309-7184
713- c;
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 3/28/95
~
ITEM TITLE:
a) Resolution / 7 if t.J9 Approving the boundary map showing the
proposed boundaries for Assessment District 93-01 of properties to be
assessed for alley improvements
b) Resolution / 7 'r' 5' r? Ordering installation of improvements in alley
from J Street to Kearney Street between Elm Avenue and Second Avenue,
ordering the Superintendent of Streets to give notice and order
construction and setting public hearings on Resolution of Intention to form
Assessment District 93-01 pursuant to the Block Act of 1911
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public WorkSrf!t!
REVIEWED BY: City Managerj~ ~~) (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
As a preliminary step in the assessment proceedings it is necessary to request that the Council
pass resolutions approving the proposed map boundary, ordering the installation of the
improvements (alley improvements) and setting public hearings on the resolution of intention to
form the assessment district.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council:
1) Approve a resolution approving the boundary map for Assessment District 93-01 for
construction of alley improvements under the 1911 Block Act procedure.
2) Approve a resolution ordering installation of certain public improvements at the location
shown on the boundary map, instructing the Superintendent of Streets to give notice and
to order construction of said improvements, and setting public hearings for May 9 and
16, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. on the resolution of intention to form Assessment District 93-01.
3) Approve the use of speed humps for Assessment District 93-01.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
g-~/
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date: 3/28/95
DISCUSSION:
Back!!round: On November 23, 1993 by Resolution 17316, Council accepted a petition for the
formation of a special assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the construction of PCC
pavement in the alley between J and Kearney Streets bounded by Elm and Second Avenues. The
cost of construction is to be reimbursed from property owners upon successful formation of the
assessment district. The construction of pavement in this alley was added to the CIP program
for Fiscal Year 1994/1995 at the direction of City Council.
Subsequent to this action, staff prepared construction plans, specifications and cost estimates for
the project and met with owners of the properties proposed for inclusion in the assessment
district. Those property owners who were unable to meet with staff were notified by phone or
registered mail. At these meetings, and at the November, 1993, Council meeting, the property
owners requested construction of speed humps along the alley to enhance safety and to control
speed in the alley. Section 440 of the State of California Vehicle Code was recently amended
(AB 3132) to specifically exclude speed humps and speed bumps from the definition of official
traffic control devices. Prior legislation did not explicitly include or exclude these. The City
does not have a policy in place for use of these in streets. In addition, since staff had a concern
about possible problems with speed humps for trash trucks and sweeping, the contractors
responsible for both of these items were contacted. Both R.F. Dickson (street sweeping) and
Laidlaw Systems (trash removal) indicated that speed humps would in no way impede their
activities. Since the proposed project is an alley, which is a narrower, lower speed facility
which primarily serves the abutting properties, and speed humps will not cause a problem for
trash pick-up, alley sweeping or drainage, staff recommends allowing the speed humps to be
constructed in the alley as a demonstration of their effectiveness in alleys per the residents'
requests. Staff does not intend to study the effectiveness formally but will monitor the speed
humps via neighborhood comments and/or complaints.
The City Environmental Review Coordinator studied the potential environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the project and has determined this project is categorically
exempt from the requirement for an Environmental Impact Report (see attached Notice of
Exemption).
Costs: City participation in the construction costs have been determined pursuant to Council
Policy 505-1, although this policy does not specifically address alley improvements. Funds for
these improvements have been budgeted from General Fund appropriations. Construction costs
estimated at $72,000 will be reimbursed with interest by the property owners to the City's
General Fund through formation of a 1911 Assessment District. Design, inspection and district
formation costs estimated at $24,000 will be contributed by the City.
Action: The proposed assessment district will be formed pursuant to the Improvement Act of
1911 of the California Streets and Highway Code. The Code requires that the Council approve
the district boundary map prior to adoption of a resolution ordering installation of the
zr.--.;L
Page 3, Item 7
Meeting Date: 3/28/95
improvements. The resolution ordering the improvements, the cornerstone of Chapter 27 of the
1911 Act process, describes the details of the Assessment District including: 1) description of
the work to be done; 2) description of the properties proposed for inclusion in the assessment
district; and 3) time and date for public hearings on the proposed improvements and the 1911
Act procedure. The Resolutions before Council, if adopted, will approve the assessment district
boundary and order installation of the improvements and schedule the required public hearings.
Public Hearinl!s: The public hearings are proposed for May 9 and May 16, 1995, and will be
noticed pursuant to the Brown Act. After the second public hearing, Council may adopt a
resolution to proceed with the 1911 Block Act. A schedule for this project is attached for
Council information. Since the property owners will have the opportunity to address Council
during the public hearings in May, no notices were sent for this agenda item.
FISCAL IMPACT: Total costs are estimated at $96,000. Approximately $24,000 as an in-kind
contribution will be paid by the City from the General Fund for the cost of assessment district
formation, alley design and inspection under the existing operating budgets. The balance,
$72,000, was appropriated from the General Fund in the FY 1994/95 CIP and will be an
advance from the City to be reimbursed with interest by the property owners within the
Assessment District.
Attachments: 1. Schedule of proceedings
2. Boundary Map showing benefitted properties and improvements
3. Notice of Exemption
File STL 220
A Y 091
f: \home \engineer\agenda \allepavi. dds
~r3
March 16, 1995
File # AY-091
STL-220
ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS
FROM "J" STREET TO KEARNEY STREET
BETWEEN ELM AVENUE AND SECOND AVENUE
SCHEDULE
ACTION
EXIllBIT
RESO
DATE
1.
City Council Meeting
Adopt Resolution Accepting Petition to Install Improvements
from "J" Street to Kearney Street between EIm Avenue and
Second Avenue
II/23/93
2. City Staff Meet with Property Owners (prelintinary meeting) 7113/94
3. Plans and specifications signed 2/28/95
4. City Council Meeting 3/28/95
a) Adopt Proposed District Map Boundaries
b) Adopt Resolution Ordering Installation of
Improvements (60 days)
c) Set Public Hearing on Resolution of Intention
d) CEQA
5. File Proposed Boundary Map 3/30/95
a) City Clerk
b) County Recorder
c) Mail notice per GC 54954.6, publish
notice (5194)
6. Council Meeting 5/9/95 &
a) Public Hearings on Improvements and Proceedings 5/I 6/95
b) Adopt Resolution of Intention and Making Findings at
Public Hearing pursuant to Cbapter 27
c) Obtain Letters of Pennission
7. Notice of Improvement Ends (5132) 5/27/95
8. Advertise for Construction Bids 6/3/95
9. Receive Bids 6/28/95
10. Council Meeting 7/18/95
a) Adopt Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding
Contract
11. Execution of Contract 8/8/95
12. Begin Construction 8/28/95
f:~S
ACTION
13.
14.
End of Construction
Council Meeting
a) Adopt Resolution Accepting Contract Work
Council Meeting
a) Accept filing of Engineer's Report
b) Set Public Hearing on Engineer's Report
Notice of Public Hearing to Property Owners
15.
16.
17.
Council Meeting
a) Public Hearing on Engineer's Report
b) Adopt Resolution Confirming Engineer's Report
c) Adopt Resolution for Notice of Lien
File Assessment Diagram
a) City Clerk
b) County Recorder
Notice of Assessment & Begin 30 day pre-payment period
End 30 day Pre-payment Period
Due Date of First Billing
18.
19.
20.
21.
(M:\HOME\ENGINEER\DESIGN\SCHEDUl.E.AC)
tr~i-
EXIllBIT
RESO
DATE
10/10/95
10/24/95
11114/95
11/16/95
12/12/95
12/12/95
12/14/95
1113/96
To be
determined
PROPOSED BOUNDARIES
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 93-01
.
1911 ACT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CAIJFORNIA
~
-...: .-.,er
T T
__~_ L~] .=~~~L~ :=~~~=:==:~:_ ~:V;N;E -=:~~=~__~_
i ,_____1___ ,..--...---l--.--l--.-'l--.--l--.--l--w--in-;..----- -Oi..,..----, i
I I .. . I
I ~ i! if:' If:'! i'" If:" i~ ! it! !
~ I I ~ ,... ,... I ,::; '''' ,... I ,... I
l:l::: i: -~ "'!! -:!l: -:!l O;:!l :!l::!l '573-351-221 '573-351-231':
r,..;.! - 'I.. ,..!' .. , .. ,..!' .. 734 BLI/ AlT. '38 BLI/ AYB.~!
Ci) I. to.,.. q:). 0 "'.. ~. Q;I I
'I t--n-n---- ;:: ;:: I:::! 1.! :::! I 1.! I
,.. --,., .
i '573-351-131 ii i i i
. 184 erST. ::: :
! . --,..J!"':"'-:,.,."l;..,9'-:-L.ft'.,,--~t."_:;L~.~,I,L..,L;.'!'\-.~L,--.~-""~....;,""""~
r---f':-:""':~,p!:;:::~-{ ~:::t:'I'-';':&f1",::;,"r-.i:;;W?f'::;-':"T" fi'Z.:f" ~~-~--i
~ '5;:;~S;;~31 ~. i : ~ fB~~:'~~ I ~
l-----~----'_: Ii i~ I i~ i~ i~ i~ ,:---------- i i ~
, "e. e ~ p. p. I ,~
i!'~ '~i 't: '.. ~,~ i ~
... .... '0.... : "~1O 1- -
I ;:;:: I ~ ::! :!:! I
,. ,
L.____}____ .. i .. i .. i .. i .. i.. --I------J
____I__'_____~ _____~EqO!'l!________________ A_V~N..U~_______ ---------t--
i i i i
i ,----- n_n_n_________________________________________ ------- ..: r-
I ~ cmmrr _1 TIlE 1IITIIIN IlAP IIJOWIllG PJlOPOllED BOUIlIlAIlII!S LEGEND' ,&,. I
or t'RI ASSZSIDNT DISTRICT. CITY or C'RULA. YlST.t.. cotnn'Y' OJ" SAX DIIOO.
STATE or CAlD'D1HIA, WAS APPROVED BY '!'HE em COUNCIL or TIll CITY
or CIIULA YIft.l AT .to UGULAR KEl:TtHC lBIUOF, IIILD ON 111I- DAY
or . 11M, BY ltDOumOH ND.
~
~
~
rJ)
:
....,
:
PBOPOlIID AISIlll!llIIIT
DIll!IIICT BOlJIIIWIY
CrrY lUU. CrrY lIP CIIVU ~O
-: :~-; ':._:; ~ .':~ ~:~;;.:~;:..~;./. .... 01' DII'aa\'DIDT
7IUlD III TIlE omcz or nu: CJTT CUlIlJ( or TIlE CJTT or CIIVU ftSTO TIllS
_J)j.T or . .81iJ5.
,
em' C1i:B. CITY or CBULA ftIU
7IUlD TIllS ~y or , ._. III IOOE AT POGE
or )1',"8 O,_~I!:'I_:.-~ DISTRICTS 1M' 1'HI omCl or-mBcouxn aM.;vlDlK
Dr na: COUNTY" or IWf moo. I'I'ATE OF CAUrORNU..
DJ'IRENCZ 18 1IIII:DT JW)J TO !HE COtJIITY OF IAN DISCO.
non or ~IOOA ASSESSOR P_ IW'S FOR DEl'AILEIl
_ONS or DIDI\'JDUAL PAIlCIIS.
COUHTY RlCORDER
COUHTr OF SAN DIIGO
8'-7
0725-10AD93-01
w.o. NO. AY091
i"'....l \_:1 :J
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: II Office of Planning & Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
[F Q [b [g [Q)
GrfO'll) J Smith. ~~.t'Cou"h' CII'k
SEP 2 \ \994
FROM: Environmental Review Coordinator
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Ixl County Clerk
County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260
BY
DATE: September 16, 1994
Project Title - Alley Improvement-East of Second Avenue, from" J" Street to Kearny Street (STL-220)
Project Location - Alley Improvement- East of Second Avenue, from" J" Street to Kearny Street
Project Location - City of Chula Vista
Project Location - County of San Diego
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project
The project will involve the installation of concrete paving to City Standards in a currently unimproved alley extending
from "J" street to Kearny Streets and between Elm and Second Avenue. A Special Assessment District will be formed
to pay for the construction costs of said improvements.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project - City of Chula Vista
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project - City of Chula Vista Engineering Department
Exempt Status: (Check One)
_Feasibility/Planning Study (Sec. 1562)
_Ministerial (Sec. 15268)
_Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269a)
_Emergency Project (Sec. 15269 b & c)
....l!...-Categorical Exemption. State Type and Section number: 15301, Class 1c
_Not a Project (Sec. 15378)
_General Rule (Sec. 15061a3)
Reesons why this project is exempt: The proposed project involves the minor alteration (improvement) of an existing
public alley end therefore is exempt.
Contact Person:
Douglas D. Reid
Area Code
619
Telephone
691-5101
If filed by applicant:
1 . Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project?
Yes_ No_
Date Received for Filing
" f
.
r " "1~'
CASE t;O. ERE-93-26
15-'r?
RESOLUTION NO. /7~~~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE BOUNDARY MAP SHOWING
THE PROPOSED BOUNDARIES FOR ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT 93-01 OF PROPERTIES TO BE ASSESSED
FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, on November 23, 1993 by Resolution 17316,
Council accepted a petition for the formation of a special
assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the construction of PCC
pavement in the alley between J and Kearney Streets bounded by Elm
and Second Avenues; and
WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator
studied the potential environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the project and has determined this project is
categorically exempt from the requirement for an Environmental
Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, has been presented and has received a map showing the
general nature, location and extent of the proposed improvement
work, and also designating and describing the boundaries of the
area proposed to be assessed in the assessment district under the
provisions and authority of the "Improvement Act of 1911", of the
Streets and Highway Code of the State of California; said
assessment district designated as Assessment District 93-01
(hereinafter referred to as the Assessment District) .
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the map of the Assessment District
showing the general nature, location and extent of the proposed
public improvements and also showing the boundaries of the proposed
Assessment District and lands and property to be assessed to pay
the costs and expenses of the proposed improvements designated as
"PROPOSED BOUNDARIES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 93-01 1911 ACT IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT" is hereby submitted, and the same is hereby approved and
adopted.
SECTION 3. That the original map of proposed boundaries
of the proposed Assessment District and one copy thereof is to be
filed in the office of the City Engineer.
SECTION 4. A certificate shall be endorsed on the
original and on at least one copy of the map of the Assessment
District, evidencing the date and adoption of this Resolution, and
within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of the Resolution
fixing the dates, times and place of hearings on the formation or
g'rJ ~/
extent said Assessment District, a copy of said map shall be filed
with the correct endorsements thereon with the County Recorder, all
in the manner and form provided for in section 3111 of the Streets
and Highways Code of the State of California.
Presented by
APP:r:o;ed as to
/ .I;
~~'- /l\
orm by ('
f4~
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
l Bruce M. Boogaar , City
Attorney i
(
c: \rs\AD93-1
8"17 - ~
RESOLUTION NO.
178'..0
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ORDERING INSTALLATION OF
IMPROVEMENTS IN ALLEY FROM J STREET TO KEARNEY
STREET BETWEEN ELM AVENUE AND SECOND AVENUE,
ORDERING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS TO GIVE
NOTICE AND ORDER CONSTRUCTION AND SETTING
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO
FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 93-01 PURSUANT TO THE
BLOCK ACT OF 1911
WHEREAS, the City Council of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, is desirous to institute proceedings pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", of the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California for
construction of certain authorized improvements in a special
assessment district known and designated as Assessment District 93-
01 1911 BLOCK ACT affecting properties fronting/abutting alley from
J to Kearney Streets between Elm and Second Avenue (hereinafter
known and designated as the "Assessment District") and
WHEREAS, Sections 5875 and 5876 of said Streets and
Highway Code authorize the legislative body, upon its own motion,
to order the installation of authorized improvements in front of or
abutting properties with the costs thereon to be assessed as set
forth under the provision of said Chapter 27.
WHEREAS, section 5131 requires a resolution of intention
to form an assessment district to perform such work and Section
5132 requires public hearings to hear objections by those affected
by the district formation
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the public interest and convenience
requires, and this legislative body hereby orders the construction
and installation of certain improvements to an alley by installing
PCC pavement in the special assessment district, including speed
humps, pedestrian ramps and appurtenances where required, excepting
acceptable improvements in place in the City in what is known as
the Assessment District.
SECTION 3. All of the above mentioned works of
improvement shall be generally constructed at the grades, along the
lines, between the points, and at the places and in the manner as
shown on the plans for said work designated by the number and the
name of the Assessment. District, which said plans are hereby
approved and adopted. For all particulars as to the alignment of
the works and a full and detailed description, reference is hereby
'6/3'1
made to said plans and specifications as on file in the Office of
the city Engineer.
SECTION 4. That the works of improvements, in the
opinion of this legislative body, will benefit the abutting and
fronting properties within said block, and this legislative body
hereby makes the expenses of said improvement chargeable upon the
property or properties within the boundaries of the Assessment
District, which District is declared to be the area and abutting
properties benefitting by the work and improvements for a general
description of the Assessment District and area of benefit,
reference is made to a map of said district previously approved and
said map identified by number of this Assessment District, and said
map shall be kept on file with the transcript of these proceedings
and open to public inspection.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to the provisions of section 5875 of
the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", it
is hereby declared to be the responsibility of the owners of the
lots or portions of lots fronting/abutting the public alley where
this legislative body, pursuant to said Section, by its own motion,
orders the installation of the improvements, and the property
owners shall have the duty and responsibility of constructing or
causing the construction of said improvements fronting\abutting
their properties to commence within sixty (60) days upon notice so
to do by the Superintendent of Streets. If the work is not
commenced by the property owners within said period, the
Superintendent of Streets shall proceed to cause said work to be
completed.
SECTION 6. That all of the work and improvements herein
proposed shall be done and carried through and financed pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", of
the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. For all
particulars, reference is made to said "Act", and the provisions
contained therein.
SECTION 7. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON TUESDAY, THE
9TH AND 16TH OF MAY 1995, AT THE HOUR OF 6:00 P.M., IN THE REGULAR
MEETING PLACE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, BEING THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING, 276 FOURTH AVENUE, CHULA VISTA, CA., ANY
AND ALL PERSONS HAVING ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED WORK OR
IMPROVEMENTS OR THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED HEREIN SHOULD APPEAR AND
SHOW CAUSE WHY SAID WORK SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THIS RESOLUTION.
SECTION 8. If the work is done by the city, and if the
assessment cost is not paid upon confirmation of the assessment,
the City shall collect payment of the assessments, annual
installments, and interest in accordance with the provisions of
section 5895 of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", of the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. The number
of annual installments shall be 10 and the interest rate shall be
7 percent per annum.
~[J",,,,z
SECTION 9. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby
directed to notify the owner or person in possession of the
properties fronting/abutting that portion of the alley in the block
where work is to be constructed and directing them to construct or
cause to be constructed the improvements within sixty (60) days
after notice is given, and to diligently and without interruption
prosecute to completion said work.
A. Notice shall be given by mailing a letter, postage
prepaid, to the property owners at their last known
address as the same appears on the last equalized
assessment roll used by the City for tax
collection, or to the name and address of the
person owning such property as shown on the records
of the City Clerk.
B. The city Clerk shall cause a copy of the proposed
boundary map to be filed in the Office of the
county Recorder within fifteen (15) days after the
adoption of this Resolution setting dates, time and
place for the public hearings.
C.
The CIty Clerk shall cause the
Intention to be published twice,
publication occurring at least ten
to the second public hearing.
Resolution of
wi th the first
(10) days prior
SECTION 10. The estimated cost to the City of the works
of improvement as proposed under these proceedings, is estimated to
be $72,000.00.
SECTION
these proceedings,
protest procedure,
designated below:
11. For any and all information relative to
including the information relating to the
your attention is directed to the person
Donna Snider, civil Engineer
city of Chula vista
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Telephone: (619) 691-5266
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Lt1t.
, City
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M.
Attorney
c: \rs\ad93-1
,?,{J"- -3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1
Meeting Date 3/28/95
ITEM TITLE: Report on Review Process for Public Review Draft of Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan and Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ;li1/
REVIEWED BY: City ManageUG( \;.I.);.~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
The City of Chula Vista has been particiPk{ng-::the development of a draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program Plan, which is being prepared by the City of San Diego Metropolitan
Wastewater Department for its regional sewerage service area, including Chula Vista and several
other jurisdictions. The City of San Diego recently released a public review draft of the MSCP
Plan, and has published a schedule for review of the draft plan and accompanying Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), which will be released in May. The
following is a status report regarding the MSCP Plan and EIR/EIS process, as well as discussion
regarding public noticing and public information efforts which are being undertaken in the City
of Chula Vista in regard to this program.
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council accept the attached report.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation Commission
received copies of the Notice of Preparation and Notice of Intent for the draft MSCP
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement at its meeting on March 20, and
will be providing comments to staff regarding these documents.
DISCUSSION:
Schedule for Review of MSCP Plan and EIR/EIS
On March 1, the City of San Diego released the draft MSCP Plan (see Attachment 1, Executive
Summary) as well as a draft schedule for public review of the draft MSCP Plan and EIR/EIS
(Attachment 2). This schedule calls for a 90-day review period for the draft Plan; a 30 day
review period for the "Notice of Preparation of the EIR/EIS;" and a 45-day review period for
the draft EIR/EIS. In addition, the City has scheduled three "regional public workshops" to
discuss the draft Plan, one of which is scheduled to be held in Chula Vista on Saturday, April
8, at 9 AM at Castle Park High School.
Our staff has provided input into this schedule, and we feel that overall it provides adequate
opportunity for public input on the various components of the plan. However, we wish to
9-/
Page 2, Item .1
Meeting Date 3/28/95
highlight the fact that the 45-day review period for the EIRlEIS is the minimum permitted by
State law, and the City of Chula Vista has provided extended review periods (60 days or more)
for EIR's for major projects which involved possible public controversy. While we feel that the
45-day review period will be adequate for our staff to prepare comments on the draft EIR/EIS,
we are recommending that the City of San Diego extend the review period to at least 60 days
to ensure adequate opportunity for public input regarding the draft EIR/EIS and avoid future
legal challenges on this issue.
Public Noticing and Public Information Efforts
The City of San Diego on March 14, 1995 mailed out an information brochure (Attachment 3)
to owners of property within the City of San Diego which is located within the Multi-Species
Habitat Planning Area (MHP A) boundary designated in the draft MSCP Plan. The County of
San Diego is planning to distribute a similar brochure to landowners within the unincorporated
area, as are other cities within the MSCP study area. Our staff will be mailing a copy of the
City of San Diego's information brochure, along with a cover letter, to the owners of property
within the draft MHP A boundary within the city limits of Chula Vista during the week of March
23, 1995. A telephone line for interested parties to call to obtain information about the program
is in place.
The information brochure includes invitations to residents and property owners in the planning
area to attend one of three public information workshops. As noted earlier, one of the three
workshops will be held on Saturday April 8, 1995 at Castle Park High School between 9:00
A.M. and 1 :00 P.M. The workshop will feature an open house format. Following a brief
introduction of the MSCP and the content of the draft plan, members of the public may talk with
individual program planners in small group discussion settings. City staff will be participating
in this workshop. The information brochure also publicizes the fact that the Draft MSCP Plan
may be reviewed at the City of Chula Vista Library and the Planning Department.
In addition, our staff will be requesting the City Council to schedule a Council workshop in the
near future to receive a staff presentation on the draft MSCP Plan and other related open space
planning programs, including the Otay Valley Regional Park Plan, and the proposals of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Otay-Sweetwater and South San Diego Bay National
Wildlife Refuges.
Comments on "Notice of Preparation" and "Notice of Intent" for EIR/EIS for MSCP Plan
As part of the enviromnental review process for the MSCP Plan, an enviromnental document
will be prepared. Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is being requested to adopt this
Plan along with the local jurisdictions, the enviromnental document will be designated as a joint
"Enviromnental Impact Report/Enviromnental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), " in order to comply
with both the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Enviromnental Policy
9~2
Page 3, Item 2-
Meeting Date 3/28/95
Act (NEPA). Attached are the "Notice of Preparation" for the EIRIEIS which was prepared by
the City of San Diego (lead agency for the EIR) and "Notice of Intent" for the EIS which was
prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Attachments 4 and 5). Our staff is in the
process of reviewing both of these documents, and will be forwarding comments on both
documents prior to the April 2 deadline for the NOP. If Council wishes to direct any specific
comments regarding either the process or content of the EIR/EIS, they should be communicated
to staff and forwarded as part of the response to the NOP and NO! being prepared by staff.
FISCAL IMPACT: Chula Vista staff costs and other processing costs associated with the
current phase of the MSCP Plan are being supported by the City General Fund.
Attachments:
I) Executive Summary, Draft MSCP Plan
2) Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan and Joint EIRlEIS Schedule for Completion
3) City of San Diego Information Brochure on MSCP Plan
4) Notice of Preparation of a Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Enviromnental Impact Statement
(EIS)
5) Notice of Intent and meeting - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(F:\HOME\PLANNING\MSCPDRFT .AIl)
93
DRAFI'
MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
March 1, 1995
Table of Contents
~
1. Introduction and Objectives 1
2. Study Area Biology, Ownership and Land Uses 2
3. Conservation Plan 5
3.1 Plan Description 5
3.2 Biological Conservation 6
3.3 Preserve Assembly and Operation 10
3.4 Implementation Process and Structure 14
4. Compatible Uses and Preserve Management Guidelines 16
5. Economic Impact Analysis 18
6. Statement of Assurances and Implementing Agreement 20
7. Planning Process and Participants 21
1-'/ /9~?
ATTACHMENT 1
'0~#9
j/
/
I
I
DRAFf
MULTIPLE SPE
CONSERVATION PRO
(MSCp) PLAN
r-~
DRAFf MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
March 1, 1995
1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive habitat conservation
planning program for 581,649 acres in the southwest portion of San Diego County. The intent
of the program is to plan for habitat preservation to protect our region's biodiversity, create an
interconnected open space system of native habitats and allow for economic development. The
program objectives are as follows:
a. Efficiently and effectively comply with the Endangered Species Acts through a
regional and habitat-based approach to protect endangered, threatened and rare
species and to preclude the need to list more species as endangered or threatened.
b. Enable and facilitate economic development of the region, including development
of public and private projects, on lands not designated for habitat preservation.
c. Achieve a workable balance between preservation of natural resources and
regional growth and economic prosperity.
To achieve these general objectives, the draft MSCP Plan contains the following elements:
1. The plan defines a proposed Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) within which
preserve planning is focused, or in some cases, within which a preserve boundary
is defined for future dedications and acquisitions. This MHP A conserves
sufficient habitat to protect an identified list of species and provides for wildlife
use and movement to permit self-sustaining populations.
2. A partnership is proposed between federal, state and local agencies of government
and with private property owners to cooperatively implement the pIan through
local project review and approvals and through public commitments of lands and
money for acquisition.
3. The plan provides a framework for development of subarea plans (more specific
habitat conservation plans) and/or project plans to directly implement the MSCP,
and provides guidelines on land use regulations and project mitigation for local
jurisdictions to develop their own implementing tools.
4. A financing and acquisition strategy is presented which equitably spreads costs
among all beneficiaries and provides an affordable program.
9~7
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (311/95)
Page 2
5. Recommendations for long-term management and for monitoring of the system
build-out and success are provided, along with guidelines for compatible land uses
and activities within and adjacent to the preserve.
2. STUDY AREA BIOLOGY, OWNERSHIP AND LAND USES
Biology
The MSCP study area occupies approximately 900 square miles (581,649 acres) in southwestern
San Diego County and includes the City of San Diego, portions of the unincorporated County
of San Diego and 10 additional city jurisdictions. The area is bordered by Mexico to the south
and the San Dieguito River Valley to the north (see the map on the following page).
Approximately 41 % of the study area is developed or disturbed by urban development, and 5%
is in agriculture. The rest (54 %) is vegetated with 18 native habitat types. These vegetation
communities, with the exception of chaparral and non-native grasslands, are considered to be
sensitive or rare or have state or federal regulatory protection. Three habitat types make up the
majority of the vegetation in the study area: coastal sage scrub (37%), chaparral (35%) and
grasslands (9%). The remaining habitat types each occupy between 1-3% of the study area.
Many of our area's native vegetation communities have experienced significant losses from
development. As a result, San Diego County has a greater number of threatened and endangered
species than anywhere in the continental U.S. Over 200 plant and animal species that are
federa11y and/or state endangered, threatened, rare, or proposed or are candidates for listing
occur in the County. Over half of these species occur in the MSCP study area, although the
area comprises only 20% of the County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) selected
93 of these species (48 plants and 45 animals) as target species to aid in developing a viable
habitat preserve system. This plan designates 43 of the 93 target species as "priority" species .
if they are state or federally listed, proposed for listing, category 1 candidates for listing or state
Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) target species.
NCCP. In 1991, the state of California established the Natural Communities Conservation
Program (NCCP), with a pilot program to preserve coastal sage scrub habitat. In March, 1993,
the California gnatcatcher was listed as threatened by the federal government, with a unique
opportunity to ensure the protection of this species through the state-established NCCP or
through an equivalent program like the MSCP. Because the California gnatcatcher occupies
coastal sage scrub and related vegetation communities in areas of the County subject to
development pressure, the adequate protection of this particular species has been a priority of
the MSCP.
Biological Core Areas. A key step in developing the MSCP Plan is prioritizing the most critical
biological resource areas for preservation. An extensive Geographical Information System (GIS)
data base has been created with vegetation communities, species locations, topography, soils,
9 - 8'"
LEGEND
EJ MSCP Study
Area
~ Unincorporated
/..; Jurisdictional
Boundaries
--.;.--
/'V
/"'if
MSCP Study Area Boundary
fr88ways
Major Slr8<Ins
Source: SANDAG
- ,
"," '......
dIIN
J...IlKIk.dons within MSCP Study Area
.....
o
,
Q
5.5
,
MILES
9/t
3
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95)
Page 4
drainage and other physical factors. These factors have been used to develop a Habitat Map of
Evaluation Map which ranks each quarter-acre parcel with Very High to Low rankings of
potential habitat value. This map can then used as a regional tool to identify biologically
important areas (core areas) and habitat linkages between the core areas. Sixteen (16) core
biological resource areas and associated linkages (202,800 acres of habitat) have been identified
by the draft MSCP Plan. The core areas and linkages serve as a basis for designing the preserve
system boundaries; unfragmented core resource areas and linkages are recommended by the plan
to be maximized in the preserve.
Ownership. The study area contains over 300,000 acres of habitat, with two-thirds (64%) being
privately owned. Over one-third of the habitat land within the MSCP study area is in public
ownership; the federal government owns 41 % of the public habitat lands and the state owns 6%.
Because so much of the habitat in the study area is privately owned, the ability of the region to
equitably preserve portions of this land and to develop an affordable preserve system is a critical
issue.
The location of habitat by jurisdiction is illustrated below. A majority of the habitat in the study
area (62%) is in the unincorporated portion of the County; however, this 62% includes lands
owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the City of San Diego (Otay Lakes, San Vicente,
Marron Valley). Approximately 22% of the habitat lands in the study area are in the City of
San Diego's jurisdiction, excluding the Miramar Naval Air Station.
200,000
PUBUC AND PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP OF HABITAT
(MSCP Study Area)
201,892
LOCATION OF HABrrAT BY
.JURISDICTION
(MSCP Study Area)
200,000 1116 830
50,000
50,000
150,000
150,000
HABITAT
1_
112,998
100,000
100,000
~3O,076
HABITAT
1_
o
o
......., LANDS
PRIVATE lANDS
,I
Q
"
~
~
(j
#' " dolt .,~
q,O of ~... (j
" ..t
il'. ~.
c/'
OWNERSHIP
JURISDICTION
9-/tJ
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 5
Land Uses and Regional Growth
In 1990, the population in San Diego County was 2.5 million. According to a recent growth
forecast by the San Diego Association of Governments (Sandag), the region's population is
anticipated to grow to 3.8 million by the year 2015, with civilian employment increasing from
1.1 to 1.5 million. To accommodate this growth, it is expected that the region will need
approximately 457,000 additional housing units. The existing general and community plans
(unaffected by the proposed MSCP) would accommodate residential growth up to around 3.3
million persons, which is forecast to be reached in the year 2005. A regional land use strategy
is being developed to accommodate this growth while maintaining quality of life objectives. The
MSCP Plan can assist in developing this strategy by more clearly establishing areas for
preservation and for development and in streamlining the development process once preserve
areas are delineated.
Gap Analysis
A "gap analysis" is the process of overlaying data layers describing biological resources,
ownership and land use to identify where resources are currently protected and to determine gaps
in conservation protection. The currently protected areas serve as building blocks for designing
the preserve.
A gap analysis has been completed for the MSCP and reveals which habitat lands are already
permanently protected and managed as habitat and which habitat lands are designated in land use
plans as parks or open space. Approximately 71 % (80,388 acres) of all public lands with habitat
and just under one-fourth (47,401 acres) of all private habitat lands in the study area are either
protected or planned for protection/open space (as of 1994). Approximately 45 % (91,623 acres)
of the total core and linkage habitat areas is currently dedicated open space or planned as open
space in General/Community Plans, while only one-fifth of the linkages are protected (as of
1994).
3. CONSERVATION PLAN
3.1 Plan Description
The lands proposed for open space and habitat preservation are located within the draft Multi-
Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). The draft MHPA has been cooperatively designed by the 12
participating jurisdictions in consultation with the USFWS/CDFG staff, major property owners
and environmental groups, based on biological, economic, ownership and land use criteria.
Planning staff from the five jurisdictions with the most habitat (County and cities of San Diego,
Chula Vista, Poway and Santee) developed focused planning area lines, within which the future
preserve would be sited or considered for inclusion, or "hard line" preserve areas.
The County's proposed focused planning area calls for 70% of the habitats within the lines to
be conserved. The actual conservation boundaries will be developed through the preparation of
1-//
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95)
Page 6
subarea plans. Subarea plans are more specific habitat conservation plans which define habitat
preserve boundaries and implementation measures. In addition, public lands and mitigation lands
for large developments and a linkage area are shown for 100% or 90% preservation. The
County's portion comprises 110,030 acres of habitat, or 67% of the MHPA (including 24,306
acres owned by the Bureau of Land Management). The City of Poway is developing a subarea
plan which designates publicly owned, open space areas and other lands conserved as mitigation
for 100% conservation; areas zoned for low density residential for 80% conservation; and
prioritizes areas for acquisition as additional 100% lands. The cities of Santee, Chula Vista and
San Diego have proposed "hard line" preserve boundaries, within which 90-100% of the habitats
are proposed to be conserved. City of San Diego lands comprise 37,167 acres of the MHPA,
plus additional lands owned by the City outside its jurisdiction. City of San Diego lands
comprise 23% of the MHPA and 55% of all habitat within the City's jurisdiction.
3.2 Biolol!ical Conservation
The proposed MHPA conserves 164,326 habitat acres, over half (52%) of the habitat in the
MSCP study area, including 60% of all coastal sage scrub and 73% of the core biological
resource areas and linkages. Almost three-fourths of the habitat conserved are coastal sage scrub
and chaparral, with wetlands and grasslands comprising another 17%. It is assumed that 100%
of all wetland habitats will be conserved within the MHPA (i.e. no net loss). Approximately
66% of all Very High value lands and 52% of all High value lands in the study area are
proposed for conservation as well. The preservation of vegetation communities and habitat
values are summarized in Table 3-3.
Much of the coastal portion of the MHP A is comprised of smaller habitat patches which are
completely or nearly isolated by development. As much as 17% of the total MHPA area
(27,455 acres) could be subject to existing and future edge effects (adverse impacts from
development), based on the assumption that edge effects extend 200 feet into the preserve.
Appropriate management techniques for these and other potential impacts are addressed in
Section 4 of the plan.
Fifty seven (57) target species will be conserved by this draft plan, if adopted, including 29
priority species, and 28 other target species. Two NCCP target species, the California
gnatcatcher and the orange-throated whiptail, are included on the "covered species list", as are
17 other NCCP species. Each jurisdiction will receive permits to take listed species which are
adequately protected by the plan (referred to as "take authorizations"), under the condition that
all other implementing actions, as described in this plan, are fulfilled.
l( -/~
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195) Page 7
Protection Status ~ Animals Tht&
Federally listed (1) 3 10 13
State listed (2) 10 1 11
Federally proposed 2 1 3
Federal candidates(CI & C2) 18 10 28
Other (no status) 0 2 2
Total 33 24 57
(1) may also be state listed
(2) may also be federal proposed or federal candidate)
In determining adequate conservation of species, the analysis focused on the percent of major
populations that would be conserved in the MHP A; percent of appropriate habitat conserved was
used for those species with few or spotty documented occurrences in the study area. Each
species was also assessed on the level of risk, including edge effects, degree of protection
outside the MHP A afforded by state and federal wetlands regulations and topographic
inaccessibility .
Wetlands
11%
Grassland
6%
Chaparral
32%
Coastal Sage
Scrub
42%
Composition of Vegetation Communities
Conserved in the MHP A
9,-/3
.~~Jwd
1lIIs draft map dIpIcls areas wllhln whlclt .
habIlat P/1S8MlS may be crea18d, and IS
IntInd8d for IIIlmalll1g habItII prolBcIIon
and eosls far 1he draft Mul1lole SIlecIes
Consel'lallon PJ1lgl3lII (MSCP). The 1110-
logical data haw YaJYlng soun:es and
IIDJI1Cy; sI1I-spedftc dilla shall upda1J
1he data base, and may modfy 1lIis dr.III .
map. It Is not In1Inded lhat III lands
within 1he 8nes beP/1S8rved (some
dMIopment wiD be aBowed), and some
l18li lIU1SIde the lines may ulllmalely .
be h:luded In 1he pqserve. The MSCP
Plan must be lIPPfOVed by 1he Coonclls
and Board Of Supervisors for the d1Ies
lAd c:aunly before 1lIis information Is.
used 10 IIlIIlIdI land use.
.
DRAFT
-
-
_ 100% Habitat PnlSlrve
IDii)i!ii'~1 llO% Habitat Preserve
_ llO% Habitat Pnlserve
~ 70% Habitat Preserve
Pen:ent preservation
appUes only 10
habitat lands
~
~
~...,
-
MSCP Study Area
Boundary
Freeways
Major Slraams
Lakes and Lagoons
Q
&.6
,
:f .:;::; ::t, ~:'::; :~:i
o
.
MUS
IJIIB
Multi-Habitat Planning Area
9-/1
.....
1 ./i,r - .... J~
8
Table 3.3
VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACRES PRESERVED WITmN
MSCP MULTI-HABITAT PLANNING AREA (MHPA)
Total MSCP MHPA % of MSCP
Study Area Total MHPA Conserved Veg. Comm.
Vegetation Communities (acres) (acres) (acres) Conserved
Beach 1206 627 602 50%
Saltpan 235 212 212 90%
Southern Foredunes 188 140 139 74%
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 198 144 130 66%
Coastal Sage Scrub 115,636 80,323 69,782 60%
Maritime Succulent Scrub 1,804 1,000 924 51%
Chaparral 110,191 59,047 52,475 48%
Southern Maritime Chaparral 1,777 1,196 1,076 61%
CSS/Chaparral Scrub 3,878 1,721 1,431 37%
Grassland 28,400 11 ,546 10,389 37%
Southern Coastal Saltmarsh 1,870 1,732 1,732 93%
Freshwater Marsh 817 523 523 64%
Riparian Forest 1,328 1,102 1,102 83%
Oak Riparian Forest 5,382 3,053 3,053 57%
Riparian Woodland 731 588 588 80%
Riparian Scrub 5,395 4,278 4,278 79%
Oak Woodland 5,622 3,098 2,604 46%
Torrey Pine Forest 169 152 137 81%
Tecate Cypress Forest 5,696 5,615 5,531 97%
Eucalyptus Woodland 1,631 440 370 23%
Open Water 5,726 5,222 5,222 91%
Disturbed Wetlands 928 754 754 81%
Natural Flood Channel 860 731 731 85%
Shallow Bays 9,581 412 412 4%
Pacific Ocean 4,888 0 0 0%
Other* 756 143 131 17%
Subtotal Habitats 314,890 183.798 164,326 52%
Disturbed 22,984 5,993 0
Agriculture 28,594 5,267 0
Developed 215,181 2,048 0
Subtotal 266,759 13,308 0
TOTAL 581,649 197,106 164,326
· Disturbed, Agriculture, and Developed areas with habitat value.
Note: Numbers may not sum to total as shown, due to rounding.
Source: 1994 MSCP GIS data base.
9
9-;/
I J092IOOO-PIa.
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 10
3.3 Preserve Assembly and Operation
For planning purposes, there are three principal groups of participants and beneficiaries in the
conservation program: 1) federal and state governments; 2) local governments; and 3) private
landowners. These three groups willI) commit and manage for habitat use certain lands they
currently own and 2) acquire additional lands in private ownership inside the MHPA. These
actions are summarized in Table 3-9 as management or dedication of lands and funding of
habitat acquisition and maintenance.
The more private lands preserved as open space or habitat lands through local land use
regulation or dedicated as habitat lands through mitigation, the less need for acquiring habitat
within the MHP A through other sources. The plan recommends that local jurisdictions establish
encroachment limits for habitat conservation on private lands within the MHPA, and establish
other land use regulations and resource protection guidelines to help implement the MSCP. In
this plan, two cases are analyzed to illustrate acquisition costs if high rates of conservation are
required on private lands (Case A, low acquisition program) or if lower rates of conservation
are required on private lands (Case B, high acquisition program). The two cases assume that
all habitat acquisition will be accomplished by purchase, and none by alternative methods such
as land exchanges.
Case A
(Low Acouisition Program)
Case B
ffiil!h Acquisition Pro~m)
Total Acquisition Costs
$271 million
$513 million
Financing cost (interest)
for local government
$ 17 million
$ 88 million
Operation, maintenance &
management (1st 30 yrs)
Total 3D-yr program costs
$145 million
$150 million
$433 million
$751 million
Federal and State. The combined federal and state share of the total program costs is estimated
to be $153 million in Case A and $282 million in Case B. It has been assumed that the federal
and state governments will together fund one-half of the habitat acquisition cost, based on the
standard approach of federal and state funds matching local funding. Federal and state sources
of funds are expected to include the federal Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund, Section
6 of the federal Endangered Species Act and state bond measures. Additionally, the federal and
state governments will conserve and manage approximately 31,861 acres of habitat they currently
own in the proposed preserve.
~. The local share of the 3D-year program costs in 1994 dollars is estimated to be $165
million (38%) in Case A and $357 million (48%) in Case B, with the difference due to
9-/1--
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95)
Page 11
additional habitat acquisition and the cost of debt financing. The local share may be financed
through a variety of sources, any of which could be subject to voter approval. The costs range
from $7 to $9 per household per year under Case A, and from $15 to $20 per household per
year under Case B. Potential local sources of public financing include:
Parcel tax!benefit assessment (Assembly Bill 2007)
Habitat maintenance assessment district (Senate Bill 445)
Me1lo-Roos community facilities district
Ad valorem taxlgeneral obligation bond program
Annual fee on water or sewer rates
Regionwide utility tax
Sales tax
As part of the MSCP, local jurisdictions and special districts will preserve and maintain the
natural habitat they currently own in the MHPA, which amounts to approximately 39,875 acres.
Most of these lands are already protected in open space preserves and passive parks.
Private. Private projects are anticipated to acquire habitat inside the MHP A as off-site
mitigation and to fund a portion of the operation and maintenance cost. The plan assumes that
future development's impacts to habitat outside the MHPA will be mitigated through
conservation of habitat inside the MHP A. For all private parcels containing at least some habitat
inside the MHPA, the avera!!e land value is estimated to be $17,800 per acre, with a median
value of $10,300 per acre. It is estimated that future private projects requiring off-site
mitigation will purchase 10,000 acres of habitat at the median price of $10,300, at a total cost
of $103 million. The MSCP Plan provides flexibility in how future development impacts are
mitigated by each jurisdiction, and provides for options such as mitigation fees.
Varying land use regulations and mitigation for future projects inside the MHPA also affect
acquisition costs, as shown in Cases A and B. For habitat inside the MHPA, land use
regulations are assumed to emphasize avoidance by limiting encroachment onto sensitive
biological resources. For illustrative purposes, the encroachment allowed for private
development inside the MHPA was based on a "base development area" of 40% (Case A) and
60% (Case B) of gross property area. That is, each property was assumed to have the
opportunity to develop habitat as necessary to achieve this area of development. For each
property, a minimum of 2 acres was also assumed to be available for developed uses. Any
habitats impacted beyond the encroachment limitation are assumed to be replaced with habitat
of equivalent acreage and value. Table 3-18 presents the two illustrative cases of preserve
assembly based on low and high acquisition programs. The total amount of habitat acquired in
Case B exceeds Case A by 16,500 acres.
A case assuming a 20% base development area was also analyzed. In this case, the total acres
of habitat conserved on-site (without compensation) would exceed the conservation goal for
private habitat, though some public acquisition (2,300 acres) may be needed to improve
connectivity and configuration. This case is a less conservative estimate of costs of the MSCP.
9~J7
Table 3-9
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL ACTIONS FOR PRESERVE ASSEMBLY
AND OPERATION
Responsibility
Acres of Habitat to Be
Conserved in MHP A
1. Federal and State Governments
a) Manage and maintain cwrently owned natural habitat
located in MHP A according to MSCP guidelines.
b) Establish a long-term program to purchase privately owned
habitat in MHP A. Manage and maintain natural habitat
acquired with federal or state funds. Alternatively, provide
funding to participating local governments to acquire and
maintain the equivalent amount of habitat in MHP A.
2. Local Governments
a) Manage and maintain cwrently owned natural habitat
located in MHP A according to MSCP guidelines.
b) Acquire privately owned habitat in MHPA by purchase or
by other non-financial methods such as land exchanges and
transfers of development rights. Manage and maintain
natural habitat acquired under the local program.
c) Assure conservation of natural habitat on privately owned
land in accordance with local land use regulation,
environmental review, and resource protection guidelines.
3. Private Landowners
a) Conserve on-site natural habitat cwrently in private
ownership in accordance with local land use regulation,
environmental review, and resource protection guidelines.
Maintain habitat in accordance with MSCP guidelines.
b) Provide off-site mitigation through purchase of privately
owned habitat inside MHP A, for impact to habitat outside
MHP A, in accordance with resource protection guidelines.
Total to Be Conserved in MHPA
31,860 acres
11,300 - 19,100 acres
39,870 acres
2,700-II,400acres
See below.
52,100 - 68,600 acres
10,000 acres
164,326 acres
Source: Onaka Planning & Economics; Tables 3-11 and 3-13 through 3-16.
Figures have been rounded except for IOtallO be conserved in MHP A.
110921000.Plan
12 1/'/15
Table 3-18
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES OF PRESERVE ASSEMBLY BASED ON
LOW AND HIGH ACQUISITION PROGRAMS
Case A CaseB
Low Acquisition High Acquisition
Source Program (acres) Program (acres)
Federal and State Governments
. Maintain currently owned habitat I 31,860 31,860
. Acquire additional habitat 11,300 19,100
Local Governments
. Maintain currently owned habitat 2 39,870 39,870
. Acquire additional habitat 2,700 11 ,400
Private Landowners
. Conserve currently owned habitat located in
Pending private projects 3 31,100 31,100
Future private projects which impact
habitat inside the MHP A 4 37,500 21,000
. Net off-site mitigation obligation by all
private projects (excluding on-site 10,000 10,000
conservation) 5
Total habitat in preserve 164,330 164,330
Acquisition Summary
Total habitat acres acquired by all sources 6 24,000 40,500
Total acres of parcels acquired 7 24,800 42,500
Total acquisition cost ($ Million) 8 $271 M $513 M
Source: Onaka Planning & Economics; 1994 MSCP GIS data base (Ogden, SourcePoint).
Figures have been rounded.
I Table3-Il.
2 Table3-l3.
3 Table 3-14. Low estimate is used in both cases.
4 Estimated habital conservation by future projects which impact habitat inside the MHP A. See
Table 3-15 and discussion in text
5 See Section 3.3.5.
6 Total privately owned habitat acquired by federal, state, and local governments and private projects
which impact habitat outside the MHP A.
7 Total acres of private parcels which contain the habitat noted (see lext for a discussion of potential
acquisition).
8 In 1994 dollars.
J J0921000.Plan
13
9--/7
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95)
Page 14
Operation. Maintenance and Manal?ement Costs. The average cost of preserve operation and
maintenance is estimated to be $36.50 per acre per year, or $6 million per year for a 164,300-
acre preserve. Program management and administration are estimated to cost $7.50 per acre per
year, or $1.2 million per year for the preserve, plus an additional amount for preparing planning
documents such as subarea plans. Total costs of operation, maintenance and management are
approximately $45 per acre per year.
3.4 Implementation Process and Structure
Implementation of the MSCP will occur through land acquisition by the federal, state and local
governments and through land use review and approval actions of the local jurisdictions.
Federal, state and local commitments of publicly-owned lands to the MHP A will also serve to
build the preserve system. Therefore, the proposed implementation structure for the MSCP
relies on existing institutions to implement the MSCP, primarily the eleven cities and the
County. These jurisdictions will use the MSCP Plan as a framework or subregional plan to
guide the preparation of subarea plans and development project plans, which are the basic
building blocks of MSCP implementation.
The MSCP will be incrementally implemented by: a) review of projects for consistency with
"hard line" preserves and recommendations of the MSCP, or; b) through the preparation or
approval of subarea plans by local jurisdictions and subsequent review of projects. This process
maintains local jurisdiction flexibility. Regardless of the process chosen, the end result will be
an approved "hard line" preserve before taking of the habitat and species may proceed.
This plan proposes a new process for implementing the state and federal Endangered Species
Acts (ESA) in that local jurisdictions will obtain authorizations from the state and federal
governments to take listed species, and the jurisdictions will then exercise their land use review
and approval powers in accordance with the MSCP Plan and each jurisdiction's implementing
agreement with the wildlife agencies. Each jurisdiction will enter into an implementing
agreement with USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to obtain
permits to take listed species, to obtain pre-listing agreements and assurances for unlisted
species, and to specifically outline the responsibility of each jurisdiction and the agencies in
implementing the MSCP. The 5% limit on interim take of coastal sage scrub, imposed as part
of the state's NCCP program, will be replaced by the conditions of each jurisdiction's
implementing agreement. The MSCP approval and implementation process is summarized in
Table 3-21.
Land Use Re$POnsibilities of Local Jurisdictions. Each local government is expected to adopt
the final configuration of the proposed MHP A within its jurisdiction and adopt the
recommendations of the MSCP Plan through amendment of its General Plan or other applicable
plans. Zoning would be retained or properties rezoned, as needed, and zoning regulations
amended to reflect the MHPA and to achieve consistency with the MSCP Plan. The MSCP
guidelines for compatible land uses in and adjacent to the MHPA are also expected to be
incorporated into the General Plan, zoning regulations, and approval process for projects,
9 --02.0
Table 3-21
MSCP APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
1. Local jurisdictions requesting take authorizations submit draft MSCP Plan to
wildlife agencies.
2 . Wildlife agencies review plan within 90 days.
3 . Local jurisdictions and wildlife agencies agree on contents of final MSCP Plan.
4. Local jurisdictions adopt MSCP; jurisdictions and wildlife agencies cenify
CEQAJNEPA documents.
5. Local jurisdictions and wildlife agencies sign implementing agreements.
a. Agreements convey take authorizations to local jurisdictions.
b. Local jurisdictions incorporate MSCP Plan into general plans and, if necessary,
zoning ordinances.
c. Localjurisdictions apply protection to habitats covered by MSCP Plan.
6. Local jurisdictions panicipate in a subregional or regional open space acquisition
program.
7. Local jurisdictions implement MSCP Plan incrementally through local project
review and approval process.
a. Local jurisdictions prepare subarea plans if needed.
b. Applicants prepare project plans and local jurisdictions process project plans.
8 . Local jurisdictions cenify projects in compliance with MSCP.
9. Wildlife agencies review subarea plan during 3D-day comment period.
10. Wildlife agencies issue letter of concurrence on subarea plan. For project plans, if
no comment or letter of concurrence is received from wildlife agencies, local
jurisdictions may issue permits.
11. Local jurisdictions repon fmal project or subarea plan impacts to entity responsible
for regional monitoring. Jurisdictions monitor permit compliance.
See also Section 3.3.4 for a discussion of planning and administtative actions by local jurisdictions.
15
9 ~c2l
lI092JOOO
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95)
Page 16
including adoption of appropriate mitigation guidelines. Procedures and regulations for interim
controls are also necessary to address activities that would potentially impact sensitive habitats.
The current method of individual wildlife agency review of public and private projects will be
stream1ined by the fact that take authorizations will be issued in advance to the local jurisdictions
through the signing of implementing agreements.
Plan Monitoring. Monitoring of MSCP Plan implementation involves two separate components:
a) annual accounting of the amount, type and location of habitat conserved and destroyed
(taken), and; b) biological monitoring by surveys and other data collection to assess the success
of the preserve system in conserving plant and animal species, with reporting expected every
three years.
Institutional Structure. Loca1 jurisdictions are currently discussing a local structure to coordinate
plan implementation. Tasks which must be fulfilled by the responsible jurisdictions or other
entity, or through shared responsibility, include:
A. Fund raising & acquisition (fund acquisition, establish mitigation banks)
B. Plan coordination (maintain data base, coordinate with other regional habitat
plans, monitor preserve system implementation, conduct public outreach)
C. Preserve management (prepare management plans, manage preserve areas,
conduct biological monitoring, oversee restoration or revegetation)
The local jurisdictions should select the groups and agencies who will provide coordination and
implementation during the MSCP Plan adoption process. Though establishment of a
conservancy to perform acquisition or management is being considered, the creation of a new
Joint Powers Agency (JP A) is not being recommended.
4. COMPATIBLE USES AND PRESERVE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
The purpose of the proposed MSCP preserve system is to conserve biological diversity and
maximize preservation of target species, while providing open space for public recreation and
other land uses, as appropriate. A general land use compatibility chart is provided in Table 4-1.
Uses are categorized as either compatible, conditionally compatible or incompatible with
preserve, linkage or buffer areas. Land uses are considered conditionally compatible where
impacts are reduced or eliminated by specific activity restrictions, design, or management
practices.
Core areas and linkages within the preserve system are to be managed primarily for biological
resources. Buffers may be inside or outside the preserve, depending on ownership and land use,
and would be managed for potential indirect impacts on the adjacent preserve. Buffers may be
in private or public ownership. Buffers should generally be maintained at least 20<>-600 feet
from the borders of the preserve, with buffer width dependent on the sensitivity to disturbance
9 --- ~~
Table 4-1
GENERAL COMPATIBILITY OF LAND USES AND MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO PRESERVESl,2
Land Use Core Preserve Linkage Buffer
Active Recreation I I CC
Passive Recreation CC CC CC
Agriculture I CC CC
Grazing CC CC CC
Low Density Residential3 CC CC CC
High Density Residential3 I I I
Commercial I 1 CC
Industrial I I CC
Utilities CC CC CC
Landfills I I CC
Water Facilities CC CC CC
Transportation I I CC
Mineral Extraction I I CC
Active Military Use I I CC
Worker Camps I I CC
ICC = Conditionally Compatible Use, some restrictions consistent with biological goals; however, the
level of intensity and cumulative impacts should be addressed.
I = Incompatible Use
2 Site-specific exceptions to compatibility designations may exist within any land use
category; refer 10 text for specific exceptions.
3Low Density Residential = $ 1 dwelling unit per acre
High Density Residential = > 1 dwelling unit per acre
17
9/;23
110921000-Plan
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 18
of the species being protected, the type of vegetation within the buffer, topography, and the type
and intensity of adjacent human activity. Zoning and development guidelines will be the best
means of achieving biologically compatible uses in these areas.
Linkages connect preserve areas and allow for wildlife movement, recruitment and colonization.
Linkages are crucial to the functioning of the preserve system, particularly for large mammal
movement and for sustaining certain sensitive species populations. Greater use restrictions and
more intensive management practices are expected in narrow linkages and those constrained by
development.
Guidelines for Preserve Land Uses. The MSCP Plan and the MSCP Resource Document
provide guidelines and suggestions on how to reduce impacts of several land uses including
recreation, agriculture, different forms of development, mineral extraction and itinerant worker
camps. It is assumed that planned and current park uses will continue and, in existing
recreational areas, existing ownership and management will be maintained. Both passive and
active recreational activities are anticipated within and adjacent to the preserve.
Guidelines for Preserve Management Activities. The MSCP Plan provides guidelines for fire
management; grazing; restoration of vegetation; hydrology; insects and disease; fencing, signage
and lighting; predator and exotic species control and other factors. The plan requires that long-
term preserve management plans be prepared to address habitat management and land use issues.
These preserve management plans should be reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFG,
and should be annually reviewed and updated by the responsible local jurisdiction. Each plan
should identify operational needs, issues, problems and strategies for a five-year period.
Preserve management plans can be prepared for portions of the MHPA (such as a single
jurisdiction), though coordination is needed to ensure that the overall needs of species and
habitats are met on a rangewide basis.
5. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
An economic impact analysis is a comparison of an economy under different sets of assumptions.
For the MSCP Plan, Case A (the low acquisition program discussed in Section 3.3) and Case
B (the high acquisition program) are each compared to the No Preserve alternative. The No
Preserve Alternative would occur if the MSCP Plan is not adopted and conservation of the
region's native biological resources would result entirely from compliance with existing federal,
state and local1aws, including the Special Rule (developed under Section 4(d) of the federal
Endangered Species Act) to conserve the California gnatcatcher and coastal sage scrub.
The economic impact analysis shows that a multiple habitat preservation program (either Case
A or B) will ensure the region's economy against large and persistent developments disruptions.
Under the No Preserve alternative, the region will continue to be threatened by and experience
large and persistent development disruptions, which will be costly in terms of fewer jobs and
less income for residents.
9~.)-'I
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95)
Page 19
Either Case A (low acquisition program) or Case B (high acquisition program) would provide
the region with an additional 5,000 jobs, with over 46% of those being in the construction
industry. These additional jobs would increase personal income in the region by $180.0 to 184.8
million (in the year 2010). Over the first 15 years of the program, the cumulative value to the
region, measured by annual net increase in aggregate personal income, would be $1.2 to $1.3
billion. The estimated increase in household income is $78 per year, exceeding the estimated
cost impact of $7 to $9 (Case A) or $15 to $20 (Case B) per household per year, associated with
public financing of the two alternative acquisition programs.
The region's opportunity for economic growth hinges on new public and private investment in
capital and technology. In the absence of a regional habitat conservation plan, businesses and
investors probably would view San Diego as a risky destination for investment dollars, given
unresolved environmental conflicts and the prospect of regulations restricting development each
time another species is listed.
The median price of a new house in the San Diego region would also be higher without a habitat
conservation program. Under the No Preserve alternative, nearly 6,000 additional households
would no longer meet the minimum income requirements to purchase a home with the median
price (nearly six times the number of households affected by Cases A or B).
Im'pacts on Planned Land Use
Implementation of the MSCP would place into conservation some lands that are designated for
potential active use by general and community plans, including potentially 37,550 housing units
and employment uses for 32,260 persons within the MHP A. Some of this planned development
could take place inside the MHPA or some outside. It is highly unlikely that development would
be eliminated from the region.
Publicly Owned Lands. Approximately 27% of 74,781 acres of publicly owned habitat in the
MHP A (20,228 acres) have general plan designations for active use. If low density residential
uses are excluded, public lands designated for active uses total nearly 9,200 acres. This plan
assumes that 4% (3,045 acres) of the publicly owned habitat in the MHPA would be lost to
development and approximately 96% would be conserved. In order to limit the loss to this
amount, it is anticipated that only essential public facilities would be constructed.
Privately Owned Lands. Nearly two-thirds of the privately owned habitat inside the MHPA have
general or community plan designations for active use. Inside the MHPA, about a third of
privately owned habitat lands are currently designated by local general or community plans as
preserves and open space, and nearly half are designated for low density residential uses (1 unit
per 20 acres to 1 unit per acre). About 10% are designated for urban uses. According to this
plan, approximately 85% of the 109,018 acres of privately owned habitat in the MHPA would
be conserved, and 15% (16,428 acres) could be lost to private development. The total number
of housing units that could be built in the MHP A through buildout, as envisioned by current land
use plans, is 37,550 units; 31,970 of these are shown on lands to be conserved.
9/cJ~
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 20
6.0 STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT
Assurances. A goal of the MSCP is to achieve certainty in the private and public sector
development process while conserving our region's biodiversity. The following are taken from
a list of assurances developed with the other two habitat conservation planning programs in the
County and with the wildlife agencies. The statement of assurances outlines the major policies
and procedures upon which implementation of the MSCP can depend.
1. A list of species adequately protected by the MSCP Plan and for which take
authorizations can be granted (Covered Species List) will be agreed to by USFWS
and CDFG. The wildlife agencies will not require the commitment of additional
land or financial compensation beyond the level agreed to in the plan, provided
the plan is properly functioning and in the absence of extraordinary
circumstances.
2. The wildlife agencies will issue take authorizations (permits) and other assurances
for listed and unlisted species; the permits will cover significant time periods to
provide predictability to public facility and private project development.
3. If additional species are listed in the future, take authorizations will be expedited
for species on the Covered Species List.
4. The wildlife agencies agree to phased implementation if interim protection of
habitat is provided by jurisdictions and monitoring demonstrates compliance with
the MSCP Plan and implementing agreements.
5. Jurisdictions will ensure implementation through local land use plans and local
codes and ordinances, conserving public lands as identified in the MSCP Plan and
ensuring exactions and mitigation for private and public projects.
6. Federal and state land contributions shall focus on the implementation of the
MSCP Plan.
7. Subregional plans shall incorporate a uniform severability guarantee that protects
local jurisdictions and property owners from noncompliance by another
jurisdiction or owner.
Implementin(! A~reement. The implementing agreement is the vehicle by which USFWS and
CDFG will issue permits to take species ("take authorizations") and to provide pre-listing
agreements and assurances for unlisted species. The implementing agreement will be a binding
contract between an individual jurisdiction and the USFWS and CDFG, and will be an
agreement on specific actions between the parties to implement the MSCP. These actions would
include but not be limited to: the process by which local land use authority will be exercised to
create the preserve system through land use policies, project approvals and interim controls; the
c; -~t
Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195)
Page 21
monitoring of conservation and take of species; preparation of subarea plans, if needed;
coordination with neighboring jurisdictions; participation in regional financing; and management
and maintenance of habitat. A model implementing agreement is provided in the MSCP Plan
to serve as a template for local jurisdictions in preparation of specific agreements.
7. PLANNING PROCESS AND PARTICIPANTS
The MSCP began in July, 1991, with the formation of the MSCP Working Group, comprised
of state and federal wildlife agencies, local jurisdictions, special purpose agencies, and
representatives of development interests and environmental groups. In addition, an
Implementation Strategy subcommittee was formed to provide review and expertise to
development of the finance and acquisition plan and overall implementation strategy. This latter
committee joined with staff from the North County MHCP and the County's regional habitat
conservation program to propose implementation measures for the entire County.
The Working Group and subcommittee have met at least monthly throughout much of the course
of the development of this plan. The Working Group addressed such topics as mitigation,
preserve design, subarea planning, e{J.uity, coordination of interim permit activities, and plan
implementation through the review and discussion of 12 Issue Papers. Additionally, four finance
papers were developed for input to the acquisition and financing strategy.
A Resolution of Intention (ROI) was developed in 1993 for approval by the twelve local
jurisdictions within the study area. The ROI was prepared to confirm the voluntary commitment
by local jurisdictions to participate in the development of the MSCP Plan by identifying a
schedule and responsibilities. The ROI was approved by 10 local cities in the study area.
Relationship to Other Planning Efforts. In addition to the MSCP, two other subregional habitat
planning efforts are underway in the San Diego region: 1) the Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program (MHCP) covering the nine jurisdictions in the northwest part of the County (managed
by Sandag), and; 2) the County of San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation and Open Space
Program for the unincorporated lands east of the MSCP and MHCP. Regular coordinating
meetings have occurred with agency, local jurisdiction, developer and environmental interests.
In 1994, the MSCP Policy Committee of elected officials, originally formed to address preserve
boundary and financing issues for the MSCP, was expanded to include elected officials from the
MHCP and, therefore, cover all three programs.
The MSCP Plan is a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as envisioned in Section 10(a) of the
federal Endangered Species Act. The MSCP is also prepared as a Natural Community
Conservation Plan in accordance with California law. Based on the definitions in the .Southern
California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Draft Process Guidelines (July 1, 1993),. the MSCP is an
Ongoing Multi-Species Plan and may be accepted as an NCCP. This relationship was
established by the signing of an Ongoing Multi-Species Planning Agreement in July 1993.
9-:27
ATTACHMENT 2
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
MULTIPLE SPECIES CO~SERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN
~''D JOINT EIRIEIS
SCHED1JLE FOR COMPLETION
l\larch 1, 1995
03/01/95
Draft MSCP Plan distributed for public review.
Begin 90-day public review period.
03/02/95
Publish Notice of Preparation of a Joint EIR/EIS in the Daily Transcript
(CEQA requirement). Begin NOP 30-day public review period.
03/02/95
Present Draft MSCP Plan to the MSCP Working Group.
03/03/95
Present Draft MSCP Plan to the MSCP Policy Committee.
Early March
Local jurisdictions notify the public of the availability of the Draft MSCP
Plan; where the documents can be seen; and dates, times, and locations
of the regional public workshops.
03/08/95
Present Draft MSCP Plan to the San Diego City Council
Natural Resources, Culture, and Arts (NRC&A) Committee.
03/15/95
Conduct public scoping meeting (NEPA requirement).
04/01/95
04/08/95
04/22/95
Regional public workshop on the Draft MSCP Plan, northern location
Regional public workshop on the Draft MSCP Plan, South Bay location
Regional public workshop on the Draft MSCP Plan, eastern location
04/02/95
End NOP 30-day public review period.
04/12/95
Discuss the Draft MSCP Plan with the City of San Diego NRC&A
Committee.
Early May
Notice of Availability of the Draft Joint EIR/EIS published in the Federal
Register (NEPA requirement) and in the Daily Transcript. Notice of
Completion released (CEQA requirement).
Early May
Local jurisdictions notify the public of the availability of the Draft Joint
EIR/EIS; where the document can be seen; and dates, times, and locations
of the regional public hearings.
9-;l~
05/08/95
Draft Joint EIRIEIS distributed for public review.
Begin 45-day public review period.
05/18/95
City of San Diego Planning Commission workshop on the Draft MSCP
Plan and Draft Joint EIRlEIS.
05/30/95
End 90-day public review period for Draft MSCP Plan.
06/07/95
06/14/95
06/21/95
Public hearing on the Draft Joint EIRlEIS, northern location.
Public hearing on the Draft Joint EIRlEIS, South Bay location.
Public hearing on the Draft Joint EIRlEIS, eastern location.
06/22/95
End 45-day public review period for Draft Joint EIRIEIS.
07/05/95
Final MSCP Plan distributed.
07/13/95
Final Joint EIRIEIS distributed.
Mid July
NOA for Final Joint EIRlEIS published in the Federal Register (NEPA
requirement). Begin 30-day public review period.
07/27/95
City of San Diego Planning Commission hearing on the Final MSCP
Plan and Final Joint EIR/EIS.
08/08/95
San Diego City Council hearing on the Final MSCP Plan and
Final Joint EIRlEIS, consideration of certification of the Joint EIRlEIS,
adoption of the Plan, and approval of related community plan amendments.
Notice of Determination is filed, if the Final Joint EIRlEIS is certified.
08/13/95
End 3D-day NOA public review period for Final Joint EIRlEIS.
August
Record of Decision (ROD) on Final Joint EIRlEIS published in Federal
Register.
9~~!
INSIDE
Important
Information
for
Residents
and
Property
Owners
@ jJrintcd (m Rccy'cled Paper
DRAFT MSCP PLAN
c/o CITY 01" SAN DIEGO
600 B STREKI; SUITE 500
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
Attachment 3
BULK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE
PAlD
PERMIT NO. 960
SAN mEGO, CA
Thi, material will he made availahle ill alternative !'nrmat1'o:'jo
HOW TO OBTAIN
MORE INFORMATION
1. Send for a copy ofthe MSCP Plan Executive Summary (21 pages).
The executive summary contains succinct information that will give you a broad overview of the draft plan.
The executive summary may he received at no cost hy mailing the attached post card or writing to: Draft
MSCP Plan, Executive Summary, 6m B S1.. Suite 5m, San Diego, CA 9210 I,
2. Review a copy ofthe Draft MSCP Plan (230 pages).
If you need more details after reading the executive summary, read the Draft MSCP Plan in its entirety. Copies
of the draft plan can be reviewed atlihraries listed on an inside panel of this mailer. The Draft MSCP Plan
available for the cost of printing and shipping. To obtain your copy, send a check in the amount of $35.00
payable to" City Treasurer" c/o Draft MSCP Plan, 6m B S1.. Suite 5m, San Diego, CA 92101.
3. Review the three-volume Resource Document (2.000 pages) on which the plan is hased.
The Draft MSCP Plan was based on a comprehensive research effort that resulted in a three-volume Resource
Document. Several libraries identified on an inside panel of this mailer have the Resource Document available
for public review.
4. Attend one of three regional workshops in April.
To provide a means for personal dialogue about the MSCP Plan, regional publie workshops will be held at the
following dates and locations. All workshops will be conducted from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Northern Area
Saturday, April L 1995
Mira Mesa High School
10510 Reagan Road
San Diego,CA 92126
Southern Area
Saturday, April R, 1995
Castle Park High School
1395 Hilltop Drive
Omla Vista,CA 91911
Eastern Area
Saturday, April 22, 1995
West Hills High School
R756 Mast Boulevard
Santee, C A 92071
The workshops will feature an open house format. Following a brief introduction of the MSCP and the content
of the draft plan, members of the publie may talk with individual program planners in small group discussion
settings.
5. CaD (619) 570-1099 to reach a 24.hour MSCP Information Line for current information about the Dmft
MSCP Plan approval process and how to ohtain more information.
6. btformation about MSCP is accessible on the Internet at URL http://www.sannet.gov for individuals with
hrowsers capahle of accessing the Worldwide Weh, (Available March 20, 1995)
9-31
,~~
':ii, .,.,;' '," , "C'
41'i ,)-~ ~i':n
;~"~
A HABITAT PLAN FOR
GREATER SAN DIEGO
ThL' Multiple Species Conscrvathlfl Program (ivISCP) is preparing a plan to
protl;ct sensitive plant and wildlife habit<lb in a \\,(1)' that can accommodate
uevclopment necessary for the economic hl'alth of the region. A draft of this
plan is now alailahlc for public review and comment.
Mscp is a cooperative effort hetween the City of San Diego. the Counl~
of San Diego. 1 he cities of Santee. PO\,,',I:', and Chula Vista and otllL'f jurisdic-
tions in the sout[nvcslcrn portion or the greater San Diego region, state and
federal v.'ildlifc age neiL's. other special purpose public agencies, and n..'prcscll~
j,ltivcs or the [and development industry and environmental urganiZ<ltion:-;.
The progralll is evaluating the quantity and qUi.dity of remaining h;lhil;Jt in
a t)IHl- squan>milc area frofll the San Dieguito Rivl't" Valk'y south tothL' t 1.S./
]\/1cxico border and from the P;lCilic Ocean L'<lst to the community o( Alpine.
The Draft ]\.'tSCP Plan proposes to establish a It)], IOh acre habitat planning
alT,l. \Vhen the draft plan is finali/ed and apprmL'<'1. some land in tl1,lt an':,1
\vill be set aside for presLTv,ltion. lJecause Jour proper"",' is in the habitat
planning area. the creation of a preserve system ma)' aired )'ollr propen).
W hat docs all of this mean to lOll as a resident or propen)' owner in tht,
planning area'! To find OUL ~i{)U <Ire urged to hecome inl'onned ahout the Draft
J\;lSCP Plan and the h<lhililt planning arL';[ proposed. Thi:-; mailer is intended to
[ll"Ovidc preliminary infonll,ltion ahollllhc Draft t\.lultipk' Species C()nsL'rva~
tion Pbn and to giVL' YOll addition;ll opportLJlllties to ohlailllllore information.
Please take the time to read this maih;'r and learn hm.\' the Draft J\lSCP Plan
ma)' apply to you.
9~J~
IMPORTANT NOTICE - THIS INFORMATION MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
,
YOUR
COMMENTS ARE
ENCOURAGEDI
Your interest in reviewing the Draft
MSCP Plan is greatly appreciated.
The public review period will end on
May 30, 1995. Your comments on
the draft plan may be sent to:
Comments
Draft MSCP Plan
do City of San Diego
600 B Street, Suite 500
San Diego, CA 92101
WHO DEVELOPED
THE DRAFT PLAN?
Two separate committees provided
input to the consultant team that
developed the Draft MSCP Plan:
MSCP Working Group - consisting of
representatives of the Cities of San
Diego, Chula Vista. Poway. and Santee:
the County of San Diego: state and
federal wildlife agencies: other special
purpose puhlic agencies: and represen-
tatives of the land development
industry: and environmental organiza-
tions.
MSCP Policy Committee - a represen-
talive group of elected officials from the
City of San Diego. County of San
Diego. and other affected local cities.
SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT
MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION
PROGRAM PLAN
T he Multiple Species Conservation Program is studying approximately
900-square miles in southwestern San Diego County. including the City of
San Diego. 10 additional city jurisdictions and portions of the unincorpo-
rated County. Approximately 41 percent of the study area is developed and
rive percent is agricultural land. The remaining 54 percent is vegetated with
lX types of native habitat. Most of these habitats arc considered by federal
or state regulatory agencies to be sensitive or rare.
San Diego County has nearly IOO plant and animal species that are either listed or
proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. This is more than any other
county in the contincntal United States. If adopted, the Draft MSCP Plan would
preserve a majorit),' of these species. reduce the likelihood that any future listings
would he necessary'. and, hy doing so. significantly reduce the potential adverse
effects that future listings could have on our region's economy. Here's what's in
the draft plan:
1. An analysis of the natural habitats in the lJOO-square-milc area studied
hy the Multiple Species Conservation Program.
2. A plan to create a preserve within a defined Multi-Habitat Planning
Area through a partnership hetween federal. state. and local agencies
and private property owners. Local jurisdictions would review and
approve projects that are consistent with the plan while federal, state,
and local governments would commit land and/or money for acquisition
of land.
3. Proposed guidelines on land use regulations and project mitigation to
assist local.iurisdictions in guiding development of lands within the arca
studied hy MSCP.
4. An affordahle financing and acquisition strategy which equitably
spreads costs among all heneficiaries.
5. Recommendations for long-term management and monitoring of the
preserve system and guidelines for which land uses in and near thc
preserve arc compatihle.
6. An economic impact analysis of the proposed conservation plan.
e; -;J)'
WHY A HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN?
The current process of coordinating land development and resource protection is fragmented
and frustrating for all parties. The Draft Multiple Species Conservation Plan would improve the
process of habitat conservation while simplifying regulations governing land development.
1. TilL' hahitat conservation plan would prolcct existing natural hahitats and endangered specics \vhik ;:lCcollllllodating
dC\'l::I()f1l1lcnt necessary' for the l'co!lo11lic health ofthl' n:gi(lI1.
2. Enort~ to protect San Dicg()'s natural h;lhilats in Ollr ()~X>1l spaces \v(mld also help protect quality of tife and property
values.
3. r1li: plan is ,1 pro;lctivl' and cooperative planning erfort at the local level lhat overall \vould reduce tilL' need for
c1ll1angcrcd specics act regulation by.' federal and state !J()Vcrnmcnls {1Il individual property mVllcrs in the n.'gioll studied
h\ MSCP
4. Developers and individual property' owners would henefit from an orderl~i syskm of uealing with hahitat issues.
Currently each property in open hahitat areas musl unuergo individual review hy slate and federal agencies tn determine
impacts on sensitive hahitat anu endall!lL'reu species. The preserve sy'slem \vould assure sensitive habitats and
endan)..'.ereu species \voulu he protected in the region and orderly development could proceed.
S. Endangered specics and sensitive habitats \',/ould be preserved.
Iiii' Drati Multiple Species Cottservtttiou
Plan is i/ proacrivc coopcrarin' elf()rr ro
dc{('!"millc hOH' Ihe .)"UIl lJicgo rcgioll C(l1I
protccT e.ris{ifl,~ J/(/lI/rull/{{hiw{s Ide Tlli,\
It'hile (/("('(nl/J}/()(I(/(illg Ilevell l/nnel,1
lII'cess(/ry,f()r rhe CCUI10lllic 1/('(11111 ofrhc
regioll. Pllhlic 11'od.~//rIV" h(/ve 1)('('/1
~d/edlll('d ill fl/(, 1I!()}1fh of/1fJril so
/Jropcrry U\,\'llel"S CUll de!(,!"lI/ill(, ifr/lcir
projJcr/y is ill rhe I)fD/Jo\cd huhilllf
plal/llillg (lrell {{lid how ir mighT he
atf('cred. [JurI's {/nd locuriolls ofr//rIse
m('crillgs(/rc(olllld d\e]I'/II'f(' in rhi."
moilo:
'1 /' #~}tj
A LIST OF LIBRARIES WHERE THE
DRAFT MSCP PLAN CAN BE REVIEWED
All oflhe following lihraries have a copy of the Draft MSCP Plan available for
your review. All ofthe libraries marked in bold have a copy of the three-volume
Resource Document on file for review.
City of San Diego libraries:
Central Library
Balboa Branch
Beckwourth Branch
Benjamin Branch
Carmel Valley Branch
Oairemont Branch
College Heights Branch
East San Diego Branch
La Jolla Branch
Linda Vista Branch
Logan Heights Branch
Miru Mesa Brunch
Mission Hills Branch
Normal Heights/Kensington Brunch
North Oairemont Branch
North Park Branch
Oak Park Branch
Ocean Beach Branch
Otay Mesa Branch
Pacific Beach Branch
Paradise Hills Branch
Point Loma Branch
Rancho Bernardo Branch
Rancho Penasqnitos Branch
San Carlos Branch
San Ysidro Branch
Scripps Ranch Branch
Serra Mesa Branch
Skylinc Hills Branch
Tierrasanta Branch
University Conummity Brdnch
University Heights
Valencia Park
County of San Diego libraries:
Alpine
Casa De Oro
DelMar
Descanso
EI Cajon
Encinitalii
Fletcher Hills
Imperial Beach
Jacumba
Lakeside
La Mesa
Poway
Rmnona
Rancho Santa Fe
Santee
Spring Valley
Libraries in other cities:
Chula Vista Library
Note: Addresses oflibraries can be
found in your telephone directory
under City or County government
listings.
9<J5
CITY AND COUNTY
OFFICES WITH DRAFT
PLAN COPIES
The Dral1 MSCP Plan and the Resource
Documents arc also available for public
review in administrative or planning
offices of the following affected
jurisdictions.
City of San Diego
Development Services Department
City Operations Building
1222 First Ave.. Fifth Floor
San Dicgo.CA 92101
Metropolitan Wastewater Department
Library
6(XJ B SI.. Fifth Floor
San Diego. CA 92101
County of San Diego
Department of Planning and Land Use
:;20 I Ruffin Rd.
San Diego.CA 92123
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Ave.
Cliula Visla. CA 91910
City of Santee
Department of Planning and
Community Development
10601 Magnolia Ave.
Santee. CA 92071
City of Poway
Planning Department
13325 Civic Center Drive
TrailcrA
Powav. CA 92064
ATTACHMENT 4
February 28, 1995
City of San Diego
Development Services Department
Development and Environmental Planning Division
1222 First Street; M.S. 501
San Diego, CA. 92101
(619) 236-6532
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF
A DRAFT JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)!
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE will be Co-Lead
Agencies and will prepare a joint draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) for the following project:
PROJECT:
DEP No.93-0287; SCH No.93121073
MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM CMSCP). APPROVAL OF A MSCP
PLAN to establish a program for the conservation and management of
self-sustaining viable populations of federally listed and key
candidate species and their habitats. The objectives of the MSCP
are to 1) Develop a program for the maintenance of biological
diversity and the conservation/protectIon of self-sustaining viable
populations of federally-listed endangered, threatened, and key
candidate species and their habitats. 2) Define a Multi-Habitat
Area (MHPA) within which preserve planning is focused, or within
which a preserve is defined, and implement a preserve system which
conserves viable habitat and provides for wildlife use and
movement. 3) Reduce the human-related causes of species extirpation
within the MSCP study area. 4) Establish a partnership among state,
federal, and local agencies of government to facilitate mitigation
and approval of public and private sector land development and
construction projects by expediting acquistion of federal and state
permits. The proposed MHPA conserves 164,326 acres of habitat
within the 581,649-acre MSCP study area. The Plan includes a
covered species list of 57 plants and animals including 24 species
that are currently federally or state listed, 3 species that are
proposed for listing and 28 that are candidate species for listing.
Applicant: City of San Diego
Based upon an Initial Study, it appears that the project may have potential
for significant environmental impacts.
For more CEQA environmental information, or to provide comments cn the scope
and content of the draft EIR/EIS, contact John Kovac, Senior Environmental
Planner with the City of San Diego Development Services Department
(Environmental Analysis Section), at (619) 236-6268. For project scoping
meetings/public hearing schedule, contact R. David Flesh, Senior Planner with
the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department at (619) 533-5262.
Written comments on the scope and content of the draft joint EIR/EIS must be
sent to John Kovac of the City's Development Services Department at the above
address by no later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES ARE REOUESTED TO INDICATE THEIR STATUTORY
RESPONSIBILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT WHEN RESPONDING.
AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) SCOPING MEETING PURSUANT TO THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 15, 1995, FROM 7PM TO 10PM AT.
Attachments:
SCOTTISH RITE CENTER
1895 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH
MISSION VALLEY (SD 92108)
Distribution List
Regional Location Map
DEIR/EIS Scope of Work
7/3f,
DISTRIBUTION
MSCP Working Group
Karen Scarborough, City of San diego Mayor's Office
James E. Whalen, J. Whalen Associates
Craig Adams, Sierra club
Karen Bartlet-Adams, citizens Coordinate for century III
Meryl Balko, city of San Diego
Cameron Barrows, The Nature Conservancy
Jerry R. Boggs, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Rob Cameron, The Baldwin company
Constance Clover-Byram, McMillin Communities
Diane B. Coombs, San Dieguito River Park JPA
Larry L. Eng, California Department of Fish and Game
Leonard S. Frank, Pardee Construction Company
Niall Fritz, city of Santee
Nancy Gilbert, u.S. Fish and wildlife Service
Chris White, CALTRANS
Kevin Knoles, The Trust for Public Lands
Robert Leiter, City of Chula Vista
Michael McLaughlin, SANDAG
Dennis Moser, Alliance for Habitat Conservation
Jim Nessel, City of poway
Philip R. Pryde, Audubon Society
Larry Purcell, County Water Authority
Robert E. Asher, County of San Diego
Robert Robenhymer, San Diego MTDB
Don Rose, San Diego Gas and Electric
Executive Director Construction Industry Federation
Daniel Silver, Endangered Habitats League
Jeffrey Opdycke, San Diego wild Animal Park
William Whitman, San Diego County Farm Bureau
County water Authority
SANDAG
SDG&E
San Diego Audobon Society
citizens Coordinate for century III
Federal Agencies
Southeastern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NAS Miramar
Army Corps of Engineers
u.S. Border Patrol
u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
u.S. Department of Agriculture
u.S. Bureau of Land Management
State of California
State Clearinghouse
CALTRANS
Department of Fish and Game
Park and Recreation Department
Resources Agency
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Native American Heritage Commission
i/J'l
state of California (continued)
Department of Conservation
state Lands Commission
County of San Diego
Department of Planning and Land Use
Department of Public Works
Department of Parks and Recreation
County of San Diego (continued)
Agricultural Department
Environmental Services unit
city of San Diego
Mayor Susan Golding
Council Districts 1 through 8
Planning Department
Park and Recreation Department
Engineering Department
Real Estate Assets Department
Water Utilities department
Wetlands Advisory Board
General Services
Metropolitan Wastewater
cities of
Chula vista - Robert Leiter
Coronado
Del Mar
EI Cajon
Escondido
Imperial Beach
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
National city
poway - Jim Nessel
Santee - Niall Fritz
Solana Beach
Association of Environmental biologists
Environmental Law Society
San Diego Audobon Society
California Native Plant Society
San Diego state University Biology Department
Community Resources Panel
Ellen Bauder
Biodiversity Project
Community Planners Council
Archaeological Institute of America
San Diego County Archaeological Soci~ty
Mission Trails Regional Park
San Dieguito Planning Group
San Pasqual/Lake Hodges Planning Group
?~(
~r'-
This dl2ft map deplc1s areas within whi:h
llabllat preserws may be Clu1lJd, and Is
1n1lmded fllr estlmaUng habitat pro1Ectlon
and costs lor the dratl Multiple Species
ConservaUon Program (MSCP). The bio-
logical dati have varying sources and
accuracy; sl1e-specll\c data shall update
lI1e data base, and may modify lI1is dmt ..
map. It Is not Intended lI1at all lands
wilhln lI1e lines be preserved (some
development will be allowed), and some
areas outside the Unes may ultimately .
be Included In the preserve. The MSCP
Plan must be iOproved by lI1e CounCils
and Board at Supervlsors lor the dUes
and county be10re this IntormaUon Is
used to 111J111lB land use.
.
DRAFT
-
~
~
~
100% Habhat Preserve
90% Habhat Preserve
80% Habitat Preserve
70% Habhat Preserve
Percent preservation
applies onlY to
habitat lanas
SJj;.---
/'.../
/~~
~/
~
%
"'-
MSCP Study Area
Boundary
Freeways
Major Streams
Lakes and Lagoons
Q
5.5
o
.
MILES
tdlEN
Multi-Habitat Planning Area 'l ~.J I
FI GURE
D
.....
""'"'"
..L-../..LS. .. Adl...
DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK
MSCP DEIR/EIS
A previous Notice of preparation of a DEIR which included an EIR
scoping letter was distributed in December, 1993. Since that time
the proposed has changed, and the required EIR has changed from a
programmatic CEQA document which would require subsequent project
specific environmental review to a hybrid jointCEQA/NEPA document
which includes project specific analysis for the areas within the
jurisdiction of the city of San Diego as well as conceptual
analysis for the cities of Chula vista and Santee and the County of
San Diego. A revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) has been prepared
and distributed to Responsible Agencies and others who have
expressed an interest in the environmental process for this
project. The input received during the NOP review period of 30
days may result in further changes to this scope of work.
I. BACKGROUND
The MSCP study area covers approximately 581,649 acres of
land ranging from the San Dieguito River Valley in the north
to the US/Mexico border to the south and from the coast to
the community of Alpine to the east. (See attached location
map. )
The City of San Diego is developing a Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) for approximately 900 square
mile area in the southwestern portion of San Diego County.
The objective of the program is to develop a plan for the
longterro conservation and management of self-sustaining
viable populations of federally listed species and key
candidate species and their habitats. Implementation of the
program will initiate a mechanism to mitigate impacts from
future public capital improvements and private sector
development. The MSCP study area includes all or part of
land within the jurisdiction of eleven cities as well as the
County of San Diego.
As part of this program, a geographic information system is
being used to map vegetation communities and land uses
within the MSCP study area and to conduct a "gap analysis".
A network of biological core areas and linkages will be
identified; the large scale, potential preserve boundary
areas within lands owned by the City of San Diego will be
mapped. Other cities (poway, Chula Vista, and Santee) and
the County of San Diego will be developing criteria which
would subsequently allow them to draw preserve boundaries
within their jurisdictions. Financing strategies and public
policy are being developed to guide acquisition of
properties and dedication of lands for conservation, and
land management programs are being developed with
consideration for compatibility of various public uses.
9~(tJ
MSCP DEIR/EIS SCOPE OF WORK
PAGE 2
The project has been designed to assure that all affected
organizations, member agencies, and state and federal
wildlife agencies are involved in the development and/or
review of the plan.
The MSCP plan describes conservation of the habitat and the
target species and focuses on acquistion and financing
options, compatible land use and activities, management of
the proposed preserve system, and an economic impact
analysis.
The MSCP plan will also describe how implementation will
occur over time and the relationship of the MSCP to other
longterm habitat/species conservation plans in the region.
California law (Section 2800 et seq. of the California Fish
and Game Code) establishes the Natural Communities
Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program "to provide for
regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife
diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate
development and growth. These goals will be achieved
through implementation of a Natural Community Conservation
Plan."
The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the
California Resources Agency have prepared the "Southern
Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning
Process Guidelines" (September 1, 1992). Based on the
definition established by these State guidelines, the MSCP
is an "Ongoing MUlti-Species Plan" and may be accepted as a
equivalent NCCP. Therefore, it is the intent of the City of
San Diego to enter into an Implementing Agreement with DFG
and the FWS "to acknowledge approval of the Final NCCP plan
and declare that the NCCP meets the requirements of a state
Management Agreement or a federal Habitat Conservation Plan,
respectively, to allow issuance of appropriate permits for
target or other named species should those species become
listed."
Pursuant to the forthcoming Implementing Agreement by the
City of San Diego, the USFWS, and the CDFG, a joint EIR/EIS
for the subregional NCCP (MSCP study area) will be prepared
for the proposed preserve planning on publicly- and
privately-owned lands within the Multi-Habitat Planning Area
(MHPA) shown on the attached Figure 1. The draft joint
EIR/EIS will be prepared jointly by the city of San Diego
and the USFWS pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPAl for consideration for the approval of the cities and
the County within the MSCP study area and of the federal and
state governments.
9-'1;
MSCP DEIR/EIS SCOPE OF WORK
PAGE 3
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The draft joint EIR/EIS will discuss the goals and
objectives of the project and specifically, how this project
would interact with existing and planned projects and the
relationship to NCCP. The joint document will describe all
discretionary actions needed to implement the MHPA including
the city of San Diego's "hard-line" preserve. The document
will also describe actions needed by member cities and the
County to approve the conceptual preserve areas within their
jurisdictions. The joint document will list all actions
required from other federal, state, and local agencies. The
project "study area" and the
preserve areas within the City of San Diego which shall
include all areas either directly or indirectly affected by
the MSCP shall be defined and mapped. A site location map
(aerial and USGS Quadrangle map) to identify the general
location of the "study area" and the MHPA shall be provided.
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
A. Land Use
1. Issue:
Would the proposed project result in a land
use which is inconsistent with the General
. Plan or community plans within the "study
area" and existing environmental plans of
the cities and portions of the County,
within the MSCP study area, participating
or other agencies or policy
including propositions?
agencies,
mandates,
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss how the MSCP could affect
implementation of the general plans of the cities and the
County. Important factors include growth patterns, housing
affordability, mineral resources, and recreation.
2. Issue:
Would the proposed project conflict with
adjacent existing and planned land uses and
adjoining approved/proposed subsequent
development?
The joint EIR/EIS will describe the distance to and nature
of adjacent land uses to the proposed project, potential
conflicts, and measures to alleviate conflicts. The j.oint
document will discuss any impacts.on projects and associated
mitigation already in-progress. Sufficient buffer areas
~ -- 71';2
MSCP DEIR/EIS SCOPE OF WORK
PAGE 4
between the
conflicting
disclosed.
proposed core preserve areas and potentially
adjacent land uses shall be analyzed and
B. Biology
1. Issue:
Would the implementation of the proposed
project effectively protect sensitive
terrestrial and biological resources?
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the effectiveness of the
proposed MSCP to:
a)
maintain viable populations of rare
endangered species and candidate species;
and
b) maintain biodiversity, and
c) maintain habitat linkages between biological
core areas in the MHPA.
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the probable effectiveness of
the proposed MSCP plan in attaining the project objective of
protecting sensitive habitat/species. The amount of
sensitive habitat and number of rare, endangered, and
candidate species expected to be preserved by the proposed
MSCP plan will be quantified. Comparison of the amount of
preserved habitat and number of protected species to MSCP
guideliness for a longterm, viable habitat and assured
continuance of species populations shall be included. The
implied, acceptable further loss of habitat/sensitive
species due to planned growth/development in the MSCP study
area shall be disclosed. The joint document will
distinguish proposed preserved habitat and protected species
in the biological core areas in the MHPA versus those
expected to survive in isolated but viable, large urban
habitat.
2.
Issue:
Would the implementation of the proposed
MSCP affect the movement of any resident
or migratory wildlife species?
The joint EIR/EIS will identify all critical habitat
linkages for biological core areas in the MHPA. The
physical dimensions/requirements of viable linkages and the
implementation/acquisition status of these areas will be
discussed. Criteria for strategic bridge and culvert
placements will be included.
tj-'/J
MSCP DEIR/EIS SCOPE OF WORK
PAGE 5
C. Regional Transportation/Circulation
1. Issue:
Would the proposal substantially impact
planned regional transportation systems?
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the potential effects of the
proposed MSCP plan on regional transportation systems.
Specifically, the joint document will discuss the potential
project effect on planned/proposed alignments of regional
roads through the proposed biological core areas.
Conversely, the potential effects of planned regional road
alignments on the biological core areas of the MHPA and
identified habitat linkages will also be discussed. The
effects of proposed State Routes '905, 56, and 125 on the
proposed MSCP plan will be considered.
D. Public Services/Utilities
1.
Issue:
Would the proposal have an effect upon
need for or the provision of governmental
services?
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the effect of the proposed
MSCP plan on the need for services such as fire protection,
police, schools, and parks. The effect of the proposed
MSCP plan on the need for and siting of new public service
buildings, solid/liquid waste facilities, schools, and parks
and the placement of public utility corridors for water,
sewer, power, fuel, and communication will be analyzed.
E. Housing/Population
1.
Issue:
2.
Issue:
Would the proposed MSCP plan affect
planned/existing housing in the region and
in adjacent communities or limit the supply
of additional housing?
Would the proposed MSCP plan alter the
planned location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the population specifically
within the MSCP study area and, generally,
within the region?
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the net effect of the
proposed MSCP plan on housing within or adjoining the
proposed MHPA boundaries. The potential for shifts of MSCP
~ ~J/f
.
DEIR/EIS SCOPE OF WORK
PAGE 6
population due to the proposed project will be considered.
Specifically, the potential effect of any immediate MSCP
acquistion/inclusion of the privately-owned lands in the
MHPA which had been designated to add a wide range of
available housing types will be discussed. The effect on
undeveloped land designated for residential development by
the acquistion/inclusion of adjoining land into the MHPA
will be considered. Potential effects include unit yield,
density, and coverage due to any buffer requirements.
IV. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation measures shall be clearly identified and
discussed and their effectiveness assessed. In addition, a
monitoring and reporting program for each mitigation measure
must be included. As a minimum, this program should
identify:
a) the agency and/or department responsible for the
monitoring;
b) the monitoring and reporting schedule, and
c) the completion requirements.
V. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the impacts of this project
together with other planned or reasonably foreseeable future
public and private projects in the study area. The
discussion shall evaluate the potential cumulative effects
on public facilities, land use, and biological resources.
The joint document will discuss the cumulative effect of the
proposed MSCP plan with habitat conservation plans being
developed by adjoining jurisdictions in San Diego County.
VI. MANDATORY DISCUSSION AREAS
In accordance with CEQA Section 15127, the joint EIR/EIS
shall include a discussion of the following issue areas:
1. Any significant irreversible environmental changes
which would be involved if the proposed action
should be implemented.
2. The growth-inducing impact of the proposed action.
VII. ALTERNATIVES
The joint EIR/EIS should place major emphasis on
9~L/Y
MSCP DEIR/EIS SCOPE OF WORK
PAGE 7
alternatives which avoid or mitigate the project's
significant impacts. These alternatives should be discussed
in equal detail, clearly assessing the relative level of
impacts and feasibili ty. Preceding the detailed
alternatives section should be a section entitled,
"Alternatives Considered but Rejected." This section should
discuss preliminary alternatives which were considered but
not carried forward for further analysis and the reasons for
rejection.
The "no project" alternative is required to be discussed.
In addition, analyze a range of other alternatives which
have the potential to reduce impacts.
As a minimum, the following alternatives should be
discussed:
1. No Proiect - No Preserve Plan
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the environmental/
socio-economic consequences of not adopting and
implementing the proposed MSCP plan. The No Project/No
Preserve Plan alternative assumes that the impact on
sensitive habitat/species will be evaluated and
mitigated on a project-by-project basis.
2. Bioloqicallv Preferred/Core and Linkaqe Alternative
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the environmental/
socio-economic consequences of a biological resource
driven alternative (scenario). This alternative
assumes the preservation of all large core biological
areas and critical linkages regardless of ownership,
public or private.
3. Coastal Saqe Scrub Alternative
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the environmental/
soci-economic consequences of a plan which places major
emphasis on the preservation of coastal sage scrub.
4. Public Lands Alternative
The joint EIR/EIS will discuss the environmental/socio-
economic implications of a plan which places major
emphasis on the preservation of existing publicly-owned
lands with habitat.
~-- tit
---
ATTACHMENT 5
(Federal Register: March 6, 1995J
c=====a=_=-============================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Application
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent and meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement in Anticipation of
Receiving a Permit Application to Incidentally Take Threatened and
Endangered Species in Association with a Multiple Species Conservation
Plan for Southwestern San Diego county, California.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has under
consideration for approval the draft Multiple species conservation
Program (MSCP) plan submitted by the City of San Diego, California.
This long-term plan, prepared by the City of San Diego and 11 other
participating jurisdictions, will accompany a future application to the
Service for a permit under section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act
that would authorize incidental take of listed species. Additionally,
the applicants will request pre-listing agreements for species which
may be listed in the future. In response to the plan, the Service
intends to prepare a joint programmatic and project-level Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) pursuaqt to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl and the California
([Page 12247)] Environmental Quality Act. The MSCP plan covers an
approximately 900-square-mile area of rapid growth in southwestern San
Diego county. The plan addresses numerous sensitive plant and animal
species and their habitats. The MSCP creates a process for the issuance
of permits and other authorizations under the Federal ESA, California
ESA, and the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act.
This notice describes the proposed action and possible alternatives,
notifies the public of a scoping meeting, invites public participation
in the scoping process for preparing the joint EIS/EIR, solicits
written comments, and identifies the Service official to whom questions
and comments concerning the proposed action and the joint EIS/EIR may
be directed.
DATES: A public scoping meeting will be held from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on
March 15, 1995, at the Scottish Rite Center, 1895 Camino del Rio South,
San Diego, california 92108. Oral comments will be received during the
scoping meeting. Written comments are encouraged and should be received
on or before AprilS, 1995, at the address below.
ADDRESSES: Information, comments, or questions related to preparation
of the joint EIS/EIR and the NEPA process should be submitted to Mr.
Gail Kobetich, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730
Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008. Written comments also
may be sent by facsimile to telephone (619) 431-9618.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nancy Gilbert, Supervisory Fish
and Wildlife Biologist, at the above Carlsbad address, telephone (619)
431-9440. Persons wishing to obtain background material should contact
the city of San Diego, Development Services Oivision, Environmental
7~t/?
sls section, 1222 First Avenue, 5th Floor, San Diego, California
j~r telephone (619) 236-6268. Documents also will be available for
.bli~ inspection by appointment during normal business hours (8 a.m.
r~ 5 p.m., Monday through Friday) at the above San Diego office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The KSCP study area occupies portions of the unincorporated County
of San Diego and 10 additi~nal city jurisdictions. The southern
boundary of the MSCP study area is the international border with
Mexico. National forest lands form much of the eastern boundary, the
Pacific Ocean lies to the west, and the northern boundary is the San
Dieguito River Valley. Conservation planning to the north of the MSCP
study area is being conducted by the San Diego Association of
Governments, and a coalition of 8 north county cities and San Diego
County. San Diego County is responsible for conservation planning in
the eastern portion of the county.
The diversity of topography, soils, and climate in the study area
combine to influence vegetative associations, which in turn support a
high diversity of plant and animal species. Topographic features in the
study area include broad flat valleys, deep canyons, perennially
flowing rivers and intermittent creeks, moderately sloped terrain and
steep hillsides, rolling foothills and nearly level mesas, coastal
bluffs, and a series of coastal bays, inlets, and lagoons. Elevations
range from mean sea level (msl) along the coast to approximately 3,738
feet above msl.
The objectives of the MSCP are to:
1. Develop a program for the maintenance of biological diversity
and the conservation/protection of self-sustaining viable populations
of federally-listed endangered, threatened, and key candidate species
and their habitats.
2. Define a Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) within which
preserve planning is focused or within which a preserve is defined, and
implement a preserve system which conserves viable habitat and provides
for wildlife use and movement.
3. Reduce the human-related causes of species' extirpation within
the MSCP study area.
4. Establish a partnership among State, Federal, and local agencies
of government to facilitate mitigation and approval of public and
private sector land development and construction projects by expediting
acquisition of Federal and State permits. This action would provide a
long-term economic benefit.
The biological goal for the preserve design is preservation of as
much of the core biological resource areas and linkages as possible.
The economic goal is for the ultimate preserve to be affordable and for
the costs to be shared equitably among the participants.
The plan proposes a new process for wildlife and habitat
conservation, and for implementation of the Federal and State of
California ESAs, which relies on existing local agency land use review
and approval authority. The new process places conservation
responsibilities on local jurisdictions, based on their ability to
implement a segment of the MSCP for their jurisdiction. In exchange for
these coordinated conservation plans, local jurisdictions will receive
from the Service permits for the taking of federally-listed species and
will enter into pre-listing agreements for protection of other species
of concern. A list of covered animal and plant species is incorporated
in the MSCP Plan, including species that are federally or state-listed,
proposed for listing, and candidates for listing.
The lands identified for open space and habitat preservation are
located within the MHPA. The MHPA was cooperatively designed by the 12
participating jurisdictions in the MSCP study area, in consultation
with the Service and California Department of Fish and Game, major
property owners and environmental groups, based on piological,
ownership, and land use criteria. Planning staff of the 5 jurisdictions
that have the largest amounts of remaining habitat. in .the MSCP study
area (County of San Diego and cities of San Diego~ Chula Vista, Poway,
and Santee) spent several months developing "soft lines' 'delineating
areas within which specified percentages of land would be preserved and
"hard lines" delineating 100\ preservation areas. The other local
jurisdictions within the MSCP study area were asked to comment on a
preserve design based solely on public ownership and general plan open-
space designations. The resulting MHPA covers 164,326 acres of habitat.
9-t/Z
~e ~abitat conservation described by the MHPA is approximate. The
/A'may be modified during the course of subsequent land use and
~oject planning, as long as the changes are consistent with MSCP
:bjectives. Preserve boundaries, approved through either the MSCP plan
or subsequent land use plans, may be adjusted without the need to amend
the MSCP plan, or applicable land use plans, when the new preserve
boundary results in a preserve area that is equivalent in biological
value to the original configuration or is of greater biological value.
Although the City of San Diego will prepare the draft EIS, the
Service will be responsible for its content and scope. In addition, the
City of San Diego will act as the lead agency for the preparation of
the EIR.
Project level environmental documentation will be included in the
joint EIS/EIR for amendments to a variety of planning documents for the
cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, and Santee. The proposed amendments
would incorporate the preserve boundaries of the MSCP plan into adopted
land use plans. Actions. [[Page 12248]] proposed by these 3 cities that
will be addressed in the joint EIS/EIR include, but are not limited to,
amendments to progress guides and general plans, local coastal
programs, community plans, precise plans, and zoning ordinances.
The joint EIS/EIR will consider the proposed action (issuance of a
section 10(a) ESA permit for the MSCP plan), and a reasonable range of
alternatives derived from scenarios considered during development of
the MSCP plan:
Alternative 1: Coastal Sage Scrub Scenario. This alternative would
focus on preservation of the highest quality coastal sage scrub in the
planning area with less emphasis on preserving other habitat types.
Alternative 2: Biologically Preferred/Core and Linkage Area
Scenario. This alternative would attempt to preserve those lands with
the highest conservation value in the planning area, including multiple
habitats and habitat linkages. This alternative is based heavily on
biological criteria rather than other land use issues that determine
the feasibility of preservation.
Alternative 3: Public Lands Scenario. This alternative relies more
heavily than the proposed plan on public lands and open space
associated with existing or proposed development.
Alternative 4: No Project (No Preserve) Scenario. This alternative
assumes that conservation practices throughout the study area would
occur on a project-by-project basis as occurs under existing
conditions. Under the no project alternative, a regional preserve would
not be established at this time within the MSCP study area.
Environmental review of the MSCP will be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the 1969 NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), other appropriate
regulations, and Service procedures for compliance with those
regulations. This notice is being furnished in accordance with section
1501.7 of the NEPA to obtain suggestions and information from other
agencies and the public on the scope of issues to be addressed in the
joint EIS/EIR.
Comments and participation in the scoping process are solicited.
The primary purpose of the scoping process is to identify rather than
to debate the significant issues related to the proposed action.
Interested persons are encouraged to attend the public scoping meeting
to identify and discuss issues and alternatives that should be
addressed in the joint EIS/EIR. The proposed agenda for this
facilitated meeting includes a summary of the proposed action; status
of and threats to subject species; and tentative issues, concerns,
opportunities, and alternatives. Additional public meetings will be
conducted on later dates to provide more opportunities to comment on
the draft EIS/EIR.
Dated: February 28, 1995.
Thomas J. Dwyer,
Deputy Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 95-5380 Filed 3-3-95; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 43l0-55-P
J-~J
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / P
Meeting Date 03/28/95
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Modification to Delete Annual Staff Review Requirement
for Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-06; A 12-bed residential treatment
facility for recovering alcoholics located at 73 North Second Avenue -
City Zoning Administrator
Resolution /7?'~mending Resolution 16425 which approved PCC-92-06
allowing the establishment of a 12-bed residential treatment facility for
recovering alcoholics at 73 North Second Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~'~
REVIEWED BY:
City Manag~ \:N
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.1U
./1-.
On November 26, 1991, the City Council a roved Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-06 to allow
a 12-bed residential treatment facility for recovering alcoholics (Exhibit A). The program,
referred to as Nosotros, occupies the southerly portion of the former Vista Hill/Southwood
psychiatric facility site at 73 North Second Avenue in the R-3 zone (Exhibit B). A condition
of the CUP for this project required staff to conduct an annual review of the operation, with
notice being provided to surrounding residents. Based on the compliance history of the facility,
the Zoning Administrator is recommending that the Council delete the requirement for annual
review.
An Initial Study, IS-92-05, was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator and the
Negative Declaration for IS-92-05 was adopted by Council with the original conditional use
permit. For purposes of the amendment to Resolution 16425, the Environmental Review
Coordinator determined that it is generally exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act pursuant to ~15061 of CEQA because the amendment will clearly have not have an effect
on the environment.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the attached resolution amending Resolution 16425
deleting the staff annual review requirement for Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-06.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
At the time of approval, Council directed that a yearly noticed review be performed to determine
the impact of the Nosotros project on the neighborhood. Specifically, Condition 7 of Resolution
16425 (Exhibit A) states:
/tJ~ /
Page 2, Item / tJ
Meeting Date 03/28/95
"This permit IS further conditioned on annual review by staff with notice to the
surrounding residents. In the event complaints are filed or problems found, a report
thereof is to be submitted to Council for review (NOTE: Staff annual review is to
continue until, in the judgment of staff, it is no longer necessary, at which time staff will
recommend to Council that the staff annual review requirement be deleted.)"
Staff's investigation indicates that the program has been and is functioning in a manner
compatible with the neighborhood and that the applicant has fulfilled the conditions of approval.
In response to staff's request for comments, the Police Department commented in a memo dated
December 7, 1994 (Exhibit C) that there were six calls for service and three crimelincident
reports. The memo went on to state:
"The disturbance calls were broken down into two firecracker calls and one verbal
argument. The three theft calls are activity not related to the above location" .
In response to the public notice, Mr. John J. Keetch, who resides at 178 Sierra Way, Chula
Vista, wrote a letter dated January 10, 1995 (Exhibit D). Mr. Keetch stated that there has been
an increase in break-ins at 110 North Second Avenue "since the MAAC project was started."
He believes the increase is due to the fact that "because 73 N. Second A venue is higher than the
condominium project, people at 73 N. Second A venue are able to look down into .the
condominiums and follow the comings and goings of the residents of a number of the units."
As follow-up to Mr. Keetch's letter, the Planning Department sent the attached memo (Exhibit
E) dated January 19, 1995 to the Police Department. The Police Department memo (Exhibit F)
dated February 17, 1995, indicates that, although there was an increase in criminal activity
between 1993 and 1994 at 110 No. Second Avenue from 7 crimes during 1993 to 29 crimes in
1994, this increase can not be associated with the MAAC Project, or with any specific source
for that matter. In part, the memo states:
"I have reviewed the letter sent by Mr. Keetch regarding the MAAC Project and re-
affirm what he has already stated, we can not determine nor blame, that the increase in
reported activity at 110 N. Second Avenue is due to the occupants at 73 N. Second
Avenue. There is no data that identifies any suspect(s) residing at 73 N. Second Avenue.
Actually, there is only one 'known' suspect listed, and that individual resides in National
City.
Furthermore, there should be some consideration to the direct thoroughfare to another
jurisdiction, as well as, the transient/homeless population that lives throughout the
Sweetwater River bottom and channel area".
(M:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\MAAC\9206A.113)
/tJ'd-
Page 3, Item / t/
Meeting Date 03/28/95
The crime types, as listed in the memo are: Burglary - residential or vehicle/garage; petty theft;
robbery; vehicle theft - attempted; vehicle theft or tampering with a vehicle; and vandalism.
The memo lists how many in each month an incident happened. It could be that the increase
is due to any number of sources from the homeless who live in the river valley, to a resident
or residents who live within the condominium complex at 110 No. Second Avenue, or to people
from outside Chula Vista.
This same issue arose during last year's review when a local resident reported "an increase in
the level of suspicious looking characters in and around the neighborhood" because of this
project. At that time there were several reports of incidents requiring Police Department
response, but all incidents were associated with the then vacant northern portion of the complex
over which the MAAC Project has no responsibility.
Over the last two years, staff has conducted a noticed review of this conditional use permit for
compliance with the conditions of approval. During this period of time, staff has received only
the two statements of concern discussed above. It is staff's judgment that the annual review is
no longer needed because the MAAC Project has consistently complied with the provision of the
Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, upon adoption of the Resolution amending Resolution 16425
by Council, the annual review will be deleted. Notwithstanding such action, if, in the opinion
of the Zoning Administrator, such review is warranted any time in the future, this Conditional
Use Permit can be scheduled for hearing by Council for modification or revocation.
FISCAL IMPACT: Annual review of Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-06 is a staff activity
which is supported by the City General Fund.
Attachments:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Original Council Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit (#16425)
Locator Map/Site Plan
Memo dated December 7, 1994 from the Police Department to the Planning
Department in response to staff's request for comments
Letter dated January 10, 1995 from John J. Keetch
Memo dated January 19, 1995 from the Planning Department to the Police
Department re: Exhibit C
Memo dated February 17, 1995 from the Police Department to the Planning
Department in response to Exhibit D
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
(M :\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\MAAC\9206A.113)
Jtl~3
RESOLUTION NO.
)?~.5/
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 16425 OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WHICH APPROVED
PCC-92-06 ALLOWING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 12-BED
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY FOR RECOVERING
ALCOHOLICS AT 73 NORTH SECOND AVENUE
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, MAAC Project established, as an institutional use, a 12-bed residential treatment
facility for recovering alcoholics in an R-3 zone, to wit: the southerly portion of the former Vista
Hill/Southwood psychiatric facility site, 3 North Second Avenue, Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, 18-92-05, of
potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project and has concluded that
there would be no significant environmental impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-05; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the amendment to Resolution
16425 is generally exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 915061; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator, after diligent review for compliance with the conditions
of approval, did recommend that the condition requiring annual review be deleted from the conditions
of approval pursuant to Condition 7 of Resolution 16425 and found that the applicant has consistently
complied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby amend Condition 7 of Resolution 16425 to read as follows:
7. The annual review shall be discontinued until such time as the applicant is no longer in
compliance with the conditions of approval and/or complaints are received by the Zoning
Administrator who will review each complaint and determine whether or not a public hearing
before the City Council is necessary.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby readopts
the findings of Resolution 16425.
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
II
A"'7' """fjrmbY
""S~~c'-L-f '\ ,
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
s
Presented by
(m:\... \martin\maac\9206.cea)
/1)--5
EXHIBIT A
ORIGINAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(#16425)
/tJ- ?
RESOLUTION NO. 16425
RECEIVE~(l,,,\,-,-~\
"fa ',"
, ,l / 7992
PLANNING
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING PCC-92-06 TO ESTABLISH A 12-BED
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY FOR RECOVERING ALCOHOLICS
AT 3 NORTH SECOND AVENUE
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, MAAC Project is proposing to establish, as an institutional use,
a 12-bed residential treatment facility for recovering male Latino alcoholics in
an R-3 zone, to wit: the southerly portion of the former Vista Hill/Southwood
psychiatric faCility site, 3 North Second Avenue, Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study,
15-92-05, of potential environmental, impacts associated with the implementation
of the project and has concluded that there would be no significant environmental
impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-05;
and,
WHEREAS, on November 6, 1991, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve
the proposal in accordance with Resolution PCC-,~-06.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby find as follows:
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide
a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of
the neighborhood or the community.
The Nosotros program will provide a desirable service by offering
shelter, food, counseling and training for recovering alcoholics
attempting to reestablish themselves as responsible, contributing
members of society.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
The program will be established on a site which has served as a
group residential treatment facility for many years. Conditions
have been imposed to address the potential conflicts with
surrounding residents presented by this program which may not have
existed with the prior youth psychiatric programs.
3. That the proposed use will' comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
$~8"
A ttachment "A"
Resolution No. 16425
Page 2
Compliance with all applicable conditions, codes and regulations
shall be required prior to occupancy of the property. Specifically,
a condition has been imposed that requires abatement of the present
unauthorized use of the northerly portion of the property prior to
this permit becoming effective.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect
the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of this permit as conditioned is consistent with City
policies for accommodating a full range of services and facilities
for the benefit of its residents.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, on the terms and conditions herein contained,
the City Council does hereby grant a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 12-bed
residential treatment facility for recovering alcoholics at 3 North Second
Avenue.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of said Permit are as follows:
1. The approval of this permit shall in no way be seen as an endorsement or
precedent for estab 1 i shi ng the same or a simil ar type of use on the
northerly portion of the property. The approval of this permit may in
fact complicate any proposal for the use of the northerly portion of the
property because of issues regardi ng compati bil i ty and coordi nati on of
land uses, and the use and control of the facilities.
2. The mobile trailer units are hereby authorized for a period of two years
from the date this permit is approved by the City Council. The trailers
shall thereafter be removed.
3. The parking spaces associated with this proposal shall be restriped in
accordance with City standards.
4. The use shall comply with the information outlined in the application and
supplemental materials submitted by the applicant, including numbers of
residents and staff, programs, supervision, and so on. Failure to comply
with these parameters or the conditions of approval, complaints from
surrounding residents, or failure to properly maintain the building or
grounds shall constitute grounds for review and'possible revocation of
this permit.
5. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, IIOdified, or deleted
conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a
legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare
which City shall impose after advance written notice to the permittee and
after the City has given to the permittee the right to be heard with
regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved
/tf~1
Resolution No. 16425
Page 3
right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee
of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the normal
operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
6. The app I i cant shall agree to no net increase in water consumpti on or
participate in whatever water conservation or fee offset program the City
of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
7. This permit is further conditioned on annual review by staff with notice
to the surrounding residents. In the event compliants are filed or
problems found, a report thereof is to be submitted to Council for review
(NOTE: Staff annual review is to continue until, in the judgement of
staff, it is no longer necessary, at which time staff will recommend to
Council that the staff annual review requirement be deleted.)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby concur in. the
determination of the Environmental Review Coordinator as set forth in Initial
Study 92-05 that the proposed project would have no significant environmental
impacts and does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-05.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
'/ /"/1' .Ii /
/(-";, I.. ,-
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
D'LJ-" ("~i<-f,
Bruce M. BOOga~
City Attorney
If) ~/tJ
EXHIBIT B
LOCATOR MAP
& SITE PLAN
J[J-J/
--I,. .. ___ _~1. ~.~.... ..--.".....'I~"". .6. fl .....___ _ _ _ -_ " .._ __"""'- .
~"I
I I I
~ f:A A
I
. -. .
- , - .. ~ .
. . ..'
7
~T ""
-'
~
....
- '
-
. -
~. ",vt"
, .
-
A4
@
IN nurr:
IVf:
~
~I
:I:
~-
~~
~W
I
~G.y:~b.lth 13.: .,..
...'- .. '.,'.
',- :
.~
~
~ -.. - 1,:) '~7~tJJ' I~~
~ ~/~ on
- ' -'~"'~ ,,\
~ .~
"'~ .
.... 1\ ~4lt
',coI',.' .
...:. . ~
~h-"~~
~;:~~ ~
~~!
o~ '
Cl
lll'~
~I
Clfv.
"'4
~::l ~
Vl 8 J,'
I'" "'~Pw ~vc
ytllU'
'- (.".)r
- -- MF .
\ . 5Fl((@ ~E"T
~ V~T'~
~~ wr I ~ KOA if::\
I r~~F"1 \!V
.~\\- ' r
~ ,.' ~\ \ . I @
, All --I
I,
I
0
;
- ;
r.-
-
- .
-
~
-
. -
10-
r~
.
1:1
V~,
.. --'~,-_.
'-
'..... --
f ~"~\J~.~,,~
/!J~ ~ '
.'.~~~II". r p~-~z.-t>~
. .r ~?;'~~?~s' M/~~~ll
.1 Ifl>It>ENTIAL 'FAC~LITt F"!{
~U()~..~1N6 ALC-C'H()J.lc.$ ..
r
~
!
.80l::l..L.OSON .. ..L.OarOl:id 0...",...,.....
I
,
~.hll
......'IlllIIMIi I, Q I
.
~
L
~
~
~ II
q
o .,
> ~
., '. ~l," " ., .-.,....
to '. ;r:J~}:.:~1\ (~>J~;':.-~-
~ :l,.;.>::t~~":~ 'C'. ~!,~1
.,. \-"',.,.!t""1'''.....~.'
.~.~ <~:i'~'::i~-'."
~~~.;.;... ~ j:~ '
:\ '-~~l. jl '.~
. a.' '~.:n....
.~ .., ,<r,'-
\'t; :, ~.,,?{+....~,'
.". ~'"
\
\'
/t}-/3
z
5
L
~ ~
o l
EXHIBIT C
MEMO DATED DECEMBER 7, 1994 FROM
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
/tJ~ /5
DATE:
December 7, 1994
Martin Miller, Associate Planner ~'.
captain Zoll, InV~~\gative Division ~~".
Mary Jane Diosdad~SCPS
Del-'J
::'~
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit: 73 N. Second Avenue
I have reviewed the information you provided to the Police
Department regarding the permit review for the MAAC Project.
Over the past twelve months there has been six CFS and three
crime/incident reports. The following is a listing of the year's
activities.
CAlls For Service
Disturbance of the
Public Peace
Total
Crime/Incident ReDorts
Total
3
459 Burglary
488 Petty Theft
10851 Stolen Vehicle
1
1
1
The disturbance calls are broken down into two firecracker calls
and one verbal argument. The three theft calls are activity not
related to the above location.
Thank you
process.
me.
for the opportunity to have input into the planning
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
;!J; J?
EXHIBIT D
LETTER DATED JANUARY 10, 1995 FROM
JOHN J. KEETCH
/tJ- J 7
178 Sierra Way
Chula Vista, CA 91911
January 10, 1995
Mr. Martin Miller, Associate Planner
Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
,I, "
....-,i'l/ '7 ~
O. u' "'!.
1,\' C'r
-.
Re: PCC-92-06: Annual Review of the MAAClNosotros Project
Dear Mr. Miller:
In your letter to the property owners and residents about the
MMC program at 73 N. Second Avenue, you referred to police responses
to 73 N. Second Avenue, none of which were associated with the MMC
Project.
You have missed some important data. In the Brentwood AIms
condominiums, located at 110 N. Second Avenue, break-ins by burglars
have increased since the MMC project was started across the street at 73
N. Second Avenue. Approximately September 27,1994, Unit no. 68,
which I own and my son rents from me, was entered by smashing a
bedroom window, and the unit was ransacked. Pillowcases, CD's, a 35
mm SLR camera, a VCR, a gold chain and a diamond earring were stolen.
Although the police were called and they responded, the burglar was
gone, and so there is no way to decide whether the burglary is related to
the MAAC project. The evening of that burglary I learned that similar
incidents had happened at other condominium units in Brentwood Arms,
and this evening I learned of another one since that date. Because 73 N.
Second Avenue is higher than the condominium project, people at 73 N.
Second Avenue are able to look down into the condominiums and follow
the comings and goings of the residents of a number of the units.
Your letter stated that concerns have been expressed over the
possibility of an increase in criminal activity associated with this project.
Please look at criminal activity, and especially burglaries, at Brentwood
Arms, 110 N. Second Ave., and perhaps elsewhere in the neighborhood,
as possibly, if not probably, being a result of the MAAC project. Just
because these unsolved crimes cannot be directly traced to the MAAC
JtJ-J~
project does not mean that the MAAC project has not conbibuted to the
increased crime which has definitely occurred at Brentwood Arms and
perhaps elsewhere in this neighborhood.
I apologize for missing your December 30 deadline. Please consider
these incidents, and recognize that crimes possibly related to 73 N.
Second Avenue will usually not result in police reports referring to that
address, especially when no solid connection exists.
Sincerely,
.J~
John J. Keetch
I tJ ~ /(
EXHIBIT E
MEMO DATED JANUARY 19, 1995 FROM
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT RE: EXHIBIT D
J,!J-~r
.
MRMORANDlJM
January 19, 1994
TO:
Mary Jane Diosdado, SCPS
FROM:
.}.. 31>5
Martin Miller, Associate Planner~\. '1-5
PCC-92-06R: Response to Letter of 1/10/95 from John J. Keetch
SUBJECT:
Thank you for your response for comments dated 1217/94 (copy attached). This gave valuable
information so far as the yearly review is concerned as it indicates that the number of incidents
is low. However, the Planning Department received the above-referenced letter from Mr. Keetch
who apparently believes the residents of the MAAC Project living at 73 North Second Avenue
may be those responsible for several neighborhood burglaries. Please answer the following
questions:
1. Has there been an increase in break-in in the neighborhood, and especially at Brentwood
Arms, 110, No. Second Avenue, since the MAAC Project opened?
2. If there has been an increase, does the Police Department attribute it to the opening of the
MAAC Project?
3. If there has been an increase but it is not attributable to the MAAC Project, to what or to
whom does the Police Department attribute the increase?
Please respond by January 27, 1995. ~<{a vii. tfuDtL
J~-~
EXHIBIT F
MEMO DATED FEBRUARY 17,1995 FROM
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN RESPONSE
TO EXHIBIT E
1t1-;2.3
~2
DATE:
February 17, 1995
Martin Miller, Associate Planner
MJ Diosdad~ Crime Prevention
Specialist
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
C.U.P 73 N. Second Avenue
I have reviewed the letter sent by Mr. Keetch regarding the MAAC
Project and re-affirm what he has already stated, we can Dot
determine nor blame, that the increase in reported activity at
110 N. Second Avenue is due to the occupants at 73 N. Second
Avenue. There is no data that identifies any suspect(s) residing
at 73 N. Second Avenue. Actually, there is only one 'known'
suspect listed, and that individual resides in National city.
Furthermore, there should be some consideration to the direct
thoroughfare to another jurisdiction, as well as, the transient/
homeless population that lives throughout the Sweetwater River
bottom and channel area.
Upon researching the past reported (theft related) crime cases at
110 N. Second Avenue, there were seven reported in 1993 and
twenty-nine in 1994. The following is a list of that activity
for 1993 and 1994:
1993
Burglary - Residential or Vehicle
JAN - 1 FEB - 1 MAY - 1 JUL - 1
Vehicle Theft - attempted
MAR-I
Vandalism -
MAR-I
DEC - 1
1994
Burglary - Residential or
JAN R-,p V/G-5 APR
FEB R-,p V/G-l MAY
MAR R-I V/G-I
Vehicle/Garage
R-,p V/G-1 SEP
R-,p V/G-3 DEC
R-2 V/G-,p
R-l V/G-,p
Vehicle
JAN
APR
Theft
2
1
or
Tampering
OCT
NOV
with a
2
1
Vehicle
DEC
1
Petty Theft -
MAY - I
SEP - 3 (2 unlocked vehicles)
Vandalism - JUL - 1
AUG - 1
Robbery -
JAN - 1
cc:
Captain Zoll, Inv. Div.
JtJ-c2 r
PUBUC J-IEARlNG CHECK UST
PUBUC HEARlNG DATE:
SUBJECT:~\ L -C\d-.- D k
'\l\ (1A& d!i) , \'1'1~
,,\\~~ ~~~ \~ M '~ll J) DQ~'.0
.
LOCATION:
.,}\'\\'\{
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION n BY FAX '\ ; BY HAND ; BY MAIL
PUBLICATION DATE ~ \ ,\<t,\ c..,S - -
.
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERIT OWNERS f..... ~- ,. J. NO. MAILED
PER GC ~54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
\ .\\ (
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK ~ \ \""\ \ C\;
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
~\\'-\\4,<;"
.
~\\'\\I\\
Planning
Originating Department
Engineering
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
'"
~\ \S\~'C
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
7/93
. ,.-/
1(J.r ;0
-55-
~'\;>J\S- ~ ~-"VVJ (< "'~'" ~0
~v~
::::~~ -:
~~......::~
"""~.......~
- - ---
erlY OF
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, for the purpose of considering
the annual review of and modification to Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-06 (MAAC/Nosotros
Project). This project, which was approved as a 12 bed residential facility for men with alcohol
problems, was conditionally approved by the Chula Vista City Council on November 26, 1991.
One of the conditions of approval was that the use be reviewed annually by staff and brought to
Council if there were any complaints filed. No complaints have been filed, nor have any concerns
been expressed since the use was established which would warrant continued annual review.
Therefore, the Zoning Administrator is recommending that Council delete the provision requiring
annual review.
The Environmental Review Coordinator considered this review and modification and determined
that they are Class 1 Categorical Exemptions pursuant to Section 15301 of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this review or modification of Conditional Use
Permit PCC-92-06 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 at or prior to the public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, March 28,
1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at
which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. If you have any questions regarding this
matter, please contact Martin Miller, Associate Planner, in the Planning Department at 476-5335.
DATED: March 13, 1995
CASE NO. PCC-92-06
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabiliries Act (ADA), requests
individuals who may require special accommodations to access. attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service to request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for
meetings and five days in advance for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the City Clerk's
office for specific informarion at (619) 691-5041 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD)
(619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
M: IHOMEIPLANNIN G\MARTINIMAAC\9206CC .NOT
/tl~~~
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(6191691-5101
....."
I
?' .
-- ---
. ~...
't::
w
..
&:=J-'~ .I~~
" 0\ \
.~
,,\'JE~
~
,"
..
i ,
~~
~A
-..,"
.~"1
..
....
.
@
INDUrf.
"
~ ~ J ;;;;;J
~ E~~~'
\~F ~
SF (~ ~E"T
h ~ V l,.U.6.TI~
_~ W1'~ KOA 0
<- F~ 1-
1~~~~
g ~\
HI
H-
~
- ,~
~~ ',CO,,!-).
~~""""""... ~
~~
~ <),:~> ~
'" '"
,
;....-<~
~
lS~
.'
DRIVE
0,(>
O~
S4
C'!rUt.
..;
~
~l
:x:
....~
F?
lr-tV
o
z
-
- ,
@
TI
~~J
n
!lEA VA
I
f- lrir-
~
- - ~
~
- I--
I
R '\/ .
1 _ V ~.
---_w......... ~
~v
I 1 ~
a:otrIIa
L ~f,Jt>, -?~o A~l ~OCATOR "MAAC.
~ NOS TOI\OS /2-B~D
, L -' L' ~ (pu:. - 4 2-- t'~ 1 IfES/t)eNT/AL FAC1LITj FoP,
_ ') NORTH _ //J-;<1 .. 1fUOVE.~IN(i, ALc.OHOL/c..> .~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, for the purpose of considering
the annual review of and modification to Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-06 (MAAC/Nosotros
Project). This project, which was approved as a 12 bed residential facility for men with alcohol
problems, was conditionally approved by the Chula Vista City Council on November 26, 1991.
One of the conditions of approval was that the use be reviewed annually by staff and brought
to Council if there were any complaints filed. No complaints have been filed, nor have any
concerns been expressed since the use was established which would warrant continued annual
review. Therefore, the Zoning Administrator is recommending that Council delete the provision
requiring annual review.
The Environmental Review Coordinator considered this review and modification and determined
that they are Class 1 Categorical Exemptions pursuant to Section 15301 of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this review or modification of Conditional Use
Permit PCC-92-06 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 at or prior to the public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, March
28, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue,
at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. If you have any questions regarding
this matter, please contact Martin Miller, Associate Planner, in the Planning Department at 476-
5335.
DATED: March 13, 1995
CASE NO. PCC-92-06
M:IHOMEIPLANNINGlMARTINIMAACI9206CC.NOT
JO'c2g/
~~~
....
~<-~~
~~~~
ellY OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
TELEFAX COVER LEITER
Telecopier No. (619) 585-5612
DATE:
'8.\I'-\\'1S
TO: Star News LelZal / Teresa
FAX NO: (619) 426-6346
FROM: (Y:~, '.
SUBJECT: V v,,~__,'---'
1~-€ : I.._.{_" '}.
\/ '.
~ \ \"6
,
^ .-----
'_1':::::'
\
\
TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover):
d-,
PUBUCATION DATE:
_\ \ ~
;:, \\C6\CI::,
,
If all pages are not received, please call Lorna @ (619)691-5041.
/tJ ~,)..7
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5041
@""""",,,,_eo-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Annual review of and modification to Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-06
(MAAC/Nosotros Project).
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
March 28, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: March 15, 1995
/iJ - yo
3-18
N
IS)
lL
N NOTICE OF PUBLIC
... HEAmNGBYTHECHULA C ~ (
~ VISTA CITY COUNCIL " ,I
CHULA VIST A'ECAUFORNIA C'~J\(~ (
lD NOTice IS H REBY GIVE~ _.Y
III THAT THE CHULA VISTA
CITY COUNCIL will hold a \':t.
bllc I\8arlng III coosldllllhe .
lowlng:
Amual rllVlew of and modln.
ca~on to Condlllonal U&ll Pili-
m I I PCC-92.06
hMAAC4'IOGOlroo ~flCll).
you wish lD chal nga Iha
0 City'. acllon on 1II1. maW In "
f- COIlrl. you mil)' be IImII8d 10 la- I
Ialng only those lasues ~ or
someone 81.. raIsed at e~-
bic healing doscrlbed' In 0
no~, Dr 11\ written correo~OII- ,
d....... deHvered ID the ClIy
Clerk's OIRce at or prior III Ih8
pubUc heer!r&
S"C P LIC HEARING
WILL BE HELD BY TfE: CITY
CO\JNCL on Tueoday, March
29 , 1995 al 6:00 ~. In Iha
CouncI Chamber., bile Ser-
vices BuIIdlnPc 21& Fourlh
I'.venut, e1wh ch lime :1 pili'
son d&S~lng 10 be near may
ap~,.
:reo: March 15, 1995
CV0571l8 SllM5
EO
~ ~
~
l'E ~
...
... ~
IS)
...
~
...
I
lD
...
I
I'l
IS) [,.
Ie .
I "1~.
I ..' l.'
~'.
f
/
/
I
N
IS)
lL
a!
b
f-
(I? .<::-
1 4o.-0-J
"'-'",,...'-''-,,'-'......
PCC-92-.6 Tenant
;un ". r .. .. .. ff
Chula Vista, CA 91910
5633102511 5633100500
Tenant
CA 91910
.
5633102100
Tenant
~10
5633102566 5633102509
Tenant Tenant
5633102522
5633102506
Tenant
5633102548
t
5633100400
Tenant
~ 91910
5633102549
Tenant
5633102547
Tenant
,,'-'..............................v
Tenant
5633102600
5633100300
/tJ/ ;12
_.
-
~Ju. 4 T
.... ..--
..-.
r
l () I
C..
C 01,
C..
01>
(
(
(. .
.(
(
()~,--L
,
,
II
--~
Ml -..-
- .-....~'J
~~.I-
-.
H
....
- ()(j" e-
lj.: ( (
0.. (
_... ~.1--41 .
~ 0.. (
c.~ ( ,
., n (
Q..~L
ljf- _..~
J ---.
.. .,--~~~
. 5b33102513
G
--
5633102521
r
'.-~I:l"" A:-"
ChUlA VISTA CA '<1910
ChUlA VISTA CA 91910
~.-~ J
BAKER :
, VISTA CA 91910
r--'
5633102541
~L.!c~
H
"
.,
5633102545 .'-
BUTTON MICHAELlBElVlI
..........
.--...
'*
B
/tfi - ;J ;J
JOSE AIRIO MAR~A,
LA 0
_ 5b33102514
CESHDE MI GUAL
~
~ISTA LA
J 10 TE U
919-10
YOLANDA
5633102522
.OUOS MICHAEL.
5b 3310252b
SEVEkNS VERONICA M
5b 33.02 530
ARAIN MURTAZMMALlK NAIMA
5b33102534
~
5633102538
.1 lLSEY NANCY L
o
5b33102542
~SHARUN L
~lq1l
--
5b 33102550
kiNG PAUL <
,
THOMA5L J"DEwEY/ELSIE <
c/o LINDA BuB~
-., ""1""1'rr"i,;lf'~~ ~HUL~ rSTA I CA 91910
.,!:~}'l,"'~~
w,~:"",:t:.. ", '~""~!'~"
~..-;;.N. ,;.~ ~.:.""~"
~\,~,,rl._,..,~,, ,
.,.,.. .....,...: ,-."
.!'(
...; ..... .
.-, .
&....c. '..
.~"J-
f"
_'C'
.,,:1:.-
",jft~)>N;~,;>":~" ~l,,',
iiil!,!/,<}_",'1t'
,
C:i.iz.
~1.!"
...,'.-
,,~,iIfij;;r.
5633102515
ALLEN EDWINA P TRUST
CHULA V IS~)Sl"'9.l"qlQ
';4
563310251'1.
GIBSON PHILIP R
, -
CHULA V I~A. ~A 9.1.~~?,
",<,
c. c " (5633102523
O << . (' ONGPAuCO-TAI'IAYO CORAZuN
L . ..-, e....
. ."...i( C HU LA V ~r A q.",. -m 0
o r~- "'..
0.. ,(
0<<. (5633102527
c..:J ,(BkE 10 ELlZA~ETH M
'O,~.l.. CHULA"V.tg~.<;A ql'1.1Z
~~JfA'~~~~~O/NANCY
...__. .. . I.
.1IICHULA VISTA CA '1.1'1.10
.
5633102516
08-30-89 ~
............ CHULA VI>TA CA 91910
)
>>
;;:^~
56 3H02 5iO
JOHNSON .LORtNCE L
CHULA VISTA LA 91910
>>
>>
56331025,4
CALZADA uANIEL
;'~~~.'",(.1iA-, :HULA vt~TA CA
-'l*'''-:--'a
J/ALlSON E
91 '1.11
>>
.
56331025,B
UERNAN . AM IL Y
"""no.. _
..... .'HULA V I 'TA CA
.."",~,,, ("' oJ
TRUST 1l-08-B9
91910
.
)
5633102531 56331025~2
MIKOSl CAkM<N TRUST 0~-02-93 DVADIA RUBERT
--
'~1 CHULA V~T;; ..CA 9191lJ ....",,,,,,. CHULA VISTA CA 91910
5633102543
HANCOCK WILLIAM L/NINA K
~:5"f51:. ~ 1 AL BE AC \;U..t+~?""~
0.1' ( (
OLe
r" . _ ( (5033102547
,'-- '- FAST LIVING TRUST 07-10-90
,0" ( , ..
,O~... 4 CHULA V ISll..E1.~' ?J?..~,,'....... .';__
(j' n""'t' ~, .-- '" . .,<, ,"""
co. ~ "".{
Nr1
"...,
5633102535
VELARDE SUNYA
1 . If r
CHULA V~T4 CA ~191U
"""".
,': .
5033102539
HINKLE .ILLlAM S
C HU L A V 1tiU+ ",C)"",,9191~,<.
)
)
5633102 5 ~6
ADAIR BI..LlE G
.,~ .,".,." CHULA VI ST.. CA Ql910
>>
.
/'i\H"t'lit'''-.;.
5633102540
~USH JAM<S 0 III/ANGELA R
.. ' ~
CHULA VISTA LA ~1910
I
..
5633102544
~
CHULA VI STA CA 91'1.10
~
.
56 33102 5~ B
~AS DwNALD IITAt SOOK
.... -
SAN DIEGu CA 9Z111
.
.
5633102551
~ARIE
CHULA V ISlA ~!f,~" ~11
5633102552
~
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.
"""'11
?1!'l"__;':-..
> ....,"'....'.
'.
~..
5033102555
~RUST
C,jiULA V l~tllll5A,;,t.:~:~0 .'
.
<UIIIftot.....
56331025,6
SALD THE~
..--
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
.
!
)cJ'- ;r(
,
ce
( 04.
C e ~
C,OD (~
~.( .,.
con
C e(
" <lC,-l
t
.,
LABL 0050B PCC-92-0b
G ROUP CARE HOME: CULTURAL~Y S P
x xxx xx x xxx xxx xx xx x xxx xxxx xx xx x
x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x xxxxx xxxx xxx xx xx x xxx xxxx xx xx x
x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x xxx xx x xxx xxx xx xxx xxx XXXx)(X xx X
X xxxxx x xxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx x
x xxx xx x xxx x xx xx xx x xxx xx xx xx xx x
x xxx xx x xxx x xx xx XX)( xxx xx xx xx xx x
x xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xx xx x
x xxxxx xxxxxxx xx xx x xxx xxxx xx xx x
4
4
r
a
5 t33020200
~HN JEFFERY F/JULIE K
~L#".l!ol'SH.."'91 91 0
L
5633100100
S ILVEK JUDI TH T
.. 1910
, -.. ."
5 633100500
KUHNEL ALEX H/ELEANOR
c. {( ,,~""--""'-'-
, OU, (
c.~ ( _ 5633101000
C' ~ 0 c -~ RUZ GABRI~L/MARJA E
~e; ( I
( 00' (
c e r ( I
(. O~=L
".;....:""*
."..4fW.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx^xxxxxxx
xx xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xxxx xxxx xx xx xxxx xx xx xx xx xxxx
5633020300
~RUSA L
~9!O
..",: ",.~'-~*-,...;. (.., .,
&..~w.'cA,
..'
5633021000
ACTON HARRIET F
_910
5633.1.00200
S INFOKOSA B
910
5633102502
SMITH KENNtTh
PHC KENNETH C
5633102506
~ANCLEAVE JOHN A
..-' .I..?.: . *l..
0.'
C 0 (.
c...
G.O
~.(
(aC)
e.l
Celll....
l
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
lXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
~lxxXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
;:.. xxx XXXX xxx x xx xx XXXX xx xx xx xx xxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
-
.'-e~~D C/FRANCES
ILY TRUST 10-02-72
1__ ___ I
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
M F~~~/bARBARA
CHULA VI~TA CA 91910
5.633021100
-.:....;,..'il'f':tcfitii.il:~ Y TR US T 11-16
..~-
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
CA 91910
~,..~.Ht~MOUR M
T I L
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
56331004 uO
.~
IMPERIAL BEACH CA 91932
56B1001100
~'~i~~~L
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
aef,r I
( OU' C
0.; : I
GWiMH""C~3.3M1~,
~" f~': r:~~"R.'.~~ M .0
co.,' r CHULA VISTA CA 91910
ce( , .
EO~=,-"
.'.,..,
."'. ~".
,....><" ..
56331009UO
SCI'tAf'!'kE"~RENCE AI JUNE L TR
"'()51""1"t'1ll<f'~
~NCE SCHAFFNER
CHULA VI~TA CA 91910
-.''''''''''
~'.;,";>;;
56331021UO
. ~EANOR 0
CHULA VI ~TA CA 91910
~.... ""'" "
'.;f4,./' \, ~ ~r' .. ~
..."",,-'~'-~~
~~~~tNi
~'~"aat~l~i~~INDY L
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
A
CHULA VI~TA CA 91910
..
o
A/GLORIA (J
910
ELI Z ABE TH A
-,
5633102561
_~....p.. ....,t..
9 '110
ce
\ () (. -
.
C .,
coe 1 ,..
,&
~.( .. ",
( on {
c .( , , 5633102569
( Q~~,- < - B OGG S MARGARET
~
.," 10
5633102566
AR LOS
.,*,,~,l.i I l;HL,~ 9 2l<t 3'
.....',-".'.,~
."""-..::'1"
5633102574
MOODY JAME~ b JR
..... "'-oCt
"":....
.........\tliIe
.....~ ',"'" .~...,,,,
5 633102 577
DAM~RON JACK
~1ii4
E/NORMA c..
96707
M/SAkA F
_.
ENT~RPRISES II.C
~ IN C
....- -'.
'-'.~l'
~\. ~~
, .... ,'.... .
----~-
- _J ..;......
'~~e.
...
J..
'...
,..
....e.
:le.
,.e.
C a r ".--./ r-'
. I ._____
( ou : (tell::..
ca; : .e~.'
r;c>(~ rcell'~~
v '" _ \ .- . ~ t, .
~.; . ( ~e" ,'-'
( 0 (~. r a e lIr." r
C . ( . - e e .""
G O. ..~-_.., - "
'- ...'-"--~----
"'" - ...--, " --",
.~-
"",,,r-, .,
..
. ~ ~,:
.~': ~ ~ -:.~. ;
: '- '\ ~ :~;
j/Jr J)
I C~~'''~~~t~~'~yJII
c . ~ ( II . L"~ ~.-
C,'O(: (,CHULA VISTA CA 91910
~. ( :..,
I 0 () (
C . ('.l-i~~~~ C
~-.~~~C_~_ ~ .~.~=-~ J/~~OITH
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
,-~."".,
\if:
eel
l au
ce;
(~O
~. ;
( 0 (~'
c.(
. _~5..t.lnLl2,,~
__..;<~'Jr.N~HA
l L .. LOW _.
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
AI!"~'l(lWra"'~'NliO A/GLORIA 0
L~..~v
(HULA VI~TA CA 91910
.
... 5b33~
'.'.L....'~~~' , [ M A K T HA
CHULA VISTA CA 9191u
-..-~
~.~ ~NA E
" " ,.,
(HULA VI~TA CA 91910
>>
)
,,,..':"',.~~ J//',ARGUEkETTE
- ,,- ,
(HULA vI~TA CA 91911
>>
)
__~~, J _
CHULA VI~TA (A 91910
)
)
_,. _,,?,b~31 gz.~_ .
..."~,,,,:;; JONESe '/Q1IfMI LEt-. T R IS.. A t-. S ON J EA.
N TR .
L ,_
(HULA VI~TA CA 91910 >>
5 b 331 (,12 ~
CUl"bS" P'II.,
10
~ 3 3.3Jl3.3 u,O
. A~~~~CAROL H
bO~iTA-CA 91902' ",&
.
M'
,<.,.,"...':'
)
',_~M~(m_ t-.E RSHI P ..~,~,.!"
IMPERIAL bEACH CA 919j3
\'.,',,,,,..~
t."',;~:~
J
"
,.
- ~.........~
~ ~:'
" "11,,-',
-'~..
a..
J..
'...
,..
.,...
':l..
'....
"..t: ;,.
. ..- ,
~'" '.
,- ~ ..' .~
, \..... . J" ~, _
c.~...,.
, c..t",-,
- . . ~=.
..
-' ., ~.:
~': ~~ .::':
:.) ~ :~;
, ~, . ~, -
'-c. .~.
.I _ _'. _' _' '_' 'j .~ -'
.' ..
r o~~~__=._-.~.~
/cJrJY'
MEMORANDUM
March 23, 1995
File: 1320-50
TO: To The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Goss, City ManagerUt:\ l.
FROM: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works/Operation~ ~~t.-
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON BACKHOE PURCHASE
At the Council meeting on March 14, 1995, Council requested additional information on the
backhoe that staff had recommended for purchase. Specifically, Council wanted to know if a
smaller machine would meet the City's needs. The City currently has two backhoes; one assigned
to the sewer maintenance division and the other to the street maintenance division. Since the
creation of a second sewer construction crew in April 1994, the second sewer construction crew
has been sharing the use of the backhoe assigned to the street division. Since sewer lateral repair
takes precedence, the sharing of this machine has negatively impacted the street division's
operations.
Part of the reason that staff had recommended the larger machine was because the second sewer
construction crew would be sharing the use of the machine with the street maintenance division.
The work done by the sewer construction crew in repairing and installing laterals places a higher
demand on a backhoe than would normally be placed on a backhoe by the street maintenance
division. Staff's concern with the sewer construction crew using a smaller machine is that while
the machine will be able to perform most of the work done by the sewer construction crew, the
constant usage would most likely lead to earlier replacement and/or higher maintenance costs.
Current backhoes have a IO-year replacement cycle and replacing the machine earlier than that or
increased maintenance costs could easily cost more than the incremental savings due to purchasing
a smaller machine.
Staff was able to discuss which backhoes are appropriate for specific circumstances with the City of
San Diego's purchasing expert on backhoes. San Diego uses the smaller machines for sewer
laterals except in the Miramar area where the ground is very hard and creates difficult digging
conditions. Chula Vista has such conditions south of "L" Street. Unlike San Diego, all of our
machines must be used citywide. Another important factor to consider is that San Diego uses a 7
year replacement cycle instead of the 10 years used by Chula Vista. Staff's best estimate is that use
of the smaller machine under our conditions would require earlier replacement.
))~ I
Honorable Mayor and City Council
-2-
March 20, 1995
The Public Works Department has requested an additional backhoe be purchased during FY 95-96
out of sewer funds and assigned to the sewer division. Budget review is in process and the City
Manager will forward his recommendation to Council with the FY 95-96 Budget. If the additional
machine is approved in the FY 95-96 budget, staff would recommend the smaller machine be
purchased at that time and given to the street tnaintenance division and the machine currently
recommended for purchasing (the JCB215) be permanently assigned to the sewer crew.
Staff's bottom line is that under current circumstances, we recommend purchase of the JCB215,
i. e., the larger machine.
DB:mp
(ADINFBKH.MEM)
//~cZ
MEMORANDUM
March 28, 1995
File: 1320-50
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Counci~ C h. /
John D. Goss, City Manage~ ~ ~,) . /
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works~ (f!'/
REQUEST BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT COMPANY TO CONTINUE
BACKHOE ITEM FOR ONE WEEK
VIA:
FROM:
SURJECT:
Ken Birch, a representative from Contractors Equipment Company (who provided bids on the Case
Backhoe), has requested that the Council continue consideration of the bid award on the backhoe for
one more week. Mr. Birch indicated that he wishes the item continued as he is unable to attend
tonight's Council meeting due to a medical emergency in his family. Mr. Birch was also unable to
attend the Council meeting on March 14, 1995, when this item was originally considered. Last week
Mr. Birch called the City Manager's office about award of the bid of the backhoe. Staff returned
Mr. Birch's call, however he was not in and did not return staffs call. As as a result, we have no
additional information as to what Mr. Birch wants to tell Council other than that he believes the bid
should be awarded for the Case 580 Super L.
Staff's recommendation to purchase the JCB215 and consider purchase of a smaller machine if an
additional backhoe is approved in FY 95-96 still holds. Staff does not recommend continuation of
the item for another week as only thtee members of Council will be at the April 4th meeting and
there may not be a full Council for three more weeks.
The purpose of this memo is simply to inform Council that Mr. Birch has made a request to continue
the item and that staff recommends that the item not be continued and the award made to Bengal for
the JCB215.
DB:mp
(BKHCNCL.MEM)
//'3
B
Contractors Equipment Company
Construction, Industrial, Utility &
March 16, 1995
fJ rr-(' '0
i'lL 0' /1/1'
'!4,? ') L.I r L{j -9
M~ 0 . )
fir-OR's .. .""
ChlJ,a Vis' OFFICE H9
~ ,~ C4 "
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
S
A
L
E
S
Dear Honorable Mavor and Citv Council:
My purpose in writing to each of you is to address ITEM
TITLE: RESOLUTION 1780 which is the rejection of the low bid
for a TRACTOR LOADER BACKHOE from Contractors Equipment
Company, and award to Bengal Tractor. (All copies attached)
.
R
E
N
T
A
L
S
My frustration through this bidding process is that someone
in the City organization has made a judgement that the CASE
580 SUPER L loader backhoe is a smaller machine than the JCB
215. After the bids were opened I tried on several
occasions to get an audience with Purchasing and the end user
department with promises that I would have the opportunity to
review the bid spec's in comparison to the CASE 580 SUPER L
spec's. I finally had to call Sid Morris, Assistant City
Manager, to get the audience that was promised. In this
meeting Dave Byer was present and we reviewed the Cities spec
requirements versus the CASE 580 SUPER L. As explained in
several memos and correspondence the Case met over 100 of the
approximately 105 or so spec's Exceeding 19 of those required
specs in very critical performance areas, areas that are
critical in the performance of a backhoe.
.
P
A
R
T
S
.
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
I am still amazed that Jack Dickens and Dave Byer want to
purchase a machine built in England with English fittings on
the unit and requires a special oil for the brakes and grease
for the backhoe. The City of San Diego confirmed this to Mr.
Byer via the phone. The CASE 580 SUPER L is a very
responsive unit to your bid spec's as you can see if you will
review the attached material dated February 28, 1995 to Mr.
Dave Byer. In addition, they want to spend more money for
the JCB as well. The CASE IS LOW BY $1704.42.
SAN DIF.GO
(619) 2989846
ESCONDIDO
(619) 741-9272
OXNARD / / - tAHEIM
(805) 983-3969 (714) 535-7731
RIVERSIDE IMPERIAL
(909) 682-6823 (619) 353-0190
SAN MARCOS RIVeRSIDE/COLUMBIA CITY OF INDUSTRY OXNARDfLATIGO INDIO EL CAJON
(619) 743-7777 (909) 684-5645 (818) 968-961 1 (805) 485-9494 (619) 342.3359 (619) 562-3841
In the material entitled RESOLUTION NO. 17830 which contains
the results of the bidding you will find on page 6-2,
highlighted in yellow the reasons for disqualifying the CASE.
1. Slightly under weight: NO vendor met the weight
requirement. (verified by
specification and price
books)
2. A small capacity loader bucket: Yes, the CASE
bucket is .16 smaller.
Not detectable. About the
same amount as a large scoop
shovel a man or woman would
use.
3. Slightly less lift capacity: CORRECT. 186 POUNDS
LESS. Not detectable in
6000 Ibs.
4. 1"3" less dig depth. NOT a concern as you review
comments by Staff.
The statement about other venders bidding a smaller machine
indicates that your staff has not fully researched the CASE
580 SUPER L for its correct size.
After 22 years in the business I am quite taken that your
Staff is not able to see that the CASE 580 SUPER L is a very
responsive machine to your bid. CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT
COMPANY has been established since 1952 here in San Diego
supporting every MUNICIPAL agency and city in the county. We
have invested a tremendous amount of money in the areas of
PRODUCT SUPPORT AND HAVING A SUFFICIENT SUPPLY OF PARTS IN
STOCK TO SUPPORT OUR CUSTOMERS.
I would be pleased to personally review the bid spec's with
you and go through the bid spec's item by item and
demonstrate to you that the CASE 580 SUPER L meets and
exceeds your spec's with only minor variances of little or no
consequence verified by your staff.
I thank you for your time in reviewing this item.
//-J
Since the council meeting on March 14, there has been some
discussion of even going to a smaller unit. I have submitted
to Mr. Harlan Wilson via fax the necessary paper work where-
in the City of Chula Vista could piggy-back off from the City
of San Diego's bid where they are purchasing three (3) new
CASE 580 L's from CONTRACTORS at a substantial savings over
Chula Vista's Bid. I would recommend that the City
seriously look into this option if they are looking to make a
purchase of a backhoe at the most competitive rate. The City
of San Diego's bid was for sixteen (16) pieces of Heavy
Construction Equipment. The pricing was very aggressive and
you can take advantage of the huge purchasing power of a
larger entity.
Thankpou Honorable Mayor and City Council.
~,f....-e1U->'~ rr-
l/. /2~~/
Kenneth L. Birch
Governmental Sales Specialist,
CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT COMPANY
//.-~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item-L
Meeting Date 3/14/95
Resolution I '} 8':3 () Rejecting lowest bidder as non-responsive;
accepting bids and awarding contract for purchase of a tractor loader
with backhoe
SUBMIttED BY: Director of Public Works~L--:J!'?
Director of Finance /E .
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..x.)
Bids were received and opened at 3:00 pm on January 18, 1995 in the office of the Purchasing
Agent for a tractor loader with backhoe for Public Works Operations.
ITEM TITLE:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding
contract for the purchase of a tractor loader with backhoe to the lowest responsible bidder,
Bengal Equipment.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 94-95 equipment replacement budget provides for the replacement of a tractor loader
with backhoe. The bid packages were mailed to vendors in San Diego County with four (4)
responding and one (1) of the four bidders providing an unsolicited alternative bid. The
following is a summary of bids received:
Tractor Loader with Backhoe
Bidder Unit Price 7% Sales Tax Trade-in Net Amount
Allowance
Bengal Equipment, E1 Cajon
1995 JCB215 $51,696.00 $3,618.72 $10,000.00 $45,314.72
Hawthome Machinery, San Diego
1995 Caterpillar 426B $60,915.00 $4,264.05 $15,000.00 $50,179.05
Contractors Equipment Co, Escondido
1995 Case 590 Super L $60,710.00 $4,249.70 $14,480.00 $50,479.00
Alternative Bid: 1995 Case 580 Super L $54,290.00 $3,800.30 $14,480.00 $43,610.30
(does not meet specifications)
Whitney Machinery, San Diego
1995 Jolm Deere 410D $59,300.00 $4,151.00 $12,000.00 $51,451.00
~ ///7
Page 2, Item V
MeetingDate 3/14/95
The net low bid of Bengal Equipment Company meets specifications and is acceptable. The
following tractor loader with backhoe will be traded in upon purchase: 1986 Case 680
Backhoe with combination bucket, property tag #15138.
When the bid package was distributed by Purchasing, a call was received from the vendor
bidding the Case backhoe. They had two backhoes, one above our specifications and the other
slightly below our specifications. They were invited to bid both, as long as both met minimum
specifications. The lower cost Case backhoe (Case 580) did not fully meet specifications as
follows:
1. Slightly underweight;
2. A small capacity loader bucket;
3. Slightly less lift capacity of the 4: 1 loader bucket; and
4. A 1'3" less maximum dig depth
Although the difference in dig depth is not critical due to the City's possession of a large
excavator, staff does not believe it would be equitable to award the bid for the Case 580 since
the other bidders could also bid alternate machines that would not meet the published
specifications.
Staff recommends that Council award the bid to Bengal Equipment for the JCB 215. However,
if Council wishes to award for a smaller machine, staff recommends that new specifications
be issued and the item rebid. This is said with the knowledge that Bengal Equipment has a
smaller machine (JCB 214) than the JCB 215, which is $6,000 less than the JCB 215.
ALTERNATIVE FUEL:
Due to its size, weight, and continuous all day operation, this vehicle is not appropriate for
consideration of conversion to alternative fuel.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funds are provided in the FY 94-95 equipment replacement budget for purchase of
the tractor loader with backhoe. The total amount of the tractor including the 7% sales tax and
the trade in allowance is $45,314.72. The total amount budgeted for the purchase is $71,228
resulting in a savings of $25,913.28.
The existing tractor loader with backhoe has a current maintenance cost of $11,004 and
operating cost of $886. We estimate the on-going maintenance cost will drop significantly
over the first five years while the operating cost will remain the same. The savings will be
reflected in equipment maintenance charges to Public Works Operations Streets Operations
account 100-1440-5269.
File: LY-013
IQ:sb
..,_...........,..._.db2
j;;K/I-~
m
Contractors Equipment Company
Construction, tndustrial, Utility & Agricultural Equipment
FAX TRANSMISSION
691-7986
March 10, 1995
Dave Byer
Deputy Director, Public Works Operations
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, Ca. 91910
Dear Dave,
S
A Thank you for your time this morning. May I recap a couple
L of concerns:
E
S
.
R
E
N
T
A
L
S
.
P
A
R
T
S
.
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
1. Replacement of the Case 680 should be with the larger
class machines, Case 590 Super L, Cat 436, JCB 217 etc.
2. The Case 580 Super L meets 100 of the approx. 105 spec's.
3. EXCEEDS 19 of the spec's in PERFORMANCE areas.
4. Classification of Tractor loader Backhoes is by OVERALL
PERFORMANCE, not just one spec.
5. Exceptions are of nominal consequence.
6. After Jack Dickens offered the Bid spec's to other
venders and their changes were made, Jack should have
offered me the same opportunity to review the new bid
spec's and incorporated our changes into the bid package.
This would have resolved the areas of dispute. I am sure
this is an innocent oversight by Jack's lack of
experience in preparing bid spec's.
7. No machine met all the spec's.
8. If the Cat and John Deere are acceptable machines then
the Case 580 Super L is also in lieu of the fact that the
Cat and John Deer take exceptions.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I know you
have the JCB schedule to go before the Council but I hope you
will re onsider your award to Bengal Tractor.
~
, Kenneth L. Birch
SAN DIEGO
(619) 298-9846
11~7
ESCONDIDO OXNARD ANAHEIM RIVERSIDE IMPERIAL
(619) 741-9272 (805) 983-3969 (714) 535-7731 (909) 682-6823 (619) 353-0190
RIVERSIDE/COLUMBIA CITY OF INDUSTRY QXNARD/LATIGO INDIO EL CAJON
(909) 684-5645 (818) 968-9611 (805) 485-9494 (619) 342-3359 (619) 562-3841
SAN MARCOS
(619) 743-7777
EI
Contractors Equipment Company
Construction, tndustrial, Utility & Agricultural Equipment
FAX TRANSMISSION
585-5612
Mar-ch 10, 1995
Sid Morris
Assistant City Manager
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
Dear Mr. Morris:
S
A
L
E
S
Thank you for your time this mor-ning. May I recap a couple
of concerns:
1. Replacement of the Case 680 should be with the larger
class machines, Case 590 Super L, Cat 436, JCB 217 etc.
.
R
E
N
T
A
L
S
2. The Case 580 Super- L meets 100 of the approx. 105 spec's.
3. EXCEEDS 19 of the spec's in PERFORMANCE areas.
4. Classification of Tr-actor- loader Backhoes is by OVERALL
PERFORMANCE, not just one spec.
.
P
A
R
T
S
5. Exceptions are of nominal consequence.
.
6. After Jack Dickens offered the Bid spec's to other-
venders and their- changes were made, Jack should have
offered me the same oppor-tunity to review the new bid
spec's and incor-porated our changes into the bid package.
This would have resolved the ar-eas of dispute. I am sur-e
this is an innocent oversight by Jack's lack of
exper-ience in preparing bid spec's.
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
7. No machine met all the spec's.
8. If the Cat and John Deere are acceptable machines then
the Case 580 Super L is also in lieu of the fact that the
Cat and John Deer take exceptions.
Thank you for your- consider-at ion in this matter-. I know you
have the JCB schedule to go befor-e the Council but I hope you
will r-econsider your award to Bengal Tractor-.
,
t:/- ~
Kenneth L. Birch
SAN DIEGO
(619) 298-9846
SAN MARCOS
(619) 743-7777
ESCONDIDO
(619) 741-9272
//~/t)
OXNARD ANAHEIM
(805) 983-3969 (714) 535-7731
RIVERSIDE IMPERIAL
(909) 682-6823 (619) 353-0190
RIVERSIDE/COLUMBIA CITY OF INDUSTRY QXNARD/LATIGO INDIO EL CAJON
(909) 684-5645 (818) 968-9611 (805) 485-9494 (619) 342-3359 (619) 562-3841
B
Contractors Equipment Company
Construction, Industrial, Utility & Agricultural Equipment
FAX TRANSMISSION
691-7986
February 28, 1995
TO: DAVE BYER, Deputy Director of Public Works Operations
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
S
A
L
E
S
FROM: KENNETH L. BIRCH
CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT COMPANY
RE: BID NO. 10-94/95
.
~ LISTED BELOW ARE THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THIS BID
N AND ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE ARE THE SPEC'S FOR THE CASE 580
r SUPER L LOADER BACKHOE.
L
S BID SPECIFICATION CASE 580 SUPER L SPEC'S
.
FRAME
WEIGHT
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE
CLEARANCE
One piece
17,000 LBS
P
A
R
T
S
84"
12.5"
.
ENGINE
TURBOCHARGED
FOUR OR MORE CYLINDER
SAE HORSEPOWER 79
231 LB-FT TORQUE @ 1400RPM
AIR CLEANER/PRE-CLEANER
MUFFLER-SPARK ARRESTING
COOLING SYSTEM
GOVERNOR
ENGINE SIDE PANELS
HAND & FOOT THROTTLES
FUEL TANK-30 GALLONS
FUEL/WATER SEPARATOR
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
Continued
AS SPECIFIED
* 16,894 LBS
84"
15"
***
AS SPECIFIED
SIX CYLINDER
80 HORSEPOWER
232 LB-FT TOR/1400rpm
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
31.4 GALLONS
AS SPECIFIED
***
***
***
J / ~I /
SAN DIEGO ESCONDIDO OXNARD ANAHEIM RIVERSIDE IMPERIAL
(619) 298-9846 (619) 741-9272 (805) 983-3969 (714) t.35-7731 (909) 682-6823 (619) 353-0190
SAN MARCOS RIVERSIDE/COLUMBIA CITY OF INDUSTRY OXNARD/LATIGO INDIO EL CAJON
(619)743-7777 (909)684-5645 (818)968-9611 (805)485-9494 (619)342-3359 (619)562-3841
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
12 VOLT
ALTERNATOR 55 AMPS
685 CCA BATTERY
HORN
BACK UP ALARM
FRONT & REAR WIPERS
TWO HEADLIGHTS
TWO TAIL LIGHTS
TWO REAR FACING FLOODS
TURN SIGNALS AND WARNING
STROBE LIGHT
STROBE ON/STROBE OFF
STEERING
POWER STEERING DEMAND
DOUBLE ACTING
CURB CLEARANCE 25'5"
TRANSMISSION AND FINAL DRIVES
4 FORWARD 4 REVERSE
SYNCRO-ON THE GO SHIFT
TORQUE CONVERTER PS/MOD
NEUTRAL DETENT
DISCONNECT BUTTONS
OUTBOARD PLANETARY
DIFF LOCK OR TP
BRAKES
INDIVIDUAL/JOINT OPERATION
HYD. WET DISC
SELF ADJ/SELF EQUALIZING
HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
HYD. PUMP IN FRONT
36 GPM RATING
10 MICRON FILTRATION
HEAVY DUTY OIL COOLER
REGENERATION CIRCUITS
HYD OIL SIGHT GAUGE
INSTRUMENTS (GAUGE)
FUEL
ENGINE OIL
ENGINE COOLANT
BATTERY VOLTAGE
TACHOMETER/HOURMETER
WARNING LIGHTS (ALL)
ALTERNATOR
ENGINE OIL PRESSURE/ALARM
BRAKE FLUID LEVEL
HYDRAULIC FILTER
AS SPECIFIED
65 AMPS
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
TWO HALOGEN HEADLIGHTS
TWO TAIL LIGHTS
FOUR (4) REAR FLOOD
TWO FRONT FLOOD LIGHTS
TWO FRONT FLASHERS TURN
TWO REAR FLASHERS TURN
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
***
***
***
***
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
24'8" WITH OUT BRAKES ***
21'2" WITH BRAKES ***
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
DIFF LOCK
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
42 GPM
7 MICRON FILTRATION
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
***
***
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
SELF FILLING
AS SPECIFIED
Jl..-/~
***
AIR CLEANER
AUDIBLE ALARM
POWER SHUTTLE
PARKING BRAKE
ENGINE COOLANT TEMPERATURE
LOADER
BUCKET POSITIONER
SELF-LEVELING AUTOMATIC
4:1 BUCKET 1.20 CU.YDS
3 SPOOL 2 LEVER
DIG 4" BELOW GROUND
BUCKET HINGE HEIGHT 11'
BOLT ON CUTTING EDGE
WIDTH EQUAL TO TRACTOR
BREAKOUT FORCE 9,200 LBS
LIFT CAPACITY 5,700 LBS
BACKHOE
HYDRAULIC EXT. DIPPER
MIN. DIG DEPTH 15'6"
MAX. DIG DEPTH 19'6"
MIN. LOADING HEIGHT 11'5"
DIPPER EXTENDED 14'
BKT DIGGING FORCE 11,000 LBS
DPR. MIN. FORCE 7,100 RE.
DPR. MIN. FORCE 5,200 EXT.
BUCKET 24" WITH TEETH
QUICK ATTACH
COMBINATION PADS
4 LEVER PATTERN
BOOM SWING 180 DEGREES
CAB
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
* 4:1 1.04 CU. YDS
AS SPECIFIED
6.8" ***
11'2"
***
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
9,546 LBS
GENERAL PURPOSE
* 4:1 BKT 5,514
***
BKT 6,182
LBS
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
* 18'3"
AS SPECIFIED
* 13'3"
13,126 LBS
7,784 LBS
5,635 LBS
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
AS SPECIFIED
11'5"
***
***
***
ALL WEATHER STATE OF CA. AS SPECIFIED
APPROVED AS SPECIFIED
INDUSTRIAL SAFE ROPS AS SPECIFIED
CAB WI AIR CONDITIONING AS SPECIFIED
HEATER AND DEFROSTER AS SPECIFIED
6" X 15" INTERIOR MIRROR AS SPECIFIED
WI RIGHT AND LEFT MIRRORS AS SPECIFIED
SUSPENSION SEAT, 3" BELT AS SPECIFIED
TINTED WINDOWS AS SPECIFIED
DOME LIGHT & FLOOR MAT AS SPECIFIED
PAINT
LIME YELLOW AS SPECIFIED
ACCESSORIES
REAR FENDERS AS SPECIFIED
ANTI-VANDALISM PACKAGE AS SPECIFIED
3/8" TIE DOWN PADS AS SPECIFIED
SMV SIGN AS SPECIFIED
))-) }
30" PAVEMENT REMOVE BKT
AS SPECIFIED
TRADE-IN
1986 680 LOADER BACKHOE
$14,480.00
Included in your bid as acceptable unit is the Cat 426B and
the John Deere 4l0D. Each of these machines takes exceptions
in more critical areas than the Case 580 Super L.
*** Denotes the areas in which the CASE 580 SUPER L EXCEEDS
your required specification. These are the areas where you
want your backhoe to be strong, reliable and durable.
For example, reference the turning radius. This is a
critical area for operators in the City. Case provides you
with a more maneuverable Backhoe.
In the area of the
below the ground.
an advantage. You
loader in breaking
loader Case has the ability to dig deeper
The CASE loader breakout force is clearly
can achieve maximum usage of the front end
out concrete or other tough jobs.
When it comes to backhoe brute force, look at the breakout
forces the CASE 580 SUPER L HAS TO OFFER, WELL OVER THE
SPEC. THE CASE 580 SUPER L IS IN A CLASS ALL ITS OWN.
Hydraulic power is in the CASE 580 SUPER L. Case offers a
42GPM system being filtered at 7 MICRON, 3 micron better than
the spec's. That is giving you more life in your backhoe
hydraulic system.
The Case 580 Super L varies from your spec in the following
areas denoted by an *. These areas are not areas of great
concern when it comes to PERFOMANCE. We do not feel that
they are justifiable in keeping the CASE 580 SUPER L from
being a ACCEPTABLE unit for this bid. Only 106 pounds off
the total weight. A difference of only .16 cu. yd on the
bucket yardage. You would never know the difference. Most
operators don't use the full capacity especially in the clam
shell operation. In this position you are picking up hard to
grab materials and are not looking at capacity.
On the Backhoe dig depth, the CASE 580 SUPER L is short only
9". Approximately one hand span. I suppose that could be
critical if you had only one machine and all of your pipes
were 19'6" deep. I do not know the depth of your pipes.
Experience suggests this would be an exception. The CASE 580
SUPER L is short by 9" when it comes to backhoe loading
height. As a rule most operators will not load at the most
extended length of the boom because they loose so much of
there loading capacity at the long distance. You can load /J~Jh/
much faster and have more pick-up capacity at a shorter 7
distance. Imagine if you held a shovel by the very end away
from the spade nose and tried to pick up something, it would
be extremely difficult versus holding the shovel closer to
the spade nose end. You have better control and much more
product ivity.
It is my personal opinion and experience of 22 years of
selling backhoes that the areas where the CASE 580 SUPER L
does not meet the spec's are of no great consequence in the
overall operation of a backhoe. However, the CASE 580 SUPER
L does EXCEED the spec's in some very critical areas
providing you with a backhoe that can match any work thrown
at it. It is strong in hydraulic power and that is where you
need performance.
I hope we have provided you with some additional information
that will help you understand why we feel the CASE 580 SUPER
L meets your bid requirements. We simply followed Meldy's
instructions and entered the information on the CASE 580
SUPER L in the bid. This would be the equivelant of
entering the same information under the HEADING.
"ALTERNATIVES LISTED BELOW" and submitting another bid. The
bid spec's cover two machines that Contractors Equipment
Company sells. We simply bid the CASE 580 SUPER L and the
CASE 590 Super L. As you see both meet and exceed all of the
important spec's.
Please call if you have any questions. I want to make sure
that all I have said is clear.
You
~
Kenneth L. Birch
,/
j/-/J
B
Contractors Equipment Company
Construction, Industrial, Utility & Agricultural Equipment
January 13, 1995
City of Chu1a Vista
Purchasing Dept.
315 Fourth Avenue, Suite "P"
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
S
A
L
E
S
Dear City of Chula Vista:
CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT COMPANY appreciates the opportunity to
participate with the City in the Bidding process to meet your
equipment needs.
.
R
E
N
T
A
L
S
CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT COMPANY is bidding two units, a CASE
590 SUPER L and as an alternate, a CASE 580 SUPER L. The
CASE 590 SUPER L meets and exceeds your specifications. The
CASE 580 SUPER L exceeds your specifications in many areas,
but generally meets all the required specifications with only
a few variations which we have addressed in the section
listed as ALTERNATE within the bid spec's.
.
P
A
R
T
S
t he STANDARD WARRANTY on t he New CASE LOADER
ONE full year on the COMPLETE unit with an
TWO years on the POWER TRAIN and FIVE years on
no additional charge to the customer.
Of note is
BACKHOES.
additional
BACKHOE at
the
.
Listed below are a few additional FEATURES to consider:
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
1. FIVE YEAR EXTENDED WARRANTY
@
$1169.00
2. HORSEPOWER RATING OF CASE 590 SUPER L @ 86 NET HP
3. PERFORMANCE OF CASE 580 SUPER L @ 80 NET HP
we~ou fo' th'. oppo,tun'ty
~u/-/~
Kenneth L. Birch
to bid.
//")6
SAN DIEGO ESCONDIDa OXNARD ANAHEIM RIVERSIDE IMPERIAL
(619) 298-9846 (619) 741-927) (805) 983-3969 (714) 535-7731 (909) 682-6823 (619) 353-U190
SAN MARCOS RIVERSIDE/COLUMBIA CITY or: INDUSTRY QXNARD/LATIGO INDIO EL CAJON
(619) 743-7777 (909) 684-5545 (818) 968-9611 (805) 485-9494 (619) 342-3359 (619)562-3841
Et
Contractors Equipment Company
Construction, tndustrial, Utility & Agricultural Equipment
Thank you for the call. I have listed the weights for the
CASE 580 Super L below. The basic weights are taken from the
inside of the last page of the new brochure. The balance of
the weights are taken from the price book and
manufacture of the product. This is as close to the
exact weight that anyone can be, including JCB or
others. The final weight as your specification
requests.
FAX TRANSMISSION
691-7986
February 21, 1995
Matt Fuentes
City of Chula Vista
S
A
L
E
S
Dear Matt:
.
R
E
N
T
A
L
S
ITEM
.
P
A
R
T
S
CASE 580 SUPER L
CAB/AIR COND/HTR/DFR
DELUXE SEAT
COMBINATION PADS
MULTI-PURPOSE 4:1 BUCKET
3" SEAT BELT
EXTENDAHOE (LESS COUNTERWEIGHT)
EXTENDAHOE COUNTERWEIGHT
MIRRORS
ROOF MTD STROBE LIGHT
3/8" TIE DOWNS
24" HEAVY DUTY BUCKET
30" PAVEMENT REMOVAL BUCKET
SLOW MOVING VEHICLE EMBLEM
.
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
WEIGHT
13,587
477
40
156
598
2
470
500
20
25
5
454
550
10
TOTAL WEIGHT AS PER REQUIRED
SPECIFICATION IN BID DOCUMENT 16,894 LBS
p~e;u. se call if you
~.~H
'Ken Birch .
have any questions
II") ?
SAN DIEGO
(819) 298-9846
SAN MARCOS
(619) 743 7777
ESCONDIDO OXNARD ANAHEIM RIVERSIDE IMPERIAL
(619) 741-9272 (805) 983-3969 (714) 535-7731 (909) 682-6823 (619) 3S3-Q190
RIVERSIDE/COLUMBIA CITY OF INDUSTRY OXNARD/LA TIGO INOIO EL CAJON
(909) 684-5645 (818) 968-9611 (805) 485-9494 (619) 342-3359 (619)562-3841
~. A~ Operator Environment
The 580 Super L is the ~ Optional operator environments
loader/backhoe of choice for: include a Raps canopy at 105"
operator comfort, ease of (2.67 m) operating height and a 2-door
. cab at lOT' (2.72 m) total heIght.'
operation and control- from Th Raps . I d 11'
. .... e canopymcu esanan -
the panoramic visibility to the vandalism cover for the dash.
specially designed suspension Cab options include heat, A/C or
seat and easy access controls. both. Individual front and rear ducts
provide forced, cross-flow ventilation
for optimum operating comfort. The
cab is pressurized and includes a
filtering system to reduce dust levels.
Five isolation mounts
on the cab reduce noise
and vibration. The cab is
also insulated for maximum
temperatiue and sound
control. Cab noise levels are
rated below 79 dB(A).
Included with the cab is
a defroster, front and rear
windshield wipers, dome
light, interior rear-view
mirror, retractable seat belt
and floor-mat for easy
clean-out.
Curved, tinted glass cab
windows provide excellent
visibility to the work site
without distortion. The
sloped engine hood
enhances visibility to the
front-end as well.
The floor is totally unrestricted,
without levers or shilters, for free
movement within, or in-and-out of the
operating environment. Foot pedals,
including automotive-type accelerator,
are suspended to prevent buildup of
materials behind them. A hand-
throttle is also included.
Seat options include a contoured
non-suspension seat with vinyl
covering or a contoured deluxe
suspension seat with vinyl or
cloth covering.
Built-in, molded cup and
thermos holders keep beverages
close at hand and reduce spills. A
front console storage compartment
and additional molded tool tray
helps keep items organized.
4
Legroom between the seat and
Raps post allows easy operator
movement between the loader and
backhoe controls. An audible alarm
alerts the operator if the shuttle is
engaged when the seat is swiveled.
Driving and work lights are
mounted at the roof line and fully
protected from branches and other
obstacles. Flood lights - (4) front
and (4) rear.
Custom designed controls
enhance operator interaction for
improved work cycles:
A single-handle loader control
operates all loader functions
including the optional front-end
auxiliary hydraulics. The loader
control also incorporates a clutch
cutout button to disengage the
transmission for fast loading cycles.
Electronically engaged controls for
forward/reverse shuttling and
optional4WD increase operating
productivity. Both controls can be
activated on-the-go without clutching.
The forward/reverse power
shuttle lever is mounted on the
steering column for hands-on
operation. This electronically-engaged
transmission shuttle modulates very
smoothly through directional changes.
The transmission shilter is
located on the front console and also
incorporates a clutch cutout button
to ease in shifting.
Operator warning system
monitors vital system functions and
alerts the operator with an audible
alarm and visual indicator if a problem
occurs. The system also signals the
operator if the parking brake is
applied when the forward/reverse
lever is engaged.
Gauges and warning lights:
Converter oil temperatiue - Engine
coolant temperatiue - Fuel-
Tachometer /hourmeter - Volbneter-
Engine oil pressure - Hydraulic system
filter - Alternator-
Air cleaner - Parking brake
*Equippedwith 19.5Lx24 rear tires
}/',)/
,.
, '."
"~. .
.::-"
~, . t.'
L
-O' ..,~- ,
'{'i,j'i;
1t.",
.. -
.....
,
"<",;"',,;,,.,,--
"':'~:::"'-'.
....~Engine
~..
The Case 4T-390 diesel engine ~
is designed specifically to ~
handle the power of ~
turbocharging, for superior:
performance in heavy:
equipmentappllcauons. :
The turbocharged 4T-390 engine
offers power on demand
for outstanding performance in
any environment. Torque
reserve is designed specifically
to handle peak power demands
of both the hydraulics and
driveline combined.
State-of-the-art one-
piece cast iron parent metal
bore block eliminates cavitation
erosion and coolant leaks in
the cylinder bore for increased
ring and piston life - fully
skirted and ribbed for
exceptional strength
and durability.
Large intake
and exhaust ports
provide free
breathing of
compressed
air for more
effective
combustion.
The camshaft is
built to accommo-
date the higher
pressures of turbocharging.
Integral design of the oil
and coolant pumps incorporates
components into the engine block
to reduce heat buildup
and wear with fewer parts
for lower operating costs
and maintenance.
Integral oil pump and
under-piston oil nozzles provide
positive cylinder wall lubrication
and cooling. Deep sump is rated
to supply oil lubrication at angles
up to 45'.
Case backs the performance
and durability of this outstanding
engine with one of the best
warranties in the industry.
Model................................................ Case 4T-390
Cylinders............................................................. 4
Bore/Stroke .....................................4.02" x 4.72"
(102 mm x 120 mm)
Displacement................................. 239 in3 (3.92 L)
Horsepower (turbo)
Gross............................ 87 (65 kW) @ 2200 rpm
Net............................... 80 (60 kW) @ 2200 rpm
Maximum torque
Gross................. 240 Ib-It (320 Nm) @ 1400 rpm
Net .................... 2321b-1t (309 Nm) @ 1400 rpm
II r;2)
Whether you're roading or on ;
the job working the loader, the
580 Super L offers you
smooth, high performance
operation either shifting
on-the-go or shuttling
back and forth.
TIRE SIZE
Rear .............. 17.5L x 24
19.5Lx 24
Front ........ 2WD 11Lx 16
4WD 12 x 16.5
ELECTRICAL
Voltage ... 12 vo~s, negative ground
Alternator .........................65 amp
Battery .............. Maintenance-free
685 cold-cranking amps
@O' F (-18' C)
Driveline ~'
Fully synchronized 4-speed
forward/ reverse shuttle transmission
with hydraulically actuated clutches
and clutch disconnect button allows
quick response to changing ground
or road conditions.
. Electronically activated low effort
: forward/reverse shuttle shift
produces smooth modulated
directional changes and faster cycle
times to improve productivity
without declutching.
Optional heavy-duty, 4WD
: oscillating front axle with outboard
: planetary drives provides added
tractive effort for maximum loader
push and rough terrain capability.
Electronically engaged front
wheel mechanical drive can be
activated on-the-go with the flip of a
: switch for added traction and
: increased push power.
On-the-go engagement of the
mechanical rear differential lock
for both 2WD and 4WD units
provides maximum traction in
slippery conditions.
Continuous flow oil cooling helps
prevent overheating for extended
service life. Full flow replaceable
7-micron cartridge on the return line
fillers the system.
,~
Single stage torque converter
with 2.63-to-1 stall ratio reduces
shock loads placed on powertrain
components by automatically
adjusting torque to handle heavy
workload conditions at peak
engine efficiency.
Planetary transmission gears
reduce gear loading in severe
loader applications.
Maintenance-free, self-adjusting,
inboard mounted, wet disc brakes
are hydraulically actuated. They
can be operated individually for
pivot turns, or simultaneously for
normal braking.
The automatic warning system
alerts the operator if the parking
brake is applied when the shuttle
lever is engaged.
Componentized powertrain
makes servicing quick and easy for
less downtime. Each component can
be removed separately without
disturbing the remaining parts.
TRAVEL SPEEDS MPH (km/h)
1st 2nd
Forward.......... 3.7 (6.0).... 6.7 (10.8)
3rd 4th
..12.9 (20.8).... 25.8 (41.6)
Reverse.......... 4.5 (7.2).... 8.1 (13.0) .....15.5 (24.9).... 31.1 (50.0)
Note: Engine at 2353 rpm. 19.5L x 24 rear lIres. Travel speeds will decrease With
smaller 17 .5L x 24 rear tires.
) / /;21
7
~ ...-Sackhoe
The Case backhoe design
offers you advanced, market
leading performance and
durability with an
unprecedented
level of control
and speed to
maximize
productivity.
///)5
8
The exclusive, Case over-center
backhoe design distributes the
weight of the hoe toward the front of
the tractor for improved overall
stability to give you excellent roading
characteristics. The over-center
design reduces overall length and
increases bucket clearance with a
higher angle of departure for easy
movement around restricted job sites.
A 37 gpm (140 L/min) rated
hydraulic system flow @ 3000 psi
(20684 kPa) produces quick response
for fast cycle times.
The load-sensing priority swing
circuit' provides a constant, smooth
swing speed for outstanding multi-
function control and increased
digging productivity. Priority swing
utilizes a pressure-sensing valve for
efficient utilization of oil. Oil not
required during swing (at slower
swing speeds) flows to the other
backhoe components for exceptional
multi-function control.
A powerful 194,000 lb-in swing
torque (21 % increase over the "K"
Series) makes it easy to swing
heavy loads uphill or push dirt when
backfilling trenches.
*Patent applied for.
Open-center hydraulics provide
precision control and allows the
operator the sensitivity to feel
with the backhoe.
Cast ductile iron swing tower,
boom and dipper provide
maximum strength and durability.
Ductile iron provides smooth stress
flows throughout the length of
the component. The boom and
cast dipperstick carry as-year
limited warranty.
Boom, dipperstick and bucket
each use a single cylinder for
improved visibility to the trench -
the widest point is 11" (279 mm).
Hoses are routed on top of the
dipperstick to prevent being crushed
between the trench and dipper. They
can be easily reached for
maintenance or repair.
Optional auxiliary hydraulics are
operated with a foot pedal with flow
control to regulate the attachment.
A 9'S" (2.87 m) wide stabilizer
operating stance and front-end
loader rollover bucket capability
securely stabilize the machine during
backhoe digging operations,
especially when swinging to the side.
I
Case buckets and the quick
coupler are designed to give you
a full range of working positions
for improved productivity in
straight wall trenching, spoil
retention when loading trucks,
and maximum breakout force,
Standard, quick coupler enables
fast, easy bucket or attachment
changes by simply removing one
pin and rolling out the bucket.
Optional stabilizer pads include
a cleated dirt pad, a flat cemetery
pad with heavy-duty rubber,
or a combination flip-over,
Optional hydraulically
telescoping Extendahoe" dipperstick
lets you dig deeper and reach further
to unload, Can be used in its
retracted position of 14'8" (4,5 m)
or at any point up to its full extension
of 18'2" (5.54 m), The Extendahoe
dippers tick offers the ability to dig
straight down - a real advantage in
street repair because it reduces
tearing up large sections of
pavement. The extra reach makes
it easier to unload into trucks with
high sideboards, reach over obstacles
like walls, or to place spoil further
away from the sides of a trench,
1t also reduces the number of times
a machine must be repositioned,
A 500 lb, front counterweight is
standard with the Extendahoe,
BACKHOE BUCKET SIZES AND WEIGHTS
Weight SAE Rated Capacity
12" (305 mm) Heavy-duty universal trenching""""""", """"""" 3111b (141 kg)""""", 2,90 ft3 (0,08 m3)
16" (406 mm) Heavy-duty universal trenching""""""""""""""" 3461b (157 kg)""""", 3,60 ft3 (0,10 m3)
18" (457 mm) Heavy-duty universal trenching""""""""""""""" 359 lb (163 kg)""""", 4,30 ft3 (0,12 m3)
24" (610 mm) Heavy-duty universal trenching""""""""""""""" 429 Ib (195 kg)""""", 6.40 ft3 (0,18 m3)
30" (762 mm) Heavy-duty universal trenching""""""""""""""" 4961b (225 kg)""""", 8,65 ft3 (0,24 m3)
36" (914 mm) Heavy-duty universal trenching""""""""""""""" 5711b (259 kg)"""", 10,80 ft3 (0,31 m3)
24" (610 mm) Heavy-duty high capacity trenchin9,,"""""""""'" 430 Ib (195 kg)""""", 8,50 ft3 (0,24 m3)
30" (762 mm) Heavy-duty high capacity trenching""""""""""", 447 Ib (203 kg)""""", 10,6 ft3 (0,30 m3)
1-
II/lit
9
~
,.- Dig Depth
'"
a:
w
I;;
::;
o 0
22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2
, , , . , , ,
2
:I:
l-
ff; 3 10
c
4
5
7
6 5
4
3 2
REACH
II Extendahoe@
o
o
2
,
4
6 FEET
METERS
Standard Backhoe
Operational Data ~.
.~.
Standard Backhoe
Extendahoe"
Retracted Extended
Digging depth (SAE J49)
24" (610 mm) flat bottom
Maximum.......,...... .
Overall reach from
Rear axle centerline
Swing pivot.............
Loading heigh!..............
Loading reach ..............
Swing arc ........
Bucket rotation
#1 position...
#2 position...
Stabilizer spread, SAE
Operating position..............
Transport position...............
Digging force, bucket cylinder
Universal heavy-duty bucket w/coupler .
Digging force
Dipper cylinder ....................... ...............
Leveling angle
(maximum slope that backhoe
will make vertical cut) .................. ..............................
14'3" (4.35 m)
........ 14'5" (4.39 m)..
...........14'8" (4.47 m)
..... 14'10" (4.52 m)
.. 18'2" (5.54 m)
.........18'3" (5.56 m)
....21'8" (6.60 m)
...18'0" (5.49 m).
.................11'2"(3.40m)...............
................... 8'9" (2.67 m) ................
................. 180'..
...... 22'0" (6.71 m). .25'5" (7.75 m)
.. 18'4" (5.59 m). ...... 21'10" (6.65 m)
.. 11'5" (3.48 m) .................. 13'3" (4.04 m)
...8'8" (2.64 m) .................. 11'5" (3.50 m)
.. 180'. ............... ........ 180'
..180'
.. 160'
180'..
.....160'..
180'
...160'
9'5" (2.87 m)
7'2" (2.18 m)
............ 9'5" (2.87 m). .................. 9'5"'(2.87 m)
............ 7'2" (2.18 m). .................. 7'2" (2.18 m)
.. 13,126 Ibf(58390 N)........ 13,126Ibf(58390N)........13,126Ibf( 390N)
...8,224 Ibf (36 580 N).......... 7,7841bf (34630 N) .......... 5,6351bf (
070N)
......."............ 120 ................................... 120..,..."..................... ...... 120
10
jl-'J.?
r- Lift Capacities ~' .~
(
18
16 5
r- 14
4
12
10 3
r-
8
6 2
r- 4
2
0 0
2
4
r- 6
2
8
10 3
r
! 12
4
I
r-
Extendahoe ·
Retracted Extended
Height Above & Below
Ground Level Standard Backhoe
Boom Lift
+ 16' (+4.88 m) ............. ...... NA .............. ... NA . ........ 1,290 Ib (585 k9)
+14' (+4.27 m) ........... 2,3951b (1086 k9) ........ 1,9941b (904 k9)... ....... 1,6031b (727 k9)
+12' (+3.66 m).. ......... 2,830 Ib (1284 kg) ...... 2,3691b (1075 kg)... ....... 1,7331b (786 kg)
+ 10' (+3.05 m)... ........ 2,8991b (1315 kg) ...... 2,551 Ib (1157 kg)... ....... 1,812 Ib (822 kg)
+ 8' (+2.44 m) ........... 2,8641b (1299 kg) ...... 2,560 Ib (1161 kg)... ....... 1,842 Ib (836 kg)
+ 6' (+ 1.83 m) ...........2,830!b (1284 kg) ...... 2,5431b (1153 kg)............ 1 ,8471b (838 kg)
Ground Level............ 2,699!b (1224 kg) ... 2,4211b (1098 kg)........... 1 ,8421b (836 kg)
- 6' ( -1.83 m) ........... 2,525 Ib (1145 kg) ...... 2,2991b (1043 kg)........... 1 ,7861b (810 kg)
- 8' ( -2.44 m) ............ 2,534 Ib (1149 kg) ...... 2,303 Ib (1045 kg)........... 1,794 Ib (814 kg)
-10' (-3.05 m) ............ 2,7431b (1244 kg) ....... 2,4121b (1094 kg........... 1 ,8471b (838 kg)
-12' (-3.66 m)....... ............... NA.. .............. ............ NA .......... 2,0071b (910 kg)
r
Dipper Lift
+ 12' (+3.66 m) ...........4,760 Ib (2159 kg) .4,250 Ib (1928 kg)......... 2,750 Ib (1247 kg)
+10' (+3.05 m)... ........ 4,440 Ib (2014 kg)... ..3,990 Ib (1810 kg)......... 2,670 Ib (1211 kg)
+ 8' (+2.44 m)............ 4,540 Ib (2059 kg) ...... 4,070 Ib (1846 kg)......... 2,700 Ib (1225 kg)
+ 6' (+ 1.83 m)............ 5,150 Ib (2336 kg).. .... 4,550 Ib (2064 kg)......... 2,850 Ib (1293 kg)
r-
1. Lift capacity figures on these charts per SAE Definition J31 and J49.
2. Figures stated apply straight to the rear of prime mover. .--/
3. Equipped with 24" (610 mm) standard-duty trenching bucket and links. For heavy-duty / I ,J 0
universal bucket and coupler, deduct 150 Ib (68 kg).
11
~
...
; 't'
... , , .
,:
"
._-_....:...._-_._--~
LOADER BUCKET SIZES AN[
~~'I f-' T(~
General Purpose
(Long Lip)
4-in-101
Width
82"
(208 m)
82"
(2,08 m)
'}
,
~ ,"
f
, "
, "
.
~
~
I I
~' ,.1:
I,
I' ,
Ii!
'II
I:
I
!
!
, .
(<
...
"'1 '
1 'I'
II )
1 :Y
.Jil) "1'')
"
,.'....
i
.
.-1
Loader~' ~
The more you depend on
the front end of your
loader/backhoe to perform a
variety of tasks, the more you
need a front-end loader
designed to give you maximum
performance - nobody offers
you more in a loader
than Case.
Dual parallel dump cylinders and
reverse linkage provide superior
breakout force and faster dump time.
Reverse linkage allows loader bucket
rollover for dozing and added
stability in backhoe applications.
When the bucket is in the rollover
position, cylinder rods are retracted
for protection against the twisting
forces of dozing with the loader
and digging with the backhoe.
The in-line cylinder design provides
exceptional visibility to the bucket
for grading and truck loading.
New arch design of the loader
arms increases lift and breakout
forces, and permits tight turning
angles for excellent maneuverability
around jobsites.
Optional front-end hydraulics
with 3-axis, single-lever loader
control operates all loader functions
including the auxiliary tool.
Clutch disconnect button on
the loader control lever disengages the
transmission for fast loading cycles.
Return-to-dig feature and
forward/reverse shuttle shift
shortens overall cycle time
for maximum productivity
in loader applications.
Loader arms and dual dump
links support the bucket with 4-point
mounting to resist twisting forces
when corner loading - also allows
materials such as pipe or plywood
to be carried across the dump links.
Excellent dump height and reach
make loading into trucks easy and
efficient. A heavy-duty all steel front
grille and thick, replaceable bumper
guards on the nose cone minimize
the chance for front-end damage
when approaching trucks to dump.
Automatic self-leveling of the
bucket throughout the hoist cycle
reduces spillback and maintains
control of the load.
11- J 0
13
~ "~Hydraulics
Case has spent years : Cast iron tandem gear 27.5 gpm
perfecting the open-center (104 L/min) and 9.5 gpm (36 L/min)
hydraulic system through pumps provide positive flow to each
generations of machine design, circuit The 27.5 gpm pump supplies
The result is a smooth fast hydrauhc 011 to the loader. Durmg
, backhoe operation, the 9.5 gpm
response to control movement . 't b' .th th 275
, , .. cmU! com mes WI e, gpm
and the ab1l1ty to feel objects In circuit to provide a total flow of
precise dlggmg operations, 37 gpm (140 L/ min) to the backhoe
for fast response time during multi-
control functions and improved
overall backhoe cycle time,
Backhoe priority swing circuit
improves multi-function control for
smooth swing cycles.
Control valves are designed and
manufactured by Case specifically
for the 580 Super L for precision
multi-function control, and for lifting
heavy loads,
Anti-cavitation valves in the
loader and backhoe dipper circuit
generate fast response with no delays,
Heavy-duty oil cooler and large
hydraulic capacity provide excellent
cooling capabilities, Easy-access
hydraulic oil cooler mounted in front
of the engine radiator makes cleaning
the coils effortless,
Variable flow auxiliary hydraulic
systems for the backhoe, loader and
hand-held attachments are optionaL
Backhoe auxiliary hydraulics are
controlled with a foot pedal to
regulate the attacfunent Auxiliary
loader hydraulics are controlled
with the same lever as the loader
lift and tilt
Optional hand-held auxiliary
: hydraulic valves are located under
: the right-hand cab step for quick
: coupling of attacfunents.
J)/J/
14
LOADER HYDRAULIC PUMP
CAPACITY:
27.5 gpm @ 2200 rpm @3000 psi
(104 Umin @ 2200 r/min
@ 20 684 kPa)
32 gpm @ 2350 rpm @ 100 psi
(121 Umin @ 2350 r/min
@ 690 kPa)
Control valve main relief pressure:
3000 + 100 - 0 psi
(20 684 + 690 - 0 kPa)
LOADER CONTROL VALVE:
2 or 3-spool sectional valve with
single lever control for lift, tilt and
auxiliary hydraulics. Positive
hold "float" position and
"return-to-dig" feature,
BACKHOE HYDRAULIC
PUMP CAPACITY:
37 gpm @ 2200 rpm @ 3000 psi
(140 Umin @ 2200 r/min
@ 20 684 kPa)
42 gpm @ 2350 rpm @ 100 psi
(159 Umin @ 2350 r/min
@ 690 kPa)
Control valve main relief pressure:
3000 + 100 - 0 psi
(20 684 + 690 - 0 kPa)
BACKHOE CONTROL
VALVE:
6 or 7 -spool, sectional, open-center,
parallel circuits with regeneration for
boom, dipperstick, bucket, swing,
two stabilizers and Extendahoe
dipperstick. Load-sensing priority for
swing and Extendahoe circuits.
FILTRATION:
7 -micron, full fiow replaceable
cartridge on return line.
Condition indicator light for filter.
Steering ~'
Hydrostatic power steering
utilizes on-demand priority flow
from the main hydraulic 27.5 gpm
(104 L/min) pump.
One double-acting steering
cylinder with a stop-to-stop turning
ratio of 2.75 turns.
Steering cylinder is located
behind the front axle and above the
axle pivot for protection against
possible damage.
Arch design of the loader
arms permits tight angles for
excellent manuverability.
,~
CURB CLEARANCE CIRCLE:
2WD w/19.5L rear tires
w/o brakes .......24'8" (7.52 m)
w/brakes ..........21 '2" (6.48 m)
4WD w/19.5L rear tires,
w/axle disengaged
w/o brakes....... 25'2" (7.70 m)
w/brakes........ 21'10" (6.70 m)
FRONT AXLE OSCILLATION:
2WD and 4WD ............. 22' total
(11' each side)
CYLINDERS
All cylinders are designed and manufactured by Case, the second largest producer of hydraulic
cylinders in North America.
Cylinders Diameter Stroke Rod
Loader
Lift (2). ...................... .......3.25" (83 mm).......... 30.2" (766 mm) .. 1.75" (44 mm)
Tilt (2)......................... 3" (76 mm).......... 20.6" (523 mm)............. 1.5" (38 mm)
Clam (2) .................................. 3" (76 mm)............... 9" (229 mm)........... 1.75" (44 mm)
Backhoe
Stabilizers (2) ...................4.25" (108 mm) .......... 21.8" (554 mm)................ 2" (51 mm)
Swing (2)............................... 4" (102 mm).......... 11.5" (292 mm)................ 2" (51 mm)
Boom (1) .............................5" (127 mm) .......... 33.2" (843 mm)........... 2.25" (57 mm)
Dipperstick (1) ..................... 5" (127 mm) .............23" (584 mm)............. 2.5" (64 mm)
Bucket (1)............................. 3.5" (89 mm) ..........34.3" (871 mm)............. 2.5" (64 mm)
Dipperstick ex!. (1) .................. 3" (76 mm) ........... 42" (1067 mm)........... 1.75" (44 mm)
Steering
2WD ................................. 2.75" (70 mm)............ 6.7" (170 mm)............. 1 5" (38 mm)
4WD .................................... 2.6" (66 mm)............ 8.6" (218 mm)............. 1 6" (42 mm)
JJ'JJ-
15
~ ~ Serviceability
Ground line servicing and the ~
Case exclusive tilt-up hood ~
make daily maintenance ~
fast and easy for ~
minimum downtime. ~
Easy opening tilt hood allows
quick access to the engine for service
and maintenance - can be opened
from either side of the unit.
The heavy-duty tilt hood
assembly has cylinder assist for
low lift effort.
Heavy-duty, all steel grille is
separate from the hood for easy
access to the radiator and hydraulic
cooler. Pre-cleaner and exhaust are
separate from the hood.
Groundline fuel and hydraulic
tank access makes servicing easy.
Thick, rubber bumpers mounted
directly to the radiator wrapper
and grille nose cone protect the
hood and maintain alignment
of the hood and side panels.
Bumpers are easily replaced.
Bumpers, grille, radiator
wrapper, hood and side panels
are attached to the tractor frame.
Hood and side panels pivot
off the lower front comer for
easy hood adjustment.
~. ..'- Service Capacities
Fuel tank................................................... 31.4 gal (119.0 L)
HydrauliC reservoir .................................... 13.9 gal (52.6 L)
Total hydraulic system ........................ 33.0 gal (125.0 L)
Transmission
2WD Total system................................ 19.5 qt
2WD Refill wlo filter ............................. 16.9 qt
4WD Total system................................ 22.0 qt
4WD Refill wlo filter ............................. 19.5 qt
4WD front axle differential............................. 5.8 qt
Planetaries (each) ................................ 0.74 qt
Rear axle differential................................... 15.3 qt
Planetaries (each) ..... ......................... 1.6 qt
Engine oil wlfilter ................ .... 11.6 qt
Cooling system
w/heater ..........
wlo heater .......
(18.5 L)
(16.0 L)
(21.0 L)
(18.5 L)
(5.5 L)
(0.7 L)
(14.5 L)
(1.5 L)
(11.0 L)
.... 17.4 qt (16.5 L)
....16.7qt (15.8L)
) J-])
16
Backhoe Dimensions ~'
A~
'\1-- ,
II II
~ //
~""oi
'~~t7
'-4\
, \'
, I'
, I'
, "
\~\
,h
,
o
1
i8,,,,,
(2.72 m)
E
_/ _., ~(c:,:.-:::... __
L~--'-<"- --
_ __ .- - -:;... .P(t - - ':::::. '::::. _ "_- ,-;,\:: -
/ - ..... .:tol?'-~-';: - - - /' - - -=::. f -==
f ,0:;'<-,. _ - 15" -
;;-_---J.,:f.~ - - 1381 mm)
t 20'
A
.1
I:
c
.
B
.
Standard Backhoe
Extendahoe@
Retracted Extended
A - Overall length - transport
General purpose bucke!................. 22'6" (6.86 m) ..................... 22'7" (6.88 m) ........................ NA
4-in-1 bucket .............................. .. 22'5" (6.83 m) ..................... 22'6" (6.86 m)......................... NA
Overall reach from -
B- Rear axle centerline..................... .. 21 '8" (6.60 m) ..................... 22'0" (6.71 m}....... 25'5" (7.75 m)
C- Swing pivot.................................... 18'0" (5.49 m) .....................18'4" (5.59 m)..... 21'10" (6.65 m)
D- Overall height, maximum....................... 19'2" (5.84 m) ..................... 19'6" (5.94 m)..... 22'10" (6.97 m)
E- Transport height ................................. 10'10" (3.30 m) .....................11'3" (3.43 m)......................... NA
Overall width -transport......................... 7'2" (2.18 m) ....................... 7'2" (2.18 m)......... 7'2" (2.18 m)
Angle of departure ................................................. 20'....................................... 20' ........................ 20'
Height -
To top of canopy.............................. 8'9" (2.67 m) ....................... 8'9" (2.67 m)......................... NA
To top of cab ................................. 8'11" (2.72 m) ..................... 8'11" (2.72 m)......................... NA
To top of exhaust stack.................... 8'8" (2.64 m) ....................... 8'8" (2.64 m)......................... NA
Ground clearance at
backhoe frame................................ 15" (381 mm) ...................... 15" (381 mm)......................... NA
Front wheel tread -
2WD .............................................. 67.5" (1.71 m) ..................... 67.5" (1.71 m)......................... NA
4WD.................................... 68.8" (1.75 m).................. 68.8" (1.75 m)......................... NA
Rear wheel tread................................... 61.2" (1.55 m) ..................... 61.2" (1.55 m)......................... NA
Wheelbase -
2WD ................................................. 84" (2.13 m) ........................ 84" (2.13 m)......................... NA
4WD ..................................... 84.5" (2.15 m) ..................... 84.5" (2.15 m)......................... NA
Note: Specifications taken with 11 L x 16 front tires (except that data marked 4WD IS taken with 12 x 16.5 front tires), 19.5L x 24
rear tires, ROPS cab, 14' (4.27 m) backhoe with 24" (610 mm) heavy-duty trenching bucket, loader with 82" (2.08 m) general
purpose bucket and standard equipment unless otherwise specified.
//<J(
17
~ .~Loader Dimensions
~
f,_-:;IJ
,.:::-- j
,,\ I'- L
.-:...- .-?:::.,.. ...,
..... - .- ;:;/, 1..-
/ / / I' " t
......... '.V.I \
~<~"? ./ '" I,
..... ")....>?)./ '.I..J C
// / / <,I '" ~
/?7 I"
III ... F---'
/
)
)11'2"
(3.40m)
j j
A
General Purpose 4-in-1'" Bucket
82" (2.08 m) 82" (2.08 m)
A- Overall operating height .......................................................13'11" (4.24 m) ................... 14'3" (4.35 m)
B- Bucket rollback@ groundline.................................................................. 40' .....................................400
C- Dump angle @full height ........................................................................ 45' ..................................... 450
D- Digging depth below grade -
Bucket flat ................................................................... 5.9" (149 mm) ...................6.8" (172 mm)
Clam open (dozing).......................................................................... NA .................. 4.4" (111 mm)
E- Dump clearance @ full height, 45' dump-
BuckeL........................................................................ 8'10" (2.69 m) ...................8'11" (2.71 m)
Clam open....................................................................................... NA .................... 9'7" (2.93 m)
F- Dump reach @ full height, 450 dump -
Bucket.......................................................................... 27.7" (703 mm) ............... 25.5" (647 mm)
Clam open....................................................................................... NA ................. 11.9" (302 mm)
G- Reach from front axle centerline,
bucket on ground ...........................................................75.2" (1.91 m) ...................72.7" (1.85 m)
Lift capacity to full height ................................................. 6, 1821b (2804 kg) ............ 5,5141b (2500 kg)
Height to bucket hinge pin raised .......................................... 11 '2" (3.40 m) ................... 11'2" (3.40 m)
Breakout force (dump cylinders).................................... 9,300 Ibf (41 366 N) ........... 95461bf (42460 N)
Bucket cutting edge width........................................................ 82" (2.08 m) ...................... 82" (2.08 m)
Maximum grading angle ....................................................................... 1160................................... 116'
Maximum clam opening ......................................................................... NA .................38.3" (972 mm)
Moldboard height................................................................................... NA ................. 36.8" (934 mm)
Raising time to full height................................................................ 5.34 sec ............................. 5.34 sec
Bucket dumping time ..................................................................... 1.06 sec ............................. 1.06 sec
Lowering time, power down ........................................................... 2.44 sec ............................ 2.44 sec
Lowering time, return-to-dig ........................................................... 3.17 sec ............................ 3.17 sec
))- J~
18
~
,
Operating Weight ~
...-
r
Base Unit: 2WD, loader, 82" (2.08 m) standard loader bucket, backhoe, standard dipperstick, 24" (610 mm) heavy-duty
trenching bucket, ROPS canopy, 11 L x 16 front tires, 19.5L x 24 rear tires, full fuel tank and 175 Ib (79 kg)
r operator .............................................................................................................................13,587Ib (6163 kg)
Add:
4WD........................................................................................................................... ............ 424 Ib (192 kg)
Cab ........ ............... ................... ................ ........ ......................... ........ ........... ...... ............ 477 Ib (216 kg)
4-in-1 bucket.......................................................................................................................... 5981b (271 kg)
Extendahoe (less counterweight) ............................................................................................ 470 Ib (213 kg)
Extendahoe counterweight .................. ..................................................................... .............500 Ib (227 kg)
Jj']b
8
San Diego
619/298-9846
800-654-3495
loaders -
Backhoes
~
.......
Skiploader
Case 480FLL 2WD & 4WD
Massey-Ferguson 50E 2WD
Ford 545 4WD
...
~
Front End Loader
Case, Komatsu
Wheel, articulated 2 cu.yd - 5 cu.yd
Backhoe
Case 580SK Extendahoe 18'3" depth
Case 590 Extendahoe 19'6" depth
One bucket comes with backhoe.
Buckets - 12", 18",24", 30", 36", 4N1
Backhoe compaction wheel
Breaker
Tamper toot
5kidsteer Loader Capacity
1818,18HP 1100lb
1825,25 HP 1600lb
1838,46 HP 2600lb
1840, 50 HP 2630 Ib
1845,56 HP 31351b
Attachments
Auger Grapple
Backhoe Pallet Forks
Breaker
CraWler loaders -
Dozers
855
550
850
1150
1-3/8 yd loader
Hyd angle tilt
Hyd angle tilt
Hyd angle lilt
Excavators
9010 19'7" Depth 87 HP
9020 20' Depth 103 HP
9030 21'8" Depth 130 HP
9040 23' Depth 166 HP
9050 24'3" Depth 217 HP
9060 27'6" Depth 276 H P
1/2 cu.yd - 3 cu.yd buckets
Extra bucket(s) at additional charge.
~
35"W 70"H
44"W 70"H
@ 110.5" pin
@ 110.5" pin
@ 116.75" pin
iiL
82 HP
67 HP
89HP
113HP
.c1
26,000 Ib
34,000 Ib
43,500 Ib
53,000 Ib
68,000 Ib
96,600 Ib
Escondido
619/741-9272
800-624-9178
CompacUon
Equipment
~
Tamper
Mikasa - MTR 80 tamper
Mikasa - MTR 120 tamper
Bomag - BT58
Bomag - BT68
Vibrating Plate
Bomag - BPR15/45W
Walk Behind-Dbl Drum Vibrating
Bomag BW35 18" drum (pad foot)
Bomag 55E 22" drum (smooth)
Bomag BW60 24" drum (smooth)
Bomag BW75AD 30" drum (smooth)
Bomag BW85T 33" drum (pad foot)
Rammax 140424 24" drum (pad foot)*
Rammax 140433 33" drum (pad foot)*
....remotes available
Ride On - Dbl Drum Vibrating Roller
Bomag BW90AD 1-3 ton 35" drum
Vibromax 252 3-5 ton 39" drum
Ride On - 5g1 Smooth Drum, Rubber
Tire Drive, Vibrating Roller
Duo-Pact SDR1400 4-6 ton 54" drum
Duo-Pact SDR1500 6-8 ton 60" drum
Vibromax 602B 7-15 ton 69" drum
Vibromax 1102 12-19 ton 84" drum
Bomag BW213D 25 ton 84" drum
Ride On - 5g1 Pad Foot Drum, Rubber
Tire Drive, Vibrating Roller
Duo-Pact SDR1400P 4-6 ton 54" drum
Duo-Pact SDR1500P 5-8 ton 60" drum
Vibromax 602BP 7-15 ton 69" drum
Vibromax 1102P 12-19 ton 84" drum
Portable Saws
~
Radial arm, trailer mtd 3 or 5 HP
Beam saw, hand held 15" or 16"
One blade furnished with each saw
Extra blades - 15",16",18" or 20"
Resharpening charge on aU blades
12" cut off saw, 2 cycle
Blades must be purchased separately
EI Cajon
619/562-3841 / / / J j
San Marcos
619/743-7777
Imperial
619/353-0190
800-421-5784
Hvd. Breakers -
Shakers <<' ~ 'fIIIC7
MB 250 breaker 300 tl.lbs.
MB 350 breaker 500 ft.lbs.
MB 550 breaker 750 ft.lbs.
MB 675 breaker 850 ftlbs.
MB 1950 breaker 2000 ft.lbs.
MB 2950 breaker 3000 ft.lbs.
MB 3950 breaker 5000 tl.lbs.
MB 5950 breaker 9000 tl.lbs.
HS 3000 shaker & HS 6000 shaker
::'".~~.~..... ~
4000 Watt Light tower, diesel with 8KW
generator
500 Watt Light stand
100' Light string with (10) 75 Watt lights
Electrical tools
Rotohammer & bit
Concrete vibrator, 11 OV or Hi-cycle
Electric grinder
Diesel blower, 10"
8" vent blower, 11 OV, with 25' ducting
Ducting - 8" x 25'
Fan - 24" or 30"
Cop pus-type axial fans
Air horn
Welding
Machines
f1j-
200 amp trailer mtd, gas; bare
225 amp trailer mtd, diesel; bare
350 amp trailer mtd, diesel; bare 49 HP
400 amp trailer mtd diesel; bare
50 ftWelding lead
Industrial Air Compressors
Sullair 5-600 HP and 18-3100 CFM
Dryers & Filters, Receiving Tanks
Vacuum Systems
Miscellaneous Accessories
Pallet jack
550 gal. tuel tank with pump
Storage trailer
Indio
619/342-3359
RENTALS +SALES +SERVICE + PARTS
...- ~-
.".....,..-0' Pumps IitI8Lt-
.!Ir Compressors & Accessories
~ir Compressor - Portable/Skid
165 CFM 110 PSI Diesel (49 HP)
1185 CFM 110 PSI Diesel
375 CFM 110 PSI Diesel
600 CFM 110 PSI Diesel
1750 CFM 110 PSI Diesel
750 CFM 300 PSI Diesel
900 CFM 150 PSI Diesel
900 CFM 350 PSI Diesel
11050 CFM' 110 PSI Diesel
~ 300 CFM 150 PSI Diesel
1600 CFM 110 PSI Diesel
lcompressor Packages
165/185 CFM Compressor Package #1
1 (1) Compressor, 100 ft. air hose
(1) Air tool and (4) bits
165/185 CFM Compressor Package #2
1 (1) Compressor, 200 ft. air hose
(2) Air tools and (8) bits
!pneumatic Tools
.130 Ib, 60 Ib, 90 lb. Paving breaker
:hipping hammer
Rivet Buster/Boyer
lBackfill tamper (powder puff)
A.irgrinder
A.ir drill, 3/4" motor
1 Air vibrator, 2" or 3"
.!pneumatic 1/2" impact
Pneumatic 3/4" impact
!pneumatic 1" impact
"!pneumatic 11/4" impact
Jackhammer & Scabbier
Ig' Ib, 30 Ib, 40 Ib, 50 Ib Rock drill
-\tand type - 3 head scabbier
Wall type - 3 head scabbier
jFloor type - 5 head scabbier
Hose
j50 ft. air hose x 3/4"
50 ft. bull hose x 11/i', 2", or 3"
4" x 25 ft. bull hose
jAfterCOOler & Filter
550 CFM Filter dryer - 832 Filenco filter
770 CFM Aftercooler - portable, air
J driven with trap.
900 CFM Elec aftercooler - (2) 3/4HP
fans, 220V/1 ph/60Hz
J1100 CFM Moisture trap/filter dryer - (2)
832 Filenco filters wltank
);~Y{l
1300 CFM Aftercooler - portable, air
driven with trap.
1600 CFM Aftercooler/filter - skid mtd,
air driven w/trap, 2-stg filtration to .01
micron
1800 CFM Aftercooler - portable, air
driven with trap.
Ale Generators - _
Portable & Trailer ~
Mounted
3 'r<MI 11 0-220V/1 ph Gas
3 'r<MI Hi-cycle Gas
5'r<M1 110-220V/3 ph Diesel
10'r<MI 110-220V/3 ph Diesel
15 'r<MI 110-220V/3 ph Diesel
20 'r<MI 110-220V/3 ph Diesel
25 'r<MI 110-220V/3 ph Diesel
30 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
40'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
45 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
50 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
60 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
70 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
75 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
80 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
100 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
125'r<M1 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
150 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
200 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
250 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
360 'r<MI 110-220-440V/3 ph Diesel
Rates based on 8 hr day/40 hr wk/160 hr month
Transformers: 20 'r<MI, 45 'r<MI, 70 'r<MI
Power Supply Cord
12-3100 ft. 20 amp
10-3100 ft. 30 amp
10-4 100 ft. 3 phase
12-4100 ft. 180 cycle
6-4 100 ft. 440Volt
2-4 25 ft. 3 phase
Tempower
6-4 1 00 ft. 50 amp
6-4 Short 50 amp
6-4 Pigtail 50 amp, 440V/30 amp
6-4 "Y" 50 amp
1/0 Cord 25 ft. 100 amp
Boxes: Tempower, GFI, 3ph, 440V, &
Booster available @ 50 amp
Electrical Submersible Pump
1.5-2" 110V 1/3,1/2, 1HP
2" 110-220V/1ph 2HP
2" 220-440V/3ph 2HP
3" 220V/1 ph, 220-440V/3ph 5-6HP
4" 220-440V/3ph 10HP
4" 440V/3ph, Trash 20HP
6" 440V/3ph 35HP
For 440V or automatic/float switch
Gasoline or Diesel Driven Pump
11/2 or 2"Centrifugal, trash Gas
3" Centrifugal or diaphram Gas
4" Centrifugal, trash or diaphram Diesel
6" Centrifugal, trash Diesel
10" Centrifugal, trash Diesel
12" or 16" pump with tractor
Air Driven Pump
2" double Diaphragm (Sandpiper)
3" double Diaphragm
3" Centrifugal (CP-20)
3" CP-71 E (positive displacement)
Specialty Pump
Hydrostatic Test Pump
Fire Pump 21/i'x 21/2"
Berkeley 4"x3"
80GPM @ 80psI
450GPM @ 64psI
4" Jet Pump (Diesel)
G-R 04B2 4"x4"
G-R 73A 4"x4"
G-R 54J 4"x4"
500GPM @ 200psI
450GPM @ 250psI
700GPM @ 150psI
6" Jet Pump (Diesel)
G-R 06B3 6"x6" 1 OOOGPM @ 70psI
Fairbanks/Morse 6"x6" 1 000GPM@150pSI
Peerless 6"x6" 1300GPM @200 OR 450pSI
Gould 8"x6" 1 OOOGPM @ 150psI
Berkeley 8"x6" 21 OOGPM @ 85psI
Discharge Hose
50ft. lengths of 11/i', 21/2",4",6", 12", 16"
6" aluminum pipe & fittings
Brass adapters
Suction Hose
25 ft. lengths of 11/2",2",3",4",6",10"
Misc.
11/2" nozzles, hydrant wrench,
Pumps come with one 25' suction hose w/strainer.
Rates based on 8 hr day/40 hr wk/160 hr month.
Bakersfield . )
\V
N
.
o
-\!o/~ S,"'g'
~
ESCONDIDO/
SAN MARCOS
m CONVENIENT LOCATIONS
SAN DIEGO
IMPERIAL
\V....8
Serving Southern California Since 1952
SAN DIEGO
3860 Sherman Street (92110)
619/298-9846
800-654-3495
ANAHEIM
1415 Burton Place (92806)
714/535-7731
800-237-0323
RIVERSIDE
2215 Via Cerro (92509)
909/682-6823
800-962-3730
ESCONDIDO
1960 W. Mission Rd (92029)
619n41-9272
800-624-9178
CITY OF INDUSTRY*
14841 Don Julian Rd (91746)
818/968-9611
RIVERSIDE*
3275 Columbia Ave. (92501)
909/684-5645
SAN MARCOS*
1600 E. Mission Rd (92069)
619/743-7777
Parts Hotline: 738-3297
OXNARD
2101 E. Ventura Blvd. (93030)
805/983-3969
800-326-3616
INDIO*
83-651 Dr. Carreon Drive (92201)
619/342-3359
EL CAJON
CASE PARTS DEPOT*
1622 N. Magnolia (92020)
619/562-3841
OXNARD*
2451 Latigo Ave. (93030)
805/485-9494
IMPERIAL
2396 Highway 86 (92251)
619/353-0190
619/353-4040
800-421-5784
/ //Y/
*formerly Case Power & Equipment
Anaheim
714/535-7731
800-237-0323
~
Rough Terrain
Reach Forklifts/Handlers
SkyTrak
Linmac
Gradall
Gradall
SkyTrak
SkyTrak
SkyTrak
SkyTrak
Gradall
SkyTrak
5028
LRL60 low pro
LPR60 low pro
6032 low pro
6036
8042
9038
10042
544
10054
5000 Ib
6000lb
6000lb
6000lb
6000lb
8000lb
9000lb
10,000 Ib
10,000 Ib
10,000 Ib
Pettibone Carrylift (Super 8) - 8000 Ib
Super 8 Gas, no sway control 24 ft
Super 8 Gas, w/sway control 24 ft
Super 8 Diesel w/sway control 24 ft
Rough Terrain ~
Stralghtmast Forklifts
Champ CF40, towable 4000lb 12 ft
Champ CB40S, towable 4000 Ib 11 ft
Champ CB50S, towable 5000 Ib 11 It
Champ CB50, towable 5000 Ib15/16 It
Champ CB60, towable 6000lb 16 ft
Champ 530STS, towable5000 Ib 21 ft
Champ 530-70, tow 6 & 7000 Ib 21 It
Liftall MT80 8000 Ib 21 It
Champ 530STS 5000 Ib 23 ft
Champ 530-70 7000 Ib 23 ft
Liftall MT80 8000 Ib 30 It
Champ 1070 10,000 Ib 30 It
LiftaU HT100 10,000 Ib 30 ft
LiftaU HT150 15,000 Ib 30 ft
Champ 180HLP 18,0001b 18 ft
Champ 840VP 8000 Ib 40 It
LiltaU HT150 10,000 Ib 40 ft
Forklift Attachments & Acces.
Truss boom - 10',12' 15'
Tower attachment - 12'
Panel handler
Utility bucket - 11/4 cu.yd - 2 yd
Swing carriage - up to 900
Extension forks
Concrete bucket - 1 cu.yd
Workplatforms - 5' x 10',14',16'
Attachments available with our equipment only!
Industry
818/968-9611
J/-iJ
Oxnard
805/983-3969
800-326-3616
Industrial
Forklifts
it
28 ft
21 It
24 It
32 It
36 It
42 ft
38 It
42 It
48 It
54 It
Height: Lowered Max.
Non-Towable - Solid Tire
2000 Ib & 3000 Ib 83" 130"
4000 Ib & 6000 Ib 90" 144"
4000 Ib & 5000 Ib 91" 172"
Non-Towable - Pneumatic Tire
3000lb 85" 162"
4000lb 85" 165"
5000 Ib & 6000 Ib 90" 144"
8000lb 90" 180"
10,000 Ib & 12,000 Ib 120" 168"
18,000 Ib & 20,000 Ib 115" 132"
25,000 Ib 133" 168"
30,000 Ib 114" 120"
36,000 Ib 120" 120"
Side shift available on some sizes
Agricultural
Forklifts
~
TCI Citrus special, 4WD 4000lb 12 ft
Champ CF40 4000lb 12 ft
Case 585 2WD, 4WD 5000lb 21 It
Case 586 2WD, 4WD 6000lb 21 ft
Citrus special, 4WD 5000 Ib 22 ft
Agricultural G.....
Tractors ....
Case 495/3220
Case 595/3230
Case 695/4220
Case 895/4230
Case 995/4240
Maxxum
Case 5220
Case 5230
Case 5240
Case 5250
Magnum
Case 7210 130 PTO/HP
Case 7220 150 PTO/HP
Case 7230 170 PTO/HP
Case 7240 195 PTO/HP
Case 7250 215 PTO/HP
Attachments - Implements
770 discs 12',14',21'
Rollover plows 4 & 5 bottom
42 PTO/HP
52 PTO/HP
62 PTO/HP
72 PTO/HP
85 PTO/HP
80 PTO/HP
90 PTO/HP
100 PTO/HP
112 PTO/HP
Oxnard
805/485-9494
Riverside e
909/682-6823
800-962-3730
~
Cranes
TC1600
TC2000
TC2800
TC3000
TC3400
TC4700
TC75105
Rear mount
Tractor mount
Knuckleboom
Carry-deck
8 ton
10 ton
14 ton 2 -axle
15 ton 3-axle
17 ton 3-axle
23.5 ton 3-axle
37.5 ton 3-axle
13-14 ton 3-axle
14-15 ton 3-axle
Trucks -
Trailers
Dump truck, 6 yd
2-axle Water truck
2 -axle Tractor
3-axle Tractor
Plus mileage
Plus mileage
Plus mileage
Plus mileage
Trailer
24' - 27' Flatbed, doubles
24' - 35' Flatbed
45' Flatbed
Chain - 3/8" X 25'
Binder - 3/8"
Scissor &
Boom lms
!l
Scissor Lifts
Platform Height OAW
20 It 34 in Electric
25 ft 48 in Electric
25 ft 75 in Rough Terrain Gas
StraightmastlArticulated Boom Lifts
2x4, 2WD Diesel 40 It
4x4, 4WD Diesel 40 ft
Articulated Diesel 40 ft
Articulated Diesel 60 It
Trenchers
..,
Case walk-behind
Case tracked ride-on
Case rubber ride, articulated
Case rubber ride, rigid frame
Case Maxi-sneaker
24" depth
66" depth
60" depth
84" depth
Riverside
909/684-5645
8
Authorized Stocking Distributor for
Sales, Parts, & Service
2L~
MATERIAL HANDLERI
REACH FORKLIFTS
-' SlmOnc[R][Q]
CASE
TRUCKITRACTOR
MOUNTED CRANES
EARTH MOVING
CONSTRUCTION
(]j(lT~"~
STRAIGHTMAST
& LOW PROFILE
MATERIAL HANDLER
REACH FORKLIFTS
. SULLAIR
.
CASE '"
AIR COMPRESSORS
& TOOLS
PORTABLE & STATIONARY
AGRICULTURAL
TRACTORS & FORKLIFTS
BDMA~
amida
INDUSTRIES, INC,
COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
LIGHT TOWERS & GENERATORS
COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
MIE/)
GR
GORMAN.RUPP
STAN LEY
HYDRAULIC TOOLS
& ACCESSORIES
SUBMERSIBLE - CENTRIFUGAL-
TRASH PUMPS
HYDRAULIC TOOLS
& ACCESSORIES
BENEFITS OF USING CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT CO.
. Contractors Equipment Co. does not charge Sales Tax on most rented equipment. A savings of up to 8.5% every time
equipment is rented.
. Contractors Equipment Co. has a Rental Exchange Program. If there is a need for major repairs of rented equipment on
the job, another machine will be exchanged to avoid costly down time.
. Contractors Equipment Co. has been locally owned and operated since 1952. Coupled with its Sales and Service
departments, Contractors Equipment Co. has grown to be one of the largest rental organizations of commercial and
industrial equipment in the nation. "We work with you from the ground up."
RENTAL CONDITIONS
1 Delivery service is available at an additional cost.
2 Rentals begin and end at Contractors Equipment Company yards.
3 Rental rates are based on an a hour day, 5 day week, and a 160 hour month.
4 Equipment used 2 shifts or 16 hours per day is subject to one and one-half (1.5) times the normal rate.
5 Equipment used continuously (24 hours per day) is subject to double the normal rate.
6 The customer is responsible for maintaining fuel, water and oil levels.
7 The customer will furnish all oil and will service the rented equipment at approximately 100 hour intervals. Servicing will consist of
changing the engine oil and oil filters, fuel filters, cleaning air filters, and refilling with oil.
a Rer!lal equipment shall be returned to Contractors Equipment Company in good, clean condition, less normal wear and tear. Any
equipment returned requiring undue cleaning, painting, or repair, will be subject to a back charge.
9 Damaged equipment will be considered still on rent until such time repairs can be made.
10 Rates are subject to change without notice. 1/
11 The customer is responsible for supplying insurance on all over the road vehicle rentals. / /' ij
---.,
m
Contractors Equipment Company
Construction, Industrii'J1. Aqricultural
& Utility EqUipment
SALES
RENTALS
PARTS
SERVfCE
Kenneth L. Birch
Government Sales Specialist
1600 East Mission Road
Sarl Marcos. CA 92069
800/776-8527
619743-7777
Fax 619,/480-4831
o
E
A
D
I c-,.,r,' ~
~/~. '\.iJIII5j;
I r--'-~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
, I
, I
I
: I
I
R
/
c
o
s
K
H
E
B
A
580L
580 Super L
590 Super L
))/tjj
The New IlL" Series
Loader/Backhoes
Introducing the
New "L" Series
Loader/Backhoes
from the Leader in
Backhoe Technology.
Your input is what keeps us #1. We
listen...and we respond. That's why the
new "L" Series will be the definitive
standard of the industry, just like every
Case Loader /Backhoe series that
preceded it.
This new family of loader/backhoes
offers you the same great features you
loved about the "K" Series.. .like the Case
exclusive over-center backhoe, in-line
loader linkage, Case diesel engine muscle,
high quality and exceptional value...and
has broken ground on a new level of
performance and productivity.
First of all, we developed a priority
swing circuit' on the Super L's to
improve multi-function control
for faster, smoother response
when operating the backhoe for
increased productivity. You still
have the feel and precision control of
our notable open-center design, too.
We also made the auxiliary
hydraulics more compatible by adapting
it to handle a wider variety of
attachments for a higher level of
application versatility.
The forward/reverse shuttle is also
improved. It's now electrically engaged to
allow fingertip operation with its low
lever effort for the smoothest modulation
on the market.
'Patent applied for.
)/-1}
For those units equipped with 4WD, it's
electrically activated for on-the-go
engagement. Combine that with improved
weight-to-horsepower ratios for greater
acceleration, and that's just what you need
for excellent push power into the pile.
When you break out of a pile, you'll
notice a difference, too. The new loader
arms provide greater breakout and lift
capacities than before. They also allow
tighter turning clearances with improved
steering angles for excellent
maneuverability.
Better roading performance and
improved serviceabillty are also
features of the new "L" Series. By
separating the transmission from the
rear axle, there's optimized weight
distribution for outstanding
roading characteristics. You also get
improved serviceability because each
component in the powertrain can be
removed independently without
disturbing the others.
And the list goes on. Like improved
visibility, ground line servicing of fuel and
hydraulic tanks, and much, much more.
The one thing you'll really notice
though, is the sleek new lines inside and
out. The new "L" Series from Case...a
noticeable difference in innovation.
IMPORTANT: Case Corporation reserves the right to change
these specifications without notice and without incurring any
obligation relating to such change. Units shown may be
equipped with non-standard equipment.
CASE CORPORATION
700 STATE STREET
RACINE, WI 53404 U.S.A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CASE CANADA CORPORATION I
3350 SOUTH SERVICE ROAD
BURLINGTON, ON L7N 3MB CANADA I
I
Printed in U.S.A.
580L 580 Super L 590 Super L
Engine Case 4-390 Case 4T-390 Case 4T-390
Net hp 70 80 86
(52kW) (60 kVil) (64kW)
Loader
Lift 5,300 Ib 6,1001b 7,1001b
(2404 kg) (2767 kg) (3220 kg)
Breakout Force 7,800 Ib 9,300 Ib 9,600 Ib
(34 694 N) (41 366 N) (42 700 N)
Bucket Capacity 1 yd:J 1 yd3 1,25 yd3
(0.76 m3) (0.76 m3) (0,96m3)
Standard Backhoe
SAE Dig Depth - 2' Flat Bottom 14'3" 14'3" 15'8"
(4,34m) (4.34 m) (4.77 m)
Max, Reach @ Groundline 18'0" 18'0" 20'0"
(5.48 m) (5,48m) (6,09m)
Bucket Breakout Force 11,700 Ib 12,5001b 12,500 ib
(52041 N) (55 600 N) (55 600 N)
Extendahoe (Extended)
SAE Dig Depth - 2' Flat Bottom 18'2" 18'2" 19'6"
(5,54m) (5,54 m) (5,94 m)
Max, Reach @ Groundline 21'10" 21'10" 23'6,5"
(6,65m) (6,65m) (7,17 m)
Bucket Breakout Force 11,7001b 12,500 Ib 12,5001b
(52041 N) (55 600 N) (55 600 N)
SAE Operating Weight w/Cab 12,950 Ib 13,950 Ib 15,7501b
(5874 kg) (6328 kg) (7144 kg)
NOTE: All specifications are stated in accordance with SAE
Standards or Recommended Practices, where applicable.
Form No. CE 026-11-94
I/-r;{l
@ 1994 CASE CORPORATION
March 17, 1995
TO: Honorable Mayor Horton
FROM: Armando Buelna, Assistant to the Mayor and Council
SUBJECT: CHILD CARE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
Attached is Dr. Pidgeon's application for Child Care Commission. The Clerk's office said she
does not have to submit another application. If you would like to appoint her to fill the vacant
seat on the Child Care Commission, this would then be placed on the agenda for ratification by
Council.
ab
61L f\l'~
1) ~
7
PIa- - )
The Honorable Shirley Horton
Mayor of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
March 9, 1995
Dear Mayor Horton,
I am currently an ex-officio commissioner on the Child Care Commission for the
City. At the time that I was appointed to the Commission there were no vacancies for
full voting commissioners. It has come to my attention that one of the commissioners
has resigned so I would like to be considered for her position and change my status
from ex-officio commissioner to a regular voting commissioner. The Child Care
Commission is aware of my request.
Please advise me of any further actions that I need to take. Thank you for your
attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
~~O\?~~
Judith A. Pidgeon,Ph.D.
20 Pepper Tree Rd.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 422-6226
~
atr
/ J
.~ n ~ u LJ~ / ~ . ::;
OLv \. V ~lV
r~,\ ,1;J
\,~ Y
')0
L
6\yY
/f
jL/a--i
BOARD MEMBER COLEMAN'S ATTENDANCE RECORD
Meetin~ Date:
07/11194
08/15/94
09119/94
10/10/94
11114/94
12/12/94
01116/95
02113/95
03113/95
Unexcused Absence
Cancelled (Lack of Quorum)
Present
Excused Absence
Cancelled (Lack of Agenda Items)
Excused Absence
Present
Cancelled (Lack of Agenda Items)
Excused Absence
6 Meetings thus far:
1 Unexcused (17%)
3 Excused (50%)
2 Present (33%)
Total Absences:
4 Combined (67%)
Assuming we meet in April, May & June and Coleman is present at these meetings:
9 Meetings:
1 Unexcused (11 %)
3 Excused (33%)
5 Present (56%)
Total Absences:
4 Combined (44%)
Still exceeds 34% (combined excused/unexcused absences)
/LJ/J ~/
b\cJt, ~0v1.J ~
In order to provide continuity in board, commission, and/or committee membership the
terms of office are staggered; and individuals may be appointed to more than one term.
Provisions of the City Charter limit the number of consecutive terms served on a board or
commission to two, thus providing the opportunity for maximum citizen participation.
When new boards or commissions are formed or when a majority are appointed at the
same time, members will draw straws to detem1ine the length of terms in order to defer
later loss of talent when the terms expire on the same date. However, on selected
occasions, board, commission, and/or committee members may be appointed to another
advisory body; thus retaining a valuable pool of talent and experience.
Attendance - The City Council has established an attendance policy for all boards,
commissions, and committees to be effective July 1, 1995. A summary of that policy
follows: [Charter Section 602(c) and Policy 110-03 dated 11/18/94].
. The b/c/c secretary will take the attendance at each meeting and shall notify
the City Clerk when the mandatory attendance guidelines have been
violated.
. Members of b/c/c's with regular meetings may not be absent at more than
25% of regular meetings in a fiscal year without an excuse and at more than
34% of regular meetings whether excused or not. Members who attend less
than 75% of the meetings will be subject to the following:
Having been excused from 25% of the meetings will be subject to
dismissal after review by the City Council Subcommittee (comprised
of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem).
Having missed 34% of the meetings in any combination of excused
and unexcused absences will be subject to dismissal after review by
the City Council Subcommittee (comprised of the Mayor and Mayor
Pro Tem).
. "On-Call" b/c/c's (Charter Review, Ethics, Growth Management Oversight,
and Mobilehome Rent Review) are urged to attend all meetings, but the
mandatory attendance requirements does not apply.
. Any member who has missed one-half of the maximum number of
unexcused absences (two of twelve or five of twenty-four regularly
scheduled annual meetings) shall be given a written notice by the secretary
or the chair.
. The boards, commissions, and committees shall decide whether an absence
is excused or unexcused as set forth in the B/C/C Attendance Policy of
which each member shall be provided a copy.
-12- / tfh-:l..
~\r~
:---~.:.-:
~...,;............,;
---
- - - ~
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
BUILDING AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT
January 16, 1995
Harold Coleman, Jr.
839 Stanford Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91913
Dear Mr. Coleman:
The City Council greatly appreciates the willingness of volunteers who give of their time
to serve on the various boards, commissions and committees. The Council also realizes
that things do come up in people's lives which make continuing to serve impossible.
In order for the work of the City to continue, however, there must be a quorum present
at all board, commission and committee meetings,
In 1988, the City Council established an attendance policy for ail boards, commissions
and committees; a copy is attached. The policy states that members of boards,
commissions and committees are required to attend 75% of the meetings called during
one fiscal year which includes special meetings, conferences and workshops.
Recently, the City Council clarified that policy which will become effective July 1, 1995.
However, it is clearly the intent of Councillhat S/C/C members be present at 66% of the
meetings regardless of whether absences are excused or unexcused. I have attached
a copy for you to look at. The City Clerk will be addressing this issue at the next S/C/C
Workshop scheduled. for Thursday, January 26, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. to be held in the
Council Chambers.
For your information, our records indicate that you have two excused absences and one
unexcused absence (having missed 27.3% thus far). If you incur an additional absence,
whether excused or unexcused, you will have exceed the maximum absence rate of 34%
as identified in the new policy to become effective July 1, 1995.
If you have any problems or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
-&~ ~a~.~.o. -
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND HOUSING
Attachments:
Policy 11 0-03 (old) . dated 02/16/93
Policy 110-03 (new) . dated 11/08/94
/yj;>-3
276 FOURTH AVEiCHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91911,' i(il~JI (/ll-~007
Jle-
From:
City Council Members
Shirley Horton, Mayor .)tf
To:
Subject:
Request to Conduct Cinco de Mayo Festival
Mr. Jaime Bonillo is requesting permission to conduct a Cinco de Mayo Festival on Sunday, May 7,
1995, celebrating Mexico's independence from France. The event would be conducted on Third Avenue
between "E" Street and "G" Street from approximately 12:00 Noon to 7:00 PM, and would necessitate
the closure of Third between these two streets.
Staff has provided an outline of standard conditions for approval of special events of this nature. A
memo regarding these conditions is attached.
Mr. Bonillo will be organizing and conducting the event, and I am recommending approval of his request.
;L/c -I
MEMORANDUM
March 24, 1995
TO:
Shirley Horton, Mayor {)
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager ztl~1
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and-;~creatio~
Conditions of Approval for Special Events
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I'm responding to your request for information regarding conditions of approval for special event
involving street closures on Third Avenue. It is my understanding that you are considering an event
on May 7, 1995.
Staffs recommendation for approval of an event would be subject to the clarification of a number
of specific event details. However, the sponsor would need to provide the following as general
conditions of approval for the event:
1. Adequate crowd, traffic, and parking control as determined and provided by the Police
Department
2. Adequate traffic control equipment (barricades, cones, delineators, directional signs, etc) as
determined by the Traffic Engineering Division and Police Department.
3. A Certificate of Insurance and Policy Endorsement providing evidence of general liability
insurance in the amount of $1 million, naming the City as additional insured. Additional
insurance might be required pending review of the event activities by the City's Risk
Manager.
4. A signed Hold Harmless Agreement.
5. Written notification of parking restrictions, street closures, and other pertinent event details
to all residences and businesses in the area bounded by "E" Street, Second Avenue, "0"
Street, and Fourth Avenue.
6. Written support for and approval of the event from the Downtown Business Association
7. Adequate portable toilets (including handicap-accessible toilets) as determined by the City
based on attendance estimations.
8. No-parking signs on appropriate streets posted no less than 48 hours prior to the effective
date and start time.
9. Adequate trash receptacles and trash control service during and immediately following the
event.
10. Adequate removable dumpsters to handle event trash.
J!C -2
11. Evidence of appropriate permits and compliance with food and beverage vending regulations
as determined the County of San Diego Department of Health Services.
12. Verification of appropriate City Business Licenses from all vendors participating at the event.
13. A detailed site plan for the event, indicating locations of toilets, trash receptacles, trash
dumpster, stages, displays, booths, concession stands, parking, etc.
14. A detailed description of staging, seating, canopies, enclosed booths, temporary structures,
cooking equipment, electrical generators and distribution equipment, and other imported
equipment for review and approval by regulatory City departments and divisions.
In addition, the reimbursement of direct City staff costs, specifically the required services of the
Police Department, has been a condition of event approval for some non-City sponsored events in
the past. These costs could be substantial depending on the scope of the event.
cc: City Council
Jle -J
360 Third Avenue
P.O. Box 381
Chula Vista, CA 91912
(619) 422-1982
Fax (619) 422-1452
1995 Officers & Directors
President
Jim Fergus
Vice President
Dr. Steven Wachs
Secretary
Marie Raftery
Treasurer
Donna Hawk
Past President
Vangie Kujawski
Lou Black
Eddie Chapman
Michael Johnson
Tom Money
Lou Nicholaus
Gina Nichols
Ben Patton
Dave Rossi
Town Manager
Judith Lynn Welty
~~ /t/C
28 March 1995
Honorable Mayor Shirley Horton
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Horton,
The Association has been approached for their support of a
Cinco Fest on Sunday, May 7th. Seven of the eight members of
the Board whom I was able to contact agreed to support radio
station KURS (K -1040). The eighth member had no feelings
for or against. We look forward to working with KURS and its
staff.
Yours truly,
~
James D. Fergus
President
cc: Joe Carbajal, KURS
Community Development
Judy Welty
FIe - f