HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 2002/07/23
~{f?-
-=-..-
-
CI1Y OF
CHUlA VISTA
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2002 COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING
(immediately following the City Council meeting)
.JOINT MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Agency/Council Members Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas; Chair/Mayor Horton
CONSENT CALENDAR
The staff recommendations regarding the following item(s) listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted
by the Agency/Council by one motion without discussion unless an Agency/Council member, 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 Secretary of the
Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be
discussed after Action items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 18, 2002, June 20, 2002, June 25, 2002,
June 26, 2002
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.50 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO MOBILEHOME PARK SPACE RENT REVIEW - On
1/15/02, staff presented to Council a series of amendments to Chapter 9.50
of the City's Municipal Code, Mobilehome Space Rent Review Ordinance.
The amendments proposed addressed concerns regarding difficulties in
implementing and administering the Ordinance, increasing housing costs,
general safety and welfare of residents of mobilehome communities,
providing clearer direction and definitions, and to be consistent with State
Mobilehome Residency law. Testimony of many park residents supported
the major proposed amendments, with the exception of eliminating vacancy
control regulations. Council directed staff to work with representatives of
park residents and park owners on the issue of vacancy control. The
proposed amendments to the Ordinance includes alternative language to
allow for an automatic rent increase upon change of ownership based upon
a fixed percentage or a sliding scale. [Community Development Director]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Place the ordinance on second reading for
adoption.
3. AGENCY RESOLUTION APPROVING AND TRANSMITTING ITS REPORT TO
THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT - The Southwest Redevelopment Plan was adopted on November
27, 1990 in order to improve deteriorated properties in the areas along Main
Street, south Broadway, and south Third Avenue. Since its adoption, the
Redevelopment Plan has permitted the use of eminent domain authority to
acquire property within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area.
Pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law and the
Redevelopment Plan, the Agency's eminent domain authority is restricted to
an initial 12-year time period following the effective date of the ordinance
adopting the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan's eminent
domain authority is scheduled to expire on November 27, 2002.
[Community Development Director]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the resolution.
4. COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DESIGNATING AN
EXPANDED REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA FOR STUDY PURPOSES
PURSUANT TO PART 1 OF DIVISION 24 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE - Council is studying the feasibility of expanding the redevelopment
areas to include various commercial and industrial properties along Third
Avenue, Broadway, West Fairfield area, and the Lower Sweetwater River
Valley. The West Fairfield and the Lower Sweetwater River Valley
properties are not currently within the Survey Area. In order for these
properties to be considered for redevelopment, the Survey Area needs to be
expanded. (Director of Community Development)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the resolution.
5. AGENCY /COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A SALARY INCREASE FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
POSITION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO ALIGN
THE SALARY WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER POSITION,
AND AMENDING THE FY 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGETS TO IMPLEMENT
SAME - The Community Development Department requested that the
Human Resources Department conduct a classification analysis of the
Redevelopment Manager position in light of elevated duties and
responsibilities established for the position. Human Resources conducted a
review of the incumbent's duties and responsibilities as well as associated
internal equity relationships. It was determined by Human Resources that
the findings did not support a reclassification, but supported a salary
increase of 5% to reflect an appropriate internal alignment of the
Redevelopment Manager position with the Economic Development Manager.
(Director of Community Development) 4/5ths VOTE REQUIRED
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency/Council adopt the resolution.
Redevelopment Agency, July 23, 2002 Page 2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency/City Council on any subject
matter within the Agency/Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however,
generally prohibits the Redevelopment Agency/City Council from taking action on any issues not included on
the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Agency/Council on such a subject, please complete the
"Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to
the Redeveiopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your
name and address for record purposes and follow up action.
6. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S)
7. CHAIR/MAYOR REPORT(S)
8. AGENCY/COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to a closed session and thence to the regular meeting of
the Redevelopment Agency on August 6, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., immediately
following the City Council meeting in the City Council Chambers,
CLOSED SESSION
Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, City Councilor Redevelopment Agency states otherwise at
this time, the Agency/Council will discuss and deliberate on the following item(s) of business which are
permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency/Council is advised
should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency/Council is required
by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes taken.
However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed session, the videotaping will be terminated at
this point in order to save costs so that the Agency/Council's return from closed session, reports of final action
taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded
in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and the City
Clerk's office.
9. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -Instructions to
Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
a. Property: Assessor Parcel Nos, 571-200-13, 14, 15,36 and
Parcel Map 17701 (approximately 2.555 acres
located at 760 Broadway)
Negotiating Parties: Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone) and Chris
Bitterlin and Tom Carter
Under Negotiations Price and terms for disposition
DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who
require special accommodates to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service
request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services
and activities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at (619)
691-5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is
also available for the hearing impaired.
Redevelopment Agency, July 23, 2002 Page 3
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF
THE CITY COUNCIL, A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
AND A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
June 18,2002 6:00 P.M.
An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council, a Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment
Agency, and a Special Meeting of the Housing Authority of the City of Chula Vista were called
to order at 6:46 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Agency/Authority/Councilmembers Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas,
and Chair/Mayor Horton
ABSENT: Agency/ Authority/Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/Authority/
City Attorney Kaheny, City Clerk Bigelow
CONSENT CALENDAR
I. COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2002-221, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03
Article XlllB of the California Constitution, approved by the voters in 1979 and
commonly referred to as the Gann Initiative, requires each local government to establish
an appropriations limit by resolution each year at a regularly scheduled meeting or
noticed special meeting. The purpose of the limit is to restrict spending of certain types
of revenues to a level predicated on a base year amount increased annually by an inflation
factor. (Assistant City Manager Powell)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
ACTION: Chair/Mayor Horton moved to approve the staff recommendation and offered the
Consent Calendar, heading read, text waived. The motion carried 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
I-I
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT BUDGETS FOR THE CITY AND THE OPERATING BUDGETS
FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2003
The City Council has received and considered the City Manager's proposed operating
and capital improvement budgets for the City and the operating budgets for the
Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003.
Two work sessions were held to consider and deliberate on the recommendations
contained in those initial documents, as well as the additions and deletions identified after
the proposed budget document was printed. The budgets submitted for adoption
represent the FY 2003 amended Spending Plan as adopted by the Council and as
amended by the City Manager in accordance with tentative Council direction received
during the budget work sessions. (Director of Community Development)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Mayor Horton opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public wishing to
speak, she then closed the hearing.
ACTION: Chair/Mayor Horton offered Council Resolution No. 2002-222, Agency
Resolution No. 1785, and Housing Authority Resolution No. HA-21, headings
read, texts waived:
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2002-222, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE OPERATING
AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGETS FOR THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1785 AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. HA 21, RESOLUTION OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGETS FOR
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
The motion carried 5-0.
3. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (TC-02-
02) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 45 NORTH BROADWAY
WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Page 2 CouncillRDAlHousing Authority Minutes (-;L 06/18/2002
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Cingular Wireless proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a wireless
telecommunications facility at 45 North Broadway, within the boundaries of the Town
Centre II Redevelopment Project Area. The proposed project is located at the North
Island Credit Union, which is surrounded by the Best Buy parking lot to the north and
east and open space uses to the south and west. (Director of Community Development)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Chair/Mayor Horton opened the public hearing. With no members of the public wishing to
speak, she then closed the hearing.
ACTION: Agency/ Authority/Councilmember Padilla offered Agency Resolution No. 1786,
heading read, text waived:
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1786, RESOLUTION OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (TC-02-02) TO CINGULAR
WIRELESS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
AT 45 NORTH BROADWAY WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE II
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
The motion carried 5-0.
ACTION ITEMS
4. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS 1O.62.010(B)(1) AND 10.62.01O(B)(8), PARKING VIOLATIONS AND
ENFORCEMENT, TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR PARKING METER
VIOLATIONS FROM $12 TO $20, AND THE PENALTY FOR LATE PAYMENT OF
PARKING METER VIOLATIONS FROM $35 TO $40
During the past two to three years, parking meter fund expenditures have increasingly
exceeded revenues. Consequently, the general fund has had to supplement the parking
meter fund in order to maintain basic operations, such as parking enforcement and
repairing or replacing broken parking meters and signage. (Director of Community
Development)
b. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.62.010 UNDER
CHAPTER 10.62 "PARKING VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT" TO INCREASE
THE PENALTY FOR PARKING METER RELATED PARKING VIOLATIONS
FROM $12 TO $20 AND INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR LATE PAYMENT OF
THE SAME VIOLATIONS FROM $35 TO $40
Page 3 Council/RDA/Housing Authority Minutes (-3 06/18/2002
ACTION ITEMS (Continued)
Agency/Authority/Councilmember Davis believed there was insufficient information to move
forward on this item, stating that she would like to see budget figures and how revenues are
spent. She stated that it might be necessary to hire a consultant prior to making a decision on
raising the fines.
Agency/Authority/Councilmember Padilla stated that, while he was not certain that a consultant
was necessary, more time was needed to discuss the issue with staff.
Agency/ Authority/Councilmember Rindone expressed concern regarding the cost of a consultant
and stated that he was not certain that he would support a fee increase, explaining that it was
important to promote downtown activities.
Chair/Mayor Horton stated that no matter what the outcome of the fee structure may be, the
Police Department must ensure that its parking monitoring system is not overly aggressive.
ACTION: Chair/Mayor Horton moved to continue the item to a future date.
Agency/ Authority/Councilmember Davis seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0.
5. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
There were none.
6. CHAIR/MA YOR REPORTS
There were none.
7. AGENCY/COUNCIL! AUTHORITY COMMENTS
There were none.
CLOSED SESSION
8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
One case.
This item was not discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:50 p.m. Chair/Mayor Horton adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting of
the Redevelopment Agency on July 9, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City
Council meeting.
~~~
Susan Bigelow, CMC/ , City Clerk
Page 4 Council/RDAlHousing Authority Minutes (-.¡ 06/18/2002
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
June 20, 2002 11 :30 a.m.
A Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, meeting
concurrently with the Board of Port Commissioners of the San Diego Unified Port District, was
called to order at 11:43 a.m. in the Council Conference Room, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agencymembers: Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas and Chair
Horton (Chair Horton arrived at 11 :52 a.m.)
Port Commissioners: Cushman, Van Deventer, Bixler, Hall
ABSENT: Agencymembers: None
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director Rowlands and Deputy City Attorney Hull
BUSINESS
I. STAFF PRESENTATION ON CITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The Port of San Diego and the Redevelopment Agency will meet to view a staff
presentation and then tour Chula Vista by bus. (Community Development Director)
City Manager Rowlands welcomed the Port Commissioners and City staff. Community
Development Director Salomone presented an overview of Chula Vista projects. The bus tour
commenced at City Hall, with all Agency members present except Chair Horton, who did not
attend the bus tour. The tour encompassed stops at a number of points of interests within the
City, with notable stops at the Olympic Training Center and the Duke Energy Plant.
No action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
OTHER BUSINESS
2. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
There were none.
3. CHAIR'S REPORTS
There were none.
I-~
OTHER BUSINESS (Continued)
4. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT
At 2:55 p.m., Agencymember Padilla adjourned the meeting to a Special Meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency on June 25, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Conference Room; and
thence to a Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on June 26, 2002, at I :30 p.m., at the
San Diego Unified Port District; and thence to an Adjourned Regular meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency on July 9, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council
meetmg.
~ ð..U ~ u.a--
Susan Bigelow, CMC/~, City Clerk
Page 2 CounciVRDA Minutes 1- ~ 06/04/2002
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
June 25, 2002 4:00 p.m.
Adjourned Regular Meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista were called to order at 4:05 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, located in City
Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers: Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and
Chair/Mayor Horton (Councilmember Padilla arrived at 4:07 p.m.)
ABSENT: Agency/Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Assistant City
Attorney Googins, and City Clerk Bigelow
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2002-223 AND AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1787,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, APPROPRIATING
ADDITIONAL FUNDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FRO THE "H" STREET
RECONSTRUCTION, 1-5 TO BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA (STM-334) PROJECT
On April 17, 2002, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "H" Street
reconstruction project ITom Interstate 5 to Broadway (STM-334). The work to be done
includes, but is not limited to, the following: excavation and grading, installation of
curbs, gutters and sidewalks, curb inlets and drainage pipe, pedestrian ramps, driveway
approaches, cross-gutters, Portland cement concrete pavernent, asphalt concrete
pavement overlay, modification of existing traffic signals, landscape and enhanced
colored pavement, pavement striping, and other miscellaneous items of work. (Director
of Public Works; Director of Community Development)
Staffrecommendation: Agency/Council adopt the resolution.
ACTION: Agency/Councilmember Salas moved to approve staffs recommendation and
offered the Consent Calendar, heading read, text waived. The motion carried 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Michelle Schlife, PTA President for Feaster-Edison Charter School, asked why the community
park that was promised three years ago was not yet constructed. She explained that construction
of the park would retain residents within the community and provide a safe and positive
environment for the students.
(- 7
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
Dominic Camacho, a teacher at Feaster-Edison, stated that the students travel to other, nicer
schools for sporting activities, and the students feel they are not getting their fair share of
amenities. He questioned how the school could offer quality education when it has inadequate
and unsafe facilities.
Elena Sanchez, a student at Feaster-Edison, asked why it has taken so long to build the park and
urged the Council to complete the project.
Francisco Escobedo, Principal of Feaster-Edison, expressed concern regarding the ongoing
criminal activities in the trailer park bordering the school and regarding paraphernalia that has
been found by school staff on the school grounds. He asked tahe Council to consider expediting
the construction of the park.
Reginald Depass, Business Services Manager at Feaster-Edison, urged the Council to proceed
with the project in order to provide a safe and positive environment for students in the
community.
John Hinsvark, teacher at Feaster-Edison, believed that the students deserve a community park
that will provide a secure and positive environment.
John Kinloch, a teacher at Feaster-Edison, explained that the development of the park would
significantly improve the area, and he emphasized the need for an enhanced quality of life on the
westerly side of Chula Vista.
Lorena Sandoval expressed the need for a healthy environment for the students and urged the
Council to move forward with the project.
Chair/Mayor Horton stated that public safety patrol officers would be increased in the area, and
she asked City Manager Rowlands to address any outstanding concerns. She also asked staff to
come up with a solution to move forward with the project. City Manager Rowlands responded
that the City will proceed with the project, and the school district and the City will share project
cost overruns.
OTHER BUSINESS
2. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
There were none.
3. CHAIR/MA YOR REPORTS
There were none.
4. AGENCY/COUNCIL COMMENTS
Agency/Councilmember Salas requested that public meetings be held at 6:00 p.m. for the benefit
of working Councilmembers and the public. She also informed the Council that she would arrive
late at the Port Commission Meeting on June 26th due to work commitments.
Page 2 CounciVRDA Minutes /- f 06/25/2002
ADJOURNMENT
At 4:38 p.m., Chair/Mayor Horton adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting of
the Redevelopment Agency on June 26, 2002 at I :30 p.m. at the Unified Port District office, and
thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on July 9, 2002, at 6:00
p.m., irnmediately following the City Council meeting.
~~~y:~
Susan Bigelow, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
Page 3 CouncillRDA Minutes 1- 9 06/2512002
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
JUNE 26, 2002 1:00 P.M.
Adjourned Regular Meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista were called to order at I: 12 p.m. at the offices of the Board of Port Commissioners,
3165 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers: Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Chair/
Mayor Horton (Councilmember Salas arrived at 1:25 p.m., and
Councilmember Rindone arrived at 2:35 p.m. Both had previously
informed the Council that they would arrive late due to business
commitments.)
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Rowlands, and Assistant City Attorney Googins
I. Workshop with the Board of Port Commissioners regarding the Chula Vista Bayfront
Master Plan
The purpose of the workshop was to present and provide direction to staff on issues related to
land use planning, redevelopment projects, and the potential for siting a replacement generation
plant or desalinization plant on the Chula Vista bayfront. The following presentations were
made:
A. Introduction by Community Development Director Salomone and the Director of
Land Use Development, Ralph Hicks.
B. Overview of Chula Vista tidelands by the Assistant Director of Real Estate
Development for the Port District, Jim Barwick.
C. Overview of Chula Vista Bayfront Village development (mid-bayfront) by the
Architect for Pacifica Companies, Gordon Carrier, of Carrier and Johnson.
D. Discussion of the planning process by the Director of Land Use Development,
Ralph Hicks.
E. Discussion of the replacement generation plant by the Director of Recreation and
Environmental Services, David Merk.
F. Overview and fiscal summary of the power plant/desalinization facility by
Community Development Director Salomone.
G. Port & City staff recommendations by Community Development Director
Salomone and the Director of Land Use Development, Ralph Hicks.
Page 2 - City CounciVRDA Minutes 1-/0 6/26/02
WORKSHOP (Continued)
Following the above presentations and comments and questions from Agency/Councilmembers,
Chair/Mayor Horton, and Port Commissioners, Port Commissioner Cushman opened the meeting
for public comment.
Laura Hunter, representing the Environmental Health Coalition, expressed concerns about the
environmental impacts of the proposed power plant and desalinization plant.
Jim Pew, representing the Audubon Society, expressed environmental concerns about the mid-
bayfTont project, the power plant, and the desalinization plant.
Mark Seedall, representing Duke Energy, defended Duke's environmental practices at Morro
Bay and Moss Landing and indicated that the company is still looking at off-site alternatives.
Mike McDade, lawyer for Poseidon Resources, commented on the Poseidon's proposed
desalinization plant.
ACTION: Following discussion and a unanimously approved motion by the Port
Commissioners, Agency/Councilmember Davis moved to (1) direct the staffs of Chula Vista and
the Port to begin a master planning effort that will include substantial public participation to
bring back development and public benefit concepts to the City of Chula Vista and the Port, prior
to the start of environmental review, with a range of funding options; (2) direct the staffs of
Chula Vista and the Port to investigate the feasibility of a replacement power plant and
switchyard on the southern portion of the existing site; (3) direct the staffs ofChula Vista and the
Port to investigate the feasibility of co-locating a desalinization plant with a new replacement
power plant; and (4) direct Chula Vista and Port staff to investigate a means to expedite the
construction of H Street and the demolition and remediation of the BF Goodrich south campus
property. Deputy Chair/Mayor Padilla seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0, with
Agency/Councilmember Rindone noting for the record that, although he had arrived late to the
meeting, he had reviewed the materials in depth, was familiar with the matter, and was,
therefore, qualified to vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair/Mayor Horton adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m. to the Regular Meeting of the City
Council and the Adjourned Regular Meetings of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency
on July 9, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
~~~
Susan Bigelow, CMC, Ci?; Clerk
for Glen Googins, Deputy City Clerk
Page 2 - City Counci1lRDA Minutes (- 1/ 6/26/02
SECOND READING AND A!XJIIfØt 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
CHAPTER 9.50 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO MOBILEHOME PARKS SPACE RENT REVIEW
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Chapter 9.50 of the ChuIa Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Chapter 9.50
MOBILEHOME PARK SPACE-RENT REVIEW
Sections:
9.50.001 Findings.
9.50.005 Purpose.
9.50.010 Definitions.
9.50.012 General Applicability and Exemptions.
9.50.015 Applicability to Recreational Vehicles.
9.50.020 Legal Requirements and Procedures Created.
9.50.030 Moved to 9.50.010
9.50.040 Repealed.
9.50.050 Annual Permissive Rent Increases and Notices of CPI, Rent Increases.
9.50.060 Repealed.
9.50.063 Rent Increases Above the Annual Permissive Rent Increase. (Previously known as
9.50.065).
9.50.064 Owner Meetings and Possible Voluntary Negotiations.
9.50.065 Moved to 9.50.063.
9.50.066 Request for Hearing Form.
9.50.067 Moved to 9.50.077
9.50.068 Moved to 9.50.050
9.50.070 Initiation of Space Rent Review.
9.50.073 Factors to Consider in Fixing Space Rent Through the Hearing Process.
9.50.075 Fixing of Space Rent in Excess of the Permissive Rent Increase.
9.50.076 New and Prospective Mobilehome Residents.
9.50.077 Vacancies and Rents Upon Change of Mobilehome Ownership.
9.50.078 Right to Mediate Mobilehome Resale Price.
9.50.079 Findings Regarding Serious Code Violations.
9.50.080 Notice of Serious Code Violations.
9.50.081 Proposed Space Rent Increases at a Time When There Exist Serious Code Violations at a
Park.
9.50.082 Denial or Reduction of Rent Increases Based Upon Serious Code Violations.
9.50.085 Compliance with Law and City Posting and Disclosure Requirements. (Previously
known as 9.50.012)
9.50.087 Implementation Guidelines.
9.50.090 Mobilehome Resident's Right of Refusal.
9.50.092 Retaliatory Eviction.
9.50.093 Repealed.
9.50.095 Repealed. (Previously known as 9.50.080)
1
9.50.100 Civil and Administrative Remedies. (Previously known as 9.50.081)
9.50.102 Criminal Remedies. (Previously known as 9.50.083)
9.50.105 Repealed. (Previously known as 9.50.085)
9.50.110 Repealed. (Previously known as 9.50.090)
9.50.115 Severability. (Previously known as 9.50.100)
9.50.120 Repealed. (Previously known as 9.50.110)
9.50.001 Findings.
A. The City Council finds that there is presently, within the City of Chula Vista, a shortage of
rental spaces for the location of mobilehomes, and an inadequate number of mobilehome rental spaces to
meet the total demand in this City for those spaces. The City Council finds that this limited supply of
mobilehome spaces in this City has resulted in low vacancy rates and contributes to escalating space rents in
a manner that would, in the absence of regulation, allow for unconscionable increases of rents to
mobilehome park residents.
B. The City Council further finds that the unique nature of the ownership of a mobilehome
within a mobilehome park makes mobilehome owners particularly vulnerable to the threat of loss of their
invesbnent in their mobilehome. Due to the high cost of moving mobilehomes; the potential for damage
resulting from moving mobilehomes; the requirements for installing a mobilehome, including permits,
landscaping and site preparation; the lack of alternative homesites for mobilehome owners; and the
substantial investment mobilehomeowners make in their coaches, mobilehome owners lack the ability to
move their mobilehomes without a substantial loss in their investment. This lack of mobility, coupled with
a shortage of rental spaces, provides park owners with the ability to establish excessive and unconscionable
rents which, if unregulated, would result in the impairment of a mobilehome owner's investment in their
home.
C. The City Council further finds that the limited supply of mobilehome rental spaces available
in this City would, in the absence of space rent regulation, allow for an unconscionable loss of the resale
value of mobilehomes by existing mobilehome park residents.
D. The City Council further finds that mobilehomes comprise a significant form of housing
available within the City of Chula Vista and can be a more affordable housing choice than aparbnents or
single-family homes. The City Council finds that the supply of both mobilehome spaces and mobilehomes
available for rent is not adequate to meet the demand, and that as a result, the limited supply of such spaces
and mobilehomes contributes to escalating rents in a manner that would, in the absence of regulation, result
in the elimination of mobilehomes as a source of affordable housing.
E. The City Council further finds that there exists serious health and safety issues in some
mobilehome parks within this City which constitute violations of the City's Municipal Code and/or State
law. The City Council finds that increases in rents in excess of the annual permissive rent increase for parks
where there exists such serious violations would, in the absence of regulation, allow for an unconscionable
benefit to the park owner to the detriment of the health, safety, and welfare of mobilehome residents. As
more fully set forth in Section 9.50.079 of this Chapter, the City Council finds that the provisions of this
Chapter will promote and require a minimal level of health and safety conditions in those mobilehome
parks seeking rent increases in excess of the annual permissive rent increase while also allowing park
owners sufficient time and revenue to meet these minimal requirements.
2
F. The City Council further finds that, because mobilehome parks generally have costs of
operation which are considerably less than total gross income, it is not necessary to allow an automatic 100%
Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual rent increase in order for mobilehome park owners to be able to
maintain a fair, just, and reasonable rent. A number of cities in California do, in fact, limit annual rent
increases without a review or hearing by the City, to .75 times the CPI and/or provide a maximum
allowable rent increase. Therefore, it is appropriate to require justification for any rent increase in excess of
the annual permissive rent increase as set forth in this Chapter.
9.50.005 Purpose.
A. The City Council intends by this Chapter to create a process to protect both mobilehome
park owners and mobilehome park residents from excessive and unconscionable rent increases while
simultaneously recognizing and providing for the need of mobilehome park owners to receive a just and
reasonable return on their property.
B. The City Council intends by this Chapter: (1) to prevent existing mobiIehome owners, who
are rendered largely incapable of moving their mobilehomes without suffering a substantial loss in their
value, from loss of their investment and the resale value of their mobilehomes due to the fact that a new
mobilehome resident is being charged excessive rents; (2) to protect and promote the availability of
mobilehomes as a source of affordable housing; and (3) to encourage compliance with code requirements, to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare of mobilehome park residents, and to provide for a fair return
on the park owners' investment so that compliance with code requirements are financially feasible in such
circumstances where a rent increase in excess of the annual permissive rent increase is proposed.
C. The City Council intends for the procedures contained in this Chapter to provide a
mechanism for the resolution of disputed increases in rents by making it advantageous for mobilehome
park residents and mobilehome park owners to establish a better understanding of each other's positions
which will result in agreement on the amount of rent to be charged. The procedures of the ordinance are
established with the intent that they be accomplished in a timely fashion. The participating parties shall
commit to the goal that the entire dispute resolution process be completed within one hundred twenty (120)
days following receipt of a disputed notice of rent increase.
9.50.010 Definitions.
Words used in this chapter shall have the meaning described to them in this section:
A. "Mobilehome" is a structure designed for human habitation and for being moved on a street or
highway under permit pursuant to Section 35790 of the California Vehicle Code. As used in this
Chapter, "mobilehome" has the same meaning as California Civil Code section 798.3.
B. "Mobilehome space" means a portion of a mobilehome park designated or used for the
occupancy of one mobilehome.
C. "Mobilehome Park" or "Park" is an area of land where two or more mobilehomes or mobilehome
spaces are rented, or held out for rent, to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation.
D. "Mobilehome park owner" or "Owner" means and includes the owner, lessor, operator, or
manager of a mobilehome park.
3
E. "Mobilehome owner" means a person who owns a mobilehome which is legally located in a
mobilehome space within a mobilehome park in the City of Chula Vista.
F. "Mobilehome resident" or "Resident" means a person who occupies a mobilehome in a
mobilehome park in the City of Chula Vista as a primary residence by virtue of having a rental
agreement. "Mobilehome resident" or "Resident" is inclusive of a mobilehome owner.
G. "Rent" means the consideration, including any bonus, benefit or gratuity, demanded or received
in connection with the use and occupancy of a mobilehome or mobilehome space in a
mobilehome park, including services, or in connection with the transfer of a lease for a mobile
space or the subleasing of a mobilehome space. "Rent" shall not include amounts paid by
residents for such separately metered utilities or services, as provided in California Civil Code
section 798.41, or any separate charge for those fees, assessments or costs which may be charged
to mobilehome residents pursuant to the California Civil Code.
H. "Dispute" or "Controversy" means a disagreement or difference which is subject to the resolution
process described in this chapter.
1. "Consumer Price Index" or "CPI" means the All Urban Consumers/All Items component of the
San Diego Metropolitan Area U (broader base) Consumer Price Index prepared by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
J. "Mobilehome Rent Review Commission" means the advisory body established by Chula Vista
Municipal Code 2.31 to provide an independent review of rent increase disputes in mobilehome
parks.
(Ord 2551 §1 (part), 1993; Ord 2451 §4, 1991; Ord 2306 §1 (part), 1989; Ord 2163 §4, 1986; Ord 1997 §1 (part),
1982; Ord 2737 §1 (part), 1998).
9.50.012 General Applicability and Exemptions.
This chapter shall apply to all mobilehome parks, mobilehome park owners, mobilehome residents and
mobilehomes in mobilehome parks within the City of Chula Vista, unless otherwise exempted by state law or
the provisions of this Chapter.
This chapter shall not apply to leases for a term exceeding one year which are exempted by California
Civil Code Section 798.17, so long as such leases contain all the required provisions for exemption, including a
statement in the first sentence of the first paragraph, in at least 12 point type or capital letters, giving notice to
the mobilehome resident that, by entering into the lease, the rent control provisions of this ordinance will be
automatically superseded by the lease provisions regarding rent and rent increases.
This chapter shall not apply to a mobilehome park if the rents that may be charged for spaces thereat are
regulated pursuant to an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista under the
authority of Section 33334.2 through 33334.4, inclusive, of the California Health and Safety Code, for such
period of time as the agreement is in effect. (Ord 2551, §1 (part), 1993; Ord 2451 §3, 1991; Ord 2306 §1 (part),
1989; Ord 2282 §2, 1988; Ord 2163 §1, §2, 1986; Ord 1997 §1 (part), 1982).
4
9.50.015 Applicability to Recreational Vehicles.
This Chapter applies to owners/occupants of recreational vehicles as defined in California Civil Code
Section 799.29 where the recreational vehicle owner/occupant has been in residency for nine or more
consecutive months. Notwithstanding the above, this chapter shall not be applicable to recreational vehicles
residing in parks operated as recreational vehicle parks, where the predominant number of spaces are
occupied for less than nine months.
(Ord 2551, §1 (part), 1993; Ord 2306 §1 (part), 1989; Ord 2282 §2, 1988; Ord 2227 §1, 1987; Ord 2737 §1
9.50.020 Legal Requirements and Procedures Created.
This chapter creates legal requirements and procedures which must be followed when rent is increased
in mobilehome parks. In the event a mobilehome park owner increases rent without complying with the
provisions of this chapter, including, but not limited to providing the required notice, the park owner may be
held accountable for such failure through criminal, civil and administrative action in accordance with Sections
9.50.0100 and 9.50.102 of this chapter. A park owner who willfully and improperly collects rent shall be subject
to repayment of up to three times the amount of rent improperly collected, after a hearing before the
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission, or in a civil action brought by a mobilehome resident.
(Section repealed by Ord 2306 §1, 1989; Ord 2282 §2, 1988; Ord 2163 §3, 1986; Ord 1997 §1 (part), 1982; Ord
2737 §1 (part), 1998).
9.50.030 Moved to 9.50.010.
9.50.040 Negotiation Commission-Membership.
(Section repealed by Ord 2306 §1 (part), 1989; Ord 2291 §1, 1989; 2282 §2, 1988; Ord 2163 §5, 1986; Ord
1997 §1 (part), 1982).
9.50.050 Annual Permissive Rent Increases and Notices of CPI. (Previously known as 9.50.068)
A. Rents for mobilehome residents may be increased automatically and only once in a calendar year by
no more than the percentage change in the CPI, when the CPI is three percent (3%) or less, and 75
percent of that change in the CPl above three percent (3%) to be known as the "aIU1Ual permissive"
rent increase. The park owner or their agent shall use the cpr in effect at the time such notice of
increase in rents is served on residents, as provided in the notice of current CPl mailed to each park
owner or their agent by the Community Development Department. Calculation of the one-year
limitation on rent increases shall be from the date the last increase became effective for that particular
space or mobilehome.
B. The Community Development Department shall mail to each park owner or their agent the applicable
CPl to be used for the rent increases as soon as the Community Development Department receives the
CPl from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPI is published twice each year by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Park owners shall use the CPI furnished to them by the Community Development
Department as controlling the maximum potential rent increase without a need for a hearing, and may
5
not deviate from the CPI until the park owner receives written notification from the Community
Development Department that the CPI has changed. The park owner shall post, in a prominent place,
the notification from the Community Development Department so that all residents are aware of the
applicable CPI.
C. Should a mobilehome resident feel that a proposed rent increase is in violation of this Chapter, the
resident may provide written notice to the park owner of such rent dispute. Within ten calendar days
of the written notice, the park owner shall meet with the resident to discuss this dispute. This meeting
shall be held at a mutually convenient time and place, preferably at the mobilehome park.
Additionally, within 30 days of receiving written notice from the resident of a rent dispute, the park
owner shall provide the resident with a written response addressing such dispute.
If the resident is unable to satisfactorily resolve such rent dispute, the resident may file with the
Community Development Department of the City a complaint alleging the mobilehome park's
violation of the rent increase provisions of this Chapter. Such complaint must include documentation
or other information which provides compelling evidence of such violation and submitted within
fourteen days of receiving the park owner's written response addressing the dispute. The City, at its
sole discretion and after review of the complaint and supporting documentation, will determine the
necessity to audit the rent for the affected space in order to verify compliance with this Chapter.
Should the City determine that an audit is necessary, the City shall notify the park owner in writing of
their determination, request written verification of the rent charged for the affected space for the last
three years, and provide the park owner with a copy of the complaint. Within fourteen days after
delivery of said notice from the City, the park owner or their agent shall mail (Us. Postal Mail Service,
return receipt requested) to the Community Development Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula
Vista, CA 91910, written verification of the space rent charged for the affected space for the previous
three years, such as copies of rent statements. Failure to provide the Community Development
Department with the requested space rent information or knowingly submitting incorrect information
shall be considered a violation of this Chapter.(Ord 2566 §3, 1993; Ord 2737 §1 (part) 1998).
9.50.060 Powers of a negotiation Commission.
(Section repealed by Ord 2306 §1 (part), 1989; Ord 2282 §2, 1988; Ord 2163 §7, 1986; Ord 1997 §1 (part),
1982).
9.50.063 Rent Increase Above the Annual Permissive Rent Increase. (Previously known as 9.50.065)
A. In any situation where a mobilehome park owner wishes to increase the rent above the annual
permissive rent increase as set forth in Section 9.50.050, he or she must first give notice to affected
residents, at the same time the ninety day notice required by Civil Code Section 798.30 is given.
The Notice of a Rent Increase in Excess of the Annual Permissive Rent Increase shall be in substantially
the form prescribed in Appendix One of this Chapter.
B. If the residents within the affected mobilehome park have established an on-site representative body and
notify the owner in writing of its existence, a copy of the rent increase notice must be sent to the
chairperson of that body.
6
C. A copy of the rent increase notice shall be mailed (US. Postal Mail Service, return receipt requested) at
the same time as issuance of the notice to residents to both the Community Development Department
and Plannmg and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista at the addresses identified herein for
each of the designated Departments.
City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Housing Manager
City of Chula Vista
Plannmg and Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Assistant Director/Building Official
D. The rent increase notice must contain the space numbers of all residents who are subject to a increase
which is above the arumal permissive rent increase set forth in Section 9.50.050.
(Ord 2566, §1 (part) 1993; Ord 2451 §6, 1991; Ord 2306 §1 (part), 1989; Ord 2737 §1 (part), 1998).
9.50,064 Owner Meetings and Possible Voluntary Negotiations.
Within ten days after service of a notice of increase, as provided in Section 9.50.063 and 9.50.077, the park
owner shall hold an informal meeting for the benefit of the affected residents to discuss the increase. It is
hoped that such a meeting may lead to voluntary settlement of the dispute.
The meeting should be set for a time and date believed to be convenient for residents and may be
changed to a different date based on the reasonable request of the majority of affected residents.
If a resident does not attend this meeting or is not represented by someone, he or she shall have no right
to a hearing but may rely on other residents of the mobilehome park to cause a public hearing to be scheduled.
The decision of the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission shall be applicable to all affected homeowners.
In the event that more than fifty percent of the resident(s) and park owner reach a voluntary written
agreement of the increase in space rent, the rent shall be fixed as specified in Section 9.50.075. Should the
affected resident(s) and the park owner be unable to reach a voluntary settlement of the dispute in the
increase in space rent, the resident shall be entitled to file a "Request for Hearing" form as permitted in
Section 9.50.066 and 9.50.070.
(Ord 2551 §1 (part), 1993; Ord 2451 §5, 1991; Ord 2306 §1 (part), 1989; Ord 2282 §2, 1988; Ord 2163 §6, 1986; Ord
1997 §1 (part), 1982; Ord 2737 §1 (part), 1998).
9.50.065 Moved to 9.50.063
7
9.50,066 Request for Hearing Form
Mobilehome residents shall have a right to file for a hearing and determination by the Mobilehome
Rent Review Commission of rent increases in excess of the annual permissive rent increase. To file for such
a hearing, a resident must deliver the Request for Hearing form to the City's Community Development
Deparhnent within thirty days of the delivery of "Notice of Rent Increase in Excess of the Annual Permissive
Rent Increase" from the park owner or their agent.
The Request for hearing shall be in substantively the form prescribed in Appendix One of this Chapter.
9.50.067 Moved to 9.50.077.
9.50.068 Moved to 9.50.040.
9.50.070 Initiation of Space Rent Review.
If a rent dispute cannot be resolved at a meeting with a park owner, a resident may initiate a rent review
by the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission by filing a Request for Hearing with the Community
Development Department, in the form prescribed in Section 9.50.066.
Upon the filing of a Request for Hearing in accordance with this Chapter, the City Community
Development Deparhnent shall notify the chairperson of the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission of such
request, who shall schedule a hearing on the matter within 30 days after the date of receipt of such request or
as soon thereafter as practical. The City shall send written notice to the park owner and the resident(s) filing
such request for hearing of the time and place set for the hearing. The hearing will be noticed and held in a
manner that provides due process to all affected parties. Should such hearing affect more than fifty percent of
those spaces at the mobilehome park, the park owner or their agent shall post in a conspicuous place within
the mobilehome park a copy of the written notice of the hearing.
(Ord 2566 §4 (part), 1993; Ord 2451 §7, 1991; Ord 2227 §2, 1987; Ord 2737 §1 (part), 1998).
9.50.073 Factors to Consider in Fixing Space Rent Through the Hearing Process.
If a proposed rental increase is submitted to the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission
("Commission") pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the Commission shall determine the rent that is
fair, just and reasonable, and, in doing so, shall consider the factors listed below. The Commission has the
authority to request information and/ or documentation related to these factors that will assist them in making
such determination. The Community Development Deparhnent and/or their designee shall review all
evidence to be presented to the Commission for their consideration. The Commission's decision shall be
based on the preponderance of the evidence at the hearing. The Commission shall consider the following
factors:
A. The need for the proposed rental increase in order to permit the owner to secure a fair and reasonable
return, when considering the existing rental scheme for all spaces in the park and all existing or expected
expenses in owning and operating the park. A fair and reasonable return may be determined by the
Commission by reference to industry standards, risk of inveshnent, or other acceptable standards.
8
1. In considering the existing or expected expenses in owning and operating the park in following
prudent business practices, the Commission should consider the following or any similar or related
items of expense, the reasonableness of such items, and changes to them:
a. Actual financial investment in park improvements.
b. Property or other taxes.
c. Mortgage or ground rent payments.
d. Utility costs.
e. Capital improvements or rehabilitation work.
f. Repairs required.
g. Other operating and maintenance costs. Operating costs shall not include the following:
i. Avoidable and unnecessary expenses, including refinancing costs;
ii. Any penalty, fees or other interest assessed or awarded for violation of this or any
other law;
iii. Legal fees, except legal fees incurred in connection with successful good-faith
attempts to recover rents owing, and successful good-faith unlawful detainer actions
not in derogation of applicable law, to the extent same are not recovered from
residents.
iv. Depreciation of the property.
v. Any expense for which the park owner has been reimbursed by any security deposit,
insurance settlement, judgment for damages, settlement or any other method. Cost
of replacement or repair incurred or necessary as a result of the park owner's
negligence or failure to maintain, including costs to correct serious code violations at
the park.
2. In considering the existing or expected income from owning and operating the park, the
Commission should consider the rent schedule for all spaces in the park and any similar or related
items verifying income for the mobilehome park for the last three years, the reasonableness of such
items, and changes to them.
B. Rate of return earned by the park owner in previous years as determined by a fair market appraisal
conducted by a Member Appraisal Institute (MAl) appraiser mutually agreed upon by the City and
the park owner and at the park owner's expense. The City and/or the park owner may also
independently obtain a fair market appraisal by a MAl appraiser at their own expense.
C. The extent to which the proposed rental increase will cause a reduction in the resale value of the
mobilehome.
D. Changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers in the San Diego Metropolitan Area
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
E. Fair market rental value as determined by "comparables" of similar and existing mobilehome spaces or
mobilehomes in the South Bay area of San Diego County, including those in Chula Vista, as determined
by an appraiser mutually agreed upon by the City and the park owner and at the park owner's
expense.
F. The timing and amount of rents and increases for this and other spaces at the mobilehome park.
9
G. The quantity and quality of the improvements and features at the mobilehome park and any decrease or
increase in such improvements and features.
H. The quantity and quality of services offered to park residents and any decrease or increase in such
improvements and features.
(Ord 2551 §1 (part), 1993; Ord 2737 §1 (part), 1998).
9.50.075 Fixing of Space Rent in Excess of the Permissive Rent Increase.
The rent on any particular mobilehome space shall be fixed as established herein. Any determination of
fair, just, and reasonable rent determined by the Commission shall not be applicable to those spaces exempt
from this Chapter nor to those spaces not covered by the written notice of an increase in rent.
A. In the event that the resident and an owner reach agreement as to the space rent in excess of the annual
permissive rent increase for that calendar year, with or without the benefit of a Commission hearing, the
rent shall be fixed at the agreed upon rent at such time as the agreement is reached unless the agreement
provides for a different effective date.
R. In the event that the resident and an owner do not reach agreement, and the rent has been established by
the Commission according to the procedures herein established, the rent shall be fixed at the rental rate
so established by the Commission as of the date of the Commission's decision, or ninety days after the
resident's original receipt of the Notice of Rent Increase, whichever is later, unless the Commission shall
fix a different date.
C. Consistent with its findings, the Commission may:
1. Permit the requested increase which is in excess of the annual permissive rent
increase to become effective in whole or in part; or
2. Deny the increase which is in excess of the annual permissive rent increase.
However, the Commission may not set the rent lower than the pre-existing rent or higher than the
amount contained in the Notice of Rent Increase in excess of the annual permissive rent increase.
D. Unilateral Refusal to Participate in the Hearing Process. In the event the Commission finds that the
resident or owner has failed or refused to, in good faith, follow the procedure herein fixed for the
establishment of rent, which may include but not be limited to refusal to attend noticed hearings or
failure to provide a copy of all rent increase notices to residents, then the Commission shall fix the rent
as follows:
1. If the resident has failed or refused to follow the procedures herein fixed for the establishment of
rent, then the rent shall be fixed at the rental rate contained in the Notice of Rent Increase in Excess
of the Annual Permissive Rent Increase.
2. If the owner has failed or refused in good faith to follow the procedures herein fixed for the
establishment of rent, then the rent shall be fixed at the annual permissive rent increase.
E. Waiver of Fixed Rent. Notwithstanding the aforementioned manner in which the rent shall be fixed, a
refusal or failure, accompanied with the knowingly improper assertion that a greater rental is due by the
owner or his or her agent, to accept a rent payment from a resident in an amount which is equal to or
10
greater than the rent fixed by Subsections A, B or C of this Section shall constitute a waiver by the owner
of the right to collect said rent, in its entirety, for the rental period for which the rent was refused, unless
the tenant consents, in writing, to waive the provisions of this Subsection.
F. All parties to the hearing shall be advised of the Commission's decision and be given a copy of the
findings upon which the decision is based. The conclusions and findings of the Commission shall be
final. Any party disputing the final conclusions and findings of the Commission may seek review of
the Commission's actions pursuant to Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure.
(Ord 2566, §5 (part) 1993; Ord 2551 §1 (part), 1993; Ord 2737 §1 (part),1998).
9.50.076 New and Prospective Mobilehome Residents; Transfers of Mobilehomes.
A. Prior to or at the time of agreeing to rent to a new or prospective mobilehome resident in a
mobilehome park, the park owner or their agent shall provide the new or prospective mobilehome
resident with a copy of the disclosure as specified in Section 9.50.085 of this Chapter, a copy of any
notice of rent increase, and a copy of this Chapter as currently in force.
B. The park owner must follow all procedures and requirements for disclosure and noticing of rent
increases in excess of the CPI as set forth in this Chapter.
C. Park owners must comply with the provisions of California Civil Code 798.70 et seq. related to
transfers of mobilehomes, including the provisions of Civil Code Sections 798.75 and 798.75.5.
9.50.077 Vacancies and Rents Upon Change of Mobilehome Ownership.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, the mobilehome park owner may increase
space rent in the event of a space vacancy or a change of ownership of a mobilehome which will remain on
its current space in accordance with the following:
A. In the event that a space becomes vacant, that is, with no mobilehome in place, a park owner may
adjust the space rent without regard to the provisions of this Chapter.
B. If a mobilehome changes ownership but remains on the same space within the mobilehome park, the
park owner may propose an increase in the space rent subject to the noticing requirements contained
herein. However, no rent increase may be charged upon change of ownership by reason of interspousal
transfers.
C. This increase is in addition to the annual permissive rent increase as set forth in Section 9.50.050 and is
not subject to the once-a-year limitation of Section 9.50.050 A.
D. After an increase under this Section, further rent increases shall be governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.
E. Should a current mobilehome owner desire to sell his or her mobilehome and such mobilehome will
remain within the mobilehome park, the mobilehome owner must provide a written notice to the park
owner or their agent of his or her intent to sell. Within 15 days of the receipt of a written notice of the
11
current mobilehome owner's intent to sell the mobilehome, the park owner or their agent shall provide
a written statement as to the rental rate to be offered to the new or prospective mobilehome owner and
if an increase in the existing rental rate is proposed, the corresponding percentage of the increase in
rent. Both the current mobilehome owner and the park owner or their agent shall provide all new or
prospective mobilehome owners with a copy of such written statement of the rental rate.
Should no offer to purchase the mobilehome be accepted within six months of the written statement of
the rental rate to be offered to the new or prospective mobilehome owner, the park owner or their
agent may provide a revised written statement of the rental rate to be offered and whether such rental
rate is in excess of the annual increase in the applicable Cpr. Such written statement can be revised by
the park owner or their agent every six months thereafter and shall be immediately provided to the
current mobilehome owner.
Upon acceptance of art offer to purchase a mobilehome, the outgoing mobilehome owner shall
immediately provide written notice to the park owner or their agent of the pending sale of the
mobilehome and an address at which the new mobilehome owner may be contacted. The park owner
shall provide to the new mobilehome owner a written statement as to the rental rate to be offered and
if an increase in the existing rental rate is proposed, the corresponding percentage of increase in rent
within 15 days of receiving written notice of the pending sale of a mobilehome. The park owner shall
also provide the new mobilehome owner with any other document required by California Civil Code
section 798.75(a).
The park owner or their agent shall provide a copy of each written statement of rent provided to both
the current and new mobilehome owner to the City of Chula Vista Community Development
Department at the same time as issuance of the notice to the current and new mobilehome owner. The
copy of the rent increase notice shall be mailed (U.s. Postal Mail Service return receipt requested) to
the Community Development Department of the City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
CA 91910. If the residents within the affected mobilehome park have established a representative
body and notified the owner in writing of its existence, a copy of each rent increase notice must be sent
to the chairperson of that body.
Where an increase in rent to the new or prospective mobilehome owner is proposed and results in a
total rent increase in the calendar year above the annual permissive as provided in Section 9.50.050,
the following additional noticing requirements and review process shall apply:
1. The park owner or their agent shall provide the current owner and the new or prospective
mobilehome owner with a Notice of Rent Increase in Excess of the Annual Permissive Rent
Increase Upon Change of Ownership in substantially the form prescribed in Appendix One of
this Chapter. Such written statement of the rental rate to be offered shall contain a place for the
outgoing mobilehome owner to acknowledge receipt of the statement of rent. The notice
provided to the new or prospective mobilehome owner shall also state whether the current
mobilehome owner completed the hearing process or reached agreement as to the increase if
the rental rate is proposed to increase in an amount greater than the annual permissive.
2. Either the current or new mobilehome owner shall have the right to a hearing and decision
regarding the increase under the provisions of Sections 9.50.066, 9.50.070 and 9.50.073. A
Request for Hearing Form must be filed within thirty days after receipt of the written
statement of rental rate in substantially the form prescribed in Appendix One.
12
9.50.078 Right to Mediate Mobilehome Resale Price.
A. In line with the purpose of this chapter to maintain a supply of affordable housing in the mobilehome
market, it is the goal and objective of the City that a current mobilehome owner should not be able to
command, due to limited mobilehome space availability, a higher price for a mobilehome upon sale due
to the fact that the rent is regulated by the provisions of this chapter. The City Council finds that there
is currently no evidence that overcharging for mobilehomes is a significant problem in Chula Vista, and
that it has little, if any, significant effect on the supply of affordable housing in the City of Chula Vista,
so as to require mobilehome resale price regulation by the City. The City Council finds that this is due,
in part, to the annual permissive rent increases provided in this Chapter. The City Council further
finds that if, after time, it appears that the mediation process offered by this section is inadequate to
address any potential problem with overcharging, it may reconsider more stringent control over
mobilehome overcharging in the future.
B. The park owner shall post the following notice in a prominent place, in the on-site office:
NOTICE OF THE RICill TO MEDIATE THE PURCHASE PRICE OF MOBILEHOME
In addition to the right to a hearing on an increase in rent above the applicable CPI, a
potential purchaser of a mobilehome has the right to mediate the purchase price of a
mobilehome, if you contend that the purchase price is higher because of rent regulation,
then the purchase price might ordinary be without rent regulation.
In order to submit the purchase price dispute, based solely on the grounds than the
purchase price is more than would ordinarily be without rent regulation, between
yourself and your potential seller to the Chula Vista Mobilehome Rent Review
Commission for non-binding mediation your must:
1. Extend an offer to purchase the mobilehome, but not execute an agreement to
purchase;
2. Sign and file with the community development director the form requesting mediation
prior to executing a purchase agreement; and,
3. Participate in the mediation process provided by the Mobilehome Rent Review
Commission.
C. If, prior to executing a mobilehome purchase agreement, the new or prospective mobilehome resident
contends that the price at which the mobilehome is offered by the current mobilehome owner is higher
because of rent regulation than the price of the mobilehome without rent regulation, the new or
prospective mobilehome owner has the right, upon tender to the seller of an offer to purchase the
mobilehome at a price acceptable to the new or incoming mobilehome owner, to submit the price
dispute to the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission for mediation.
D. Upon submittal of the price dispute to the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission by the new or
prospective mobilehome owner, the Commission shall convene as soon as practical to hear the dispute,
not sooner than 10 days notice to the buyer and seller of the time and place at which the mediation shall
occur. If the Seller fails to appear, the Commission should hear the complaint and evidence of the new
or prospective mobilehome owner for the purpose of creating a record of such abuses, if any. However,
the Commission shall have no power to set the resale price of a mobilehome with or without the
presence of the parties.
13
E. The purpose of the mediation, and the sole jurisdiction of the Commission in the mediation, is to get the
parties to agree, if possible, to a price which reflects the value of the mobilehome as if the rents in the
park were not regulated by this chapter.
(Ord 2566, §6 (part) 1993; Ord 2551 §1 (part), 1993; Ord 2737 §1 (part), 1998).
9.50.079 Findings Regarding Serious Code Violations.
A. The City Council finds that there currently exists serious health and safety issues in certain
mobilehome parks within the City. These health and safety issues are particularly acute in the older trailer
parks in the City. In order to establish a minimal level of health and safety standards which must exist in all
mobilehome parks prior to any rent increase in excess of the annual permissive rent increase, the City
Council finds that the violations listed in Appendix Two constitute serious code violations which may not
exist within a mobilehome park at the time of the proposed rent increase.
B. The City Council further finds that the provisions of this Chapter provide for a sufficient
return on investment and allow for a sufficient period of time to allow park owners to meet the minimal
health and safety standards set forth herein. The City Council finds that adoption of this Chapter does not
constitute an action or inaction by the City which will result in the closure, cessation or change of use of a
mobilehome park. Except in these cases where the City Council, in its discretion, decides not to renew a
conditional use permit or zoning variance as provided for in Government Code section 65863.7(i), the City
Council finds that any closure, cessation or change in use of a mobilehome park occurring after the adoption
of this Chapter is the result of the decision of the park owner, and, prior to any such closure, cessation or
change in use, the mobilehome park owner must comply with the provisions of Government Code sections
65863.7 and 65863.8 as well as the provisions of the City's conversion ordinance, Chapter 9.40 of the
Municipal Code.
9.50.080 Notice of Serious Code Violations.
In the event a park owner wishes to increase space rents in excess of the Annual Permissive Rent
Increase, he or she must first give notice to affected residents in compliance with the notice requirements
contained in Section 9.50.063. The Notice of a Rent Increase in Excess of the Annual Permissive Rent Increase
shall be in substantially the form prescribed in Appendix One of this Chapter and shall include information
regarding a review for serious code violations.
The park owner shall post, in a prominent place, copy of Appendix Two of this Chapter so that all
residents are aware of those code violations which may create serious health, safety, and welfare problems.
Failure to maintain a posted copy of Appendix Two, or failure to provide the notice required below in
connection with any proposed space rent increase shall constitute a violation of this chapter.
The requirements of this Section are not applicable to those rent increases upon a change in ownership
of a mobilehome to remain in the park.
14
9.50.081 Proposed Space Rent Increases at a Time When There Exist Serious Code Violations at
Park.
The City Council finds that at times residents in parks have alleged that their rents are being
increased, even though the park is in a state where serious code violations which affect the health, safety,
and welfare of the residents exist. The City Council further finds that park owners should be required to
operate and maintain their parks in substantial compliance with applicable codes and particularly in a
manner which is not hazardous to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. Therefore, in order to
encourage compliance with code requirements and to protect the health, safety and welfare of park
residents, the City Council finds that it is necessary and appropriate to establish a process to limit or
prohibit increases in rents which are above the annual permissive rent increase unless and until it has been
reasonably determined by City staff that no serious code violations as listed in Appendix Two hereto exist at
the park which would be hazardous to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents.
Therefore, in a situation where a mobilehome park owner wishes to increase the rent in excess of the
annual permissive rent increase, the City's Planning and Building Department shall schedule an inspection
of the subject mobilehome park consistent with Appendix Two within twenty-one (21) calendar days of
receiving a notice of such rent increase. Subject to staffing limitations, City staff will make a determination
within 30 calendar days of the inspection of the subject mobilehome park as to whether or not a serious
violation or violations exist within the park and whether it or they do adversely affect the health, safety, and
general welfare of residents. The notice of such determination shall be provided to any homeowners
association at the park, which is registered with the Community Development Department, and to the park
owner. The park owner may meet with City staff to discuss the violation(s) determined to exist and possible
actions needed to cure such violation(s).
If a serious violation as specified above is determined to exist, the park owner may cure the
violation, in which case the rent increase will become effective upon such cure, after the 90 days as specified
in the notice of rent increase, or upon fixing of the space rents by the Commission whichever date or event
last occurs and in compliance with Section 9.50.063. The park owner will receive written notification from
the City of the cure of any such serious violation as determined by City staff. In the alternative, the matter
of any alleged code violation shall be considered as part of the hearing process on the proposed increase or
the park owner may request a hearing before the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission on the matter of
the alleged violation's relation to the proposed rent increase. The Commission may take into consideration
any code violation which has not been resolved, in determining to what extent a rent increase, if any, should
be allowed. After making such determination, the Commission shall fix the rent as provided for in Section
9.50.082 of this Chapter.
It is not the intent of this section to delay rent increases, but to attempt to resolve serious code
violations during the 90 day period required by State law prior to the effective date of any rent increase.
This Section does not limit or preclude the City from proceeding in accordance with all applicable laws
against a park owner if it is found that a violation of code exists at the park. Furthermore, any review of
the specific code violations listed in Appendix Two is not intended to substitute for the comprehensive
inspection program for mobilehomejtrailer parks administered by the Planning and Building Department
in compliance with Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations.
15
9.50.082 Denial or Partial Reduction of Rent Increases Based Upon Code Violations.
The violations which may result in a denial or reduction in any proposed rent increase which is in
excess of the annual permissive rent increase are limited to those listed in Appendix Two. Each year, the
Community Development Department shall send a copy of Appendix Two to each park for posting in a
Common area as required above. Violations listed in Appendix Two hereto may be modified from time to
time by the City Manager without necessity of additional ordinance by the City Council.
In making a determination regarding whether to permit that rent increase which is in excess of the
annual permissive rent increase when serious code violations exist, the Commission and City staff shall
have the discretion to work with a park owner to bring a park into compliance over a period of time. If a
park owner contends that immediate compliance would result in the immediate closure of a park, the
Commission and City staff shall consider this contention and address the issues of compliance on a case-by-
case basis. However, the City Council finds that compliance with the minimal health and safety standards
provided for herein will not result in such closures.
9.50.085 Compliance with Law and Posting and Disclosure Requirements. (Previously known as
9.50.012)
Every mobilehome park owner shall comply with the provisions of the Mobilehome Residency Law
(Chapter 2.5, Section 798 of the California Civil Code), and the provisions of this Chapter. Also, a copy of
the Mobilehome Residency Law and this Chapter shall be prominently posted in a common area of each
park's premises at all times.
In addition, the information contained in the disclosure below shall be provided as follows: (1)
when a mobilehome in a park is to be sold and it will remain in the park, the seller shall show the disclosure
to all potential buyers; (2) the park owner will provide a copy of the disclosure to a buyer of a mobilehome
that will remain in the park prior to signing of a rental/lease agreement; and, (3) a copy of the disclosure
acknowledged by the buyer shall be an addendum to every rental agreement.
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.50 DISCLOSURE
Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 9.50, Mobilehome Park Space Rent
Review, governs all mobilehome park spaces for leases of 12 months or less.
For leases of more than 12 months, Chapter 9.50 does not apply, per Section
9.50.012 and State law.
Chapter 9.50 generally applies to, but is not limited to, rent control measures.
Of particular interest is Section 9.50.063, which details the noticing
requirements for increases in space rent upon a change in ownership of a
mobilehome that is to remain within the park, whether or not the increase is
in excess of the annual permissive rent increase.
If the cumulative annual increase is greater than the applicable change in the
CPI, when the CPI is three percent (3 % ) or less, and 75 percent of that change
in the CPI above three percent (3 %), then the new or prospective mobilehome
owner (buyer) or the current mobilehome owner (seller) has the right to
request a hearing from the Chula Vista Mobilehome Rent Review
Commission. for enforcement of Chapter 9.50. For the purposes of this
16
paragraph "cumulative annual increase" means the total rent increase for the
space within the past year. For example, if the annual permissive rent
increase is four percent, but the rent was increased less than four percent, the
park owner may require an additional rent increase up to the total four
percent without becoming subject to the right to appeal provisions of the
Mobilehome Park Space Rent Review Ordinance. This hearing must be
requested within 30 days of receiving such written statement by submitting a
Request for Hearing Form the City of Chula Vista Community Development
Department, the address of which is listed below.
A copy of the Mobilehome Rent Review Ordinance is available at the City of
Chula Vista, Community Development Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910 or one can be obtained from park management.
Acknowledgment:
Signature: Date:
Name"
9.50.087 Implementation Guidelines.
After a noticed public hearing, as it deems necessary, the Commission may adopt guidelines or
regulations to aid in the implementation of this Chapter and to assure a fair hearing process.
9.50.090 Mobilehome Resident's Right of Refusal.
A mobilehome resident may refuse to pay any increase in rent which is in violation of this Chapter.
Such refusal to pay shall be a defense in any action brought to recover possession of a mobilehome space or
to collect a rent increase.
9.50.092 Retaliatory Eviction.
In any action brought to recover possession of a mobilehome or mobilehome space, the court shall
consider as grounds for denial any violation of any provision of this Chapter. Further, the determination
that the action was brought in retaliation for the exercise of any rights conferred by this Chapter shall be
grounds for denial.
9.50.078 Criminal Acts.
(Section repealed by Ord § ,2001)
9.50.095 Mediation of negotiation commissioner's decision. (Previously known as 9.50.080)
(Section repealed by Ord 2282 §2, 1988; Ord 2163 §9, 1986; Ord 1997 §1 (part), 1982).
17
9.50.100 Civil and Administrative Remedies. (Previously known as 9.50.081)
A. Civil Action. Any person who demands, accepts, receives or retains any payment of rent in excess of the
maximum rent allowable by this chapter shall be liable in a civil action, including unlawful detainer, to
the person upon whom the demand was made or from whom the rent was accepted in an amount of up
to triple the amount of such improperly collected rent, and for such reasonable attomey's fees and costs
as may be determined by the court.
B. Administrative Action. In the event any owner is determined, after a duly noticed hearing by the
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission, to have willfully and improperly collected rents or other fees or
charges, the Commission may, on the basis of evidence received at such hearing supporting a
determination that such rents, fees or charges were willfully and improperly collected, require a
reduction in rent or a reimbursement of such improperly collected rents, fees, or charges, in an amount
of up to triple the amount of such improperly collected rents, fees or charges.
(Ord 2551 §1 (part), 1993; Ord 2737 §1 (part), 1998).
9.50.102 Criminal Remedies. (Previously known as 9.50.083)
Any person committing a violation of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person convicted of
a misdemeanor under the provisions of this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than a $1,000 or by
imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six (6) months in jail or by both such fine or imprisonment. The
following nonexclusive acts, without limitation due to enumeration, shall constitute a criminal violation of
this Chapter, including the owner of a park if done by an owner's agent with the knowledge or consent of
the owner:
A. Knowingly demanding, accepting or retaining any rent in excess of the amount fixed by this
Chapter, including the demanding of rent waived under the provisions of Subsection E of Section 9.50.075,
except that demands for annual increases in rent and negotiations for rent pennitted under this Chapter
shall not be deemed illegal.
B. Knowingly commencing, or threatening to commence, or maintaining an eviction or
unlawful detainer proceeding against a resident for the failure to pay a rent in excess of the amount fixed
pursuant to this Chapter.
(Ord 2551 §1 (part), 1993).
9.50.105 Arbitration. (Previously known as 9.50.085)
(Section repealed by Ord 2306 §1 (part), 1989; Ord 2282 §1, 1988).
9.50.110 Deferral of Rent Increases. (Previously known as 9.50.090)
(Section repealed by Ord 2451 §8, 1991; Ord 2306 §1, 1989; Ord 2282 §2, 1988; Ord 2163 §10, 1986; Ord
1997 §1 (part), 1982).
18
9.50.115 Severability. (Previously known as 9.50.100)
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this chapter is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate and independent provision and such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder. (Ord 2551 §1 (part), 1993; Ord 2163 §11, 1986; Ord 1997
§1 (part), 1982).
9.50.120 Enforcement. (Previously known as 9.50.110)
(Section repealed by Ord 2282 §2, 1988; Ord 2163 §11, 1986; Ord 1997 §1 (part), 1982).
19
SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after
its adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Chris Salomone John M. Kaheny
Director of Community Development City Attorney
20
APPENDIX ONE
NOTICE - RENT INCREASE IN EXCESS
OF THE ANNUAL PERMISSIVE RENT INCREASE
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO REQUEST A HEARING BY
THE MOBILEHOME RENT REVIEW COMMISSION WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS, THIS INCREASE SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY
EFFECTIVE ON (DATE) [Not sooner than
ninety days after date of notice.], EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
SECTION 9.50.079 ET SEQ AND SUBJECT TO THE NOTICING
REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN
This is a notice of a rent increase which exceeds the annual pennissive rent increase as set forth in
Section 9.50.050 of the City of Chula Vista's Municipal Code. An annual rent increase of the
percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the most recent twelve (12) month period,
as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, preceding this notice, when the CPI is three percent
(3%) or less, and 75 percent of that change in the CPI above three percent (3%) is allowed without a
right to a hearing of the Commission. The CPI is - % and the annual permissive rent increase is
_%. This increase is _% of your current rent.
Additionally, this is your notice that Chapter 9.50 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
specifies that rents in excess of the annual permissive rent increase as set forth in Section 9.50.050
cannot be automatically increased for any park when there exists serious violations of applicable
codes, as specifically listed in Appendix Two to Chapter 9.50.
Under the City's Municipal Code, you are entitled to the following rights:
1. Voluntary Meeting. I am required to hold a meeting with the residents to discuss the general
reasons for the increase. The meeting wiII be at [state time (must be within
ten days) and place (should be at mobilehome park)]. Under the City's ordinance, owners and
residents are encouraged to attempt to resolve differences and reach a voluntary agreement
regarding this increase.
2. Right to a Hearing. You have the right to file for a hearing and determination by the
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission by delivering a form as described in Section 9.50.066. You
may file for such hearing only if you or your representative attends the meeting to discuss the
increase. To file for such hearing you must deliver the request for Hearing form to the City's
Community Development Department within thirty days of the date this notice is served on you.
If you are unable to attend the meeting as scheduled, you may elect to send a representative.
Please submit in writing to the park owner and the Community Development Department
notification that you have elected to be represented at such meeting by another party and stating
the name of your representative.
If a resident does not attend this meeting or is not represented by someone, he or she shall have no
right to a hearing but may rely on other residents of the mobilehome park to cause a public
21
hearing to be scheduled. In the event a request for hearing is initiated, the action will include the
rent increase issues with regard to all the affected residents.
3. Review of Serious Code Violations. In order to establish a minimal level of health and safety
standards which must exist in all mobilehome parks prior to any rent increase in excess of the
annual permissive rent increase, the City will conduct an inspection of this mobilehome park in
compliance with the requirements of Section 9.50.079 and based upon Appendix Two. A list of
the specific code violations which apply may be obtained from the office of the Community
Development Department during normal business hours, and is required to be posted in a
common area of each park's premises at all times.
The City will provide notice of its determination as to whether or not a serious violation or
violations exist at the mobilehome park and whether it or they do adversely affect the health,
safety, and general welfare of residents to any homeowners association at the park, which is
registered with the Community Development Department, and to the park owner. It is the
City's intent to attempt to resolve serious code violations during the 90-day period required by
State law prior to the effective date of any rent increase. Sections 9.50.080 does not limit or
preclude the City from proceeding in accordance with all applicable laws against a park owner
if it is found that a violation of code exists at the park.
The following space numbers are subject to this increase: [insert numbers of affected spaces].
If you have questions, or need more information regarding the hearing process or serious code
violations, you can call the City at (619) 585-5722.
Park Owner/Manager Date
22
NOTICE - ANNUAL CUMULATIVE RENT INCREASE
IN EXCESS OF THE ANNUAL PERMISSIVE
UPON CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO REQUEST A HEARING BY
THE MOBILEHOME RENT REVIEW COMMISSION WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS, THIS INCREASE SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY
EFFECTIVE UPON THE SALE OF YOUR MOBILEHOME AND
SUBJECT TO THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED
THEREIN
This is a notice of a rent increase which exceeds the annual permissive rent increase as set forth in
Section 9.50.050 of the City of Chula Vista's Municipal Code. An annual rent increase of the
percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the most recent twelve (12) month period,
as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, preceding this notice, when the CPI is three percent
(3%) or less, and 75 percent of that change in the CPI above three percent (3%) is allowed without a
right to a hearing of the Commission. The CPI is - % and the annual pennissive rent increase is
_%. This increase reflects a cumulative increase for the space of _%.
Under the City's Municipal Code, you are entitled to the following rights:
1. Voluntary Meeting. I am required to hold a meeting with you to discuss the general reasons for
the increase. The meeting will be at [state time (must be within ten days)
and place (should be at mobilehome park)]. Under the City's ordinance, owners and residents
are encouraged to attempt to resolve differences and reach a voluntary agreement regarding this
Increase.
2. Right to a Hearing. You have the right to file for a hearing and detennination by the Mobilehome
Rent Review Commission by delivering a form as described in Section 9.50.066. The current
mobilehome owner has the first right to a hearing on the rental increase, and in the event he or
she fails to pursue such hearing to completion, the new or prospective mobilehome owner is
entitled to file for such a hearing with the City's Community Development Department.
You may file for such hearing only if you or your representative attends the meeting to discuss the
increase. To file for such hearing you must deliver the request for Hearing fonn to the City's
Community Development Department within thirty days of the date this notice is served on you.
If you do not file such request, you forfeit your right to a hearing on the rent increase.
If you are unable to attend the meeting as scheduled, you may elect to send a representative.
Please submit in writing to the park owner and the Community Development Department
notification that you have elected to be represented at such meeting by another party and stating
the name of your representative.
If applicable:
The current resident/ seller 0 has 0 has not completed the hearing process.
23
If you have questions or need more information regarding Chapter 9.50 of the City's Municipal
Code, Mobilehome Park Space Rent Review Ordinance or the review process, you can call the
Community Development Department of the City at (619) 585-5722.
Acknowledgment:
Signature: Date:
Name
24
REQUEST FOR HEARING
Rent Increase In Excess
Of The Annual Permissive Rent Increase
The undersigned hereby requests a hearing before the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission with
regard to a proposed rent increase described in the attached notice - Rent Increase in excess of the
annual permissive rent increase relating to the Mobilehome Park. [Note:
make certain you attach a copy of the notice of Rent Increase you received from the park owner.]
The undersigned is a resident of the park and has attended a meeting with the park owner, or sent
a representative on his behalf, as required in Section 9.50.064 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
The dispute has not been settled.
It is understood that this request is irrevocable and that it may be relied on by other residents of the
mobilehome park to cause a public hearing to be scheduled, and that the Mobilehome Rent Review
Commission will schedule a public hearing to consider the proposed rent increase, taking into
consideration the factors described in Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 9.50.073, and that the
decision of the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission shall be applicable to all affected homeowners
and shall be final and binding.
Signed
Print Name
Address
Telephone No.
Date
[The completed form must be delivered to the City of Chula Vista, Community Development
Department, Attn: Housing Manager, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CA 91910]
25
APPENDIX TWO
MOBILEHOME PARK
CODE VIOATIONS WHICH MAY CREATE SERIOUS
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE PROBLEMS
INDIVIDUAL SPACES - Exterior only
A. All lots shall be numbered in a conspicuous location facing the interior roadway.
[Section 1104(a)]
B. Power sources and plumbing adequately supplied, supported, and protected.
[Sections 1170, 1182, and 1280]
C. No illegal discharge of liquid or solid wastes (CVMC 19.66.150)
THE FOLOWING APPLY TO PARK GROUNDS - NOT INDIVIDUAL SPACES
PARK IN GENERAL - not individual spaces¡'J.ots
PARK GROUNDS
A. Clearly identify park address at street [CYMC Section 12.48.030]
B. Emergency information posted in conspicuous place. [Section 1686]
C. Unobstructed roadway shall be a 25 feet minimum (15 feet minimum if park
constructed prior to 9-15-61. If parking is allowed on one side of roadway, minimum
clearance is 32 feet, and if parking is permitted on both sides of roadway, a minimum
clearance of 40 feet is required. If there is some type of curb divider, each side must
be a minimum of 15 feet. [Section 1106]
D. Maintain proper grading and drainage (Accumulation of water) [Section 1610(a)]
E. Adequate refuse/rubbish disposal. [Section 1610 (d)]
F. No illegal discharge of liquid or solid wastes (CVMC 19.66.150)
PERMANENT BUILDING STRUCTURES
G. Any new structures or work to have required permits [Section 1018(a)]
H. Maintenance sufficient to assure minimum life and safety standards [Section 1636]
I. Water heater properly installed and vented [Uniform Plumbing Code Sections 508.0,
512.1, and 608]
J. Required lighting in public toilets, showers, and laundry facilities [Section 1612]
K. Conformance with the California Fire Code (CFC):
1. Exit Doors (CFC 2501.8)
2. Aisles (CFC 2501.9)
3. Seating (CFC 2501.10)
4. Exit ways must be free of obstructions. [CFC 2501.11]
5. Fire extinguishers shall be maintained in good repair. [CFVC 2501.13]
6. Exits shall be identified and lighted [CFC 2501.15, 1211 and 1212]
7. Room capacity shall be posted [CFC 2501.16.1]
26
UTILITIES
L. All electrical equipment outside permanent buildings shall comply with
requirements of the California Electrical Code (CEC). [Section 1134(a) and 1384]
M. All overhead electrical supply and conductors and supporting structures shall
comply with requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission Rules for
Overhead Electrical Line Construction. [Section 1134.(b) & (c)]
N. Connections adequately protected if subject to potential damage by vehicles, etc.
[Sections 1228(a) and 1280]
O. Al electrical switches, circuit breakers, receptacles, lighting fixtures, control
equipment, and metering devices located in wet places or outside of a building shall
be rain-tight type equipment. [Section 1170(a)]
P. Sufficient space around electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation.
[Section 1646(a)(b)]
Unless otherwise noted, all Section references are found in Title 25 of the California Code of
Regulations.
The Deparbnent of Planning and Building of shall provide a copy of all referenced code sections to
all park owners and/ or their agents. Copies of these referenced code sections shall be maintained at
all times at the on-site Manager's office and may be viewed during normal business hours by any
and all residents.
27
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: .3
MEETING DATE: 07/23/02
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND TRANSMlnlNG ITS REPORT
TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXTENDING THE TIME
LIMIT FOR THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO 2014
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOP T DIRECTOR I-~ C¿;
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
4/5THS VOTE: YE'D NO0
BACKGROUND
The Southwest Redevelopment Plan was adopted on November 27, 1990 in order to improve
deteriorated properties in the areas along Main Street, south Broadway, south Third Avenue, and
certain properties on the east and west side of Interstate 5 between L Street and Main Street. Since
its adoption, the Redevelopment Plan has permitted the use of eminent domain authority to acquire
property within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Areo. Pursuant to the California Community
Redevelopment Law and the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency's eminent domain authority is
restricted to an initial 12-year time period following the effective date of the ordinonce adopting the
Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan's eminent domain authority is scheduled to expire
on November 27, 2002, but may be extended for an additional 12-yeor period with Redevelopment
Agency/City Council approval.
Though it has been sparingly used by the Agency within any of the five (5) redevelopment proiect
areos, eminent domain is 0 critical tool needed by the Agency to effectuate the redevelopment of
blighted properties in the Proiect Area. Specifically, eminent domain can be an essential adjunct to
property acquisition negotiations involving redevelopment of incompatible uses, inadequately sized
lots, and dilapidated buildings.
Redevelopment Law allows the City Council to extend this time limit for an additional 12 years by
amending the Redevelopment Plan. The first step in this process is for the Redevelopment Agency to
approve and transmit a report to the City Council justifying the need for the time extension. Then,
on August 6, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency will conduct a noticed joint public hearing
during which the Agency/City Council can receive testimony for and/or against the proposed Fourth
Amendment. As a part of the required plan amendment process, the Agency's Report to the City
Council has been prepared and is now presented for the Agency's consideration.
....3 - /
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 07/23/02
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the resolution approving and
transmitting its Report to the City Council for consideration at a joint public hearing on August 6,
2002.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
On July 24, 2002, the Plonning Commission will consider the proposed Fourth Amendment ond
will recommend on the adoption of Negative Declaration IS-02-048, make its report and
recommendation concerning the proposed Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Southwest Redevelopment Project, and determine its conformity to the City's General Plan. These
items will be presented to the Redevelopment Agency/City Council for consideration at a noticed
public hearing on August 6, 2002.
DISCUSSION
Since its adoption in 1990, the Southwest Redevelopment Plan has permitted the use of eminent
domain to ocquire property within the project area. Under the plan, the Agency's eminent domain
authority is restricted to a 12-year period following the effective date of the ordinance adopting the
Plan. The Plan's eminent domain authority is scheduled to expire on November 27, 2002.
However, under the California Community Redevelopment Law, this eminent domain time limit may
be extended by up to 12 years if the Agency undertokes the plan amendment effort as prescribed by
the Redevelopment Law and the City Council adopts an ordinance approving the plan amendment
after considering the evidence and testimony presented at a duly noticed joint public heoring of the
Agency and City Council. Thot evidence includes the information in the Agency's "Report to Council."
Attached is the proposed Fourth Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, which shows the
language that is proposed to be added to amend the plan. The added language appears
underlined on the third poragraph of Section 503 (page 5) of the existing plan. Said paragraph with
the proposed amendment reads as follows:
"Except os otherwise provided herein, or otherwise provided by law, no eminent
domain proceeding to acquire property within the Project Area shall be commenced
after twelve (12) years following the date of adoption of the ordinance opproving
and adopting the Fourth Amendment to this Plan on September 18, 2002. Such
time limitation may be extended only by omendment of this Redevelopment Plan."
Although it has been sparingly used, the ability to acquire property through the use of eminent
domain has been an effective tool to facilitate redevelopment of the Project Area. While the
Agency does not have specific plans to use eminent domain to acquire property at this time, staff
recommends preserving this authority in the event that it is necessary to complete future
redevelopment projects. The proposed Fourth Amendment would extend the Agency's eminent
..3-~
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 07/23/02
domain authority by 12 years to 2014. Any use of eminent domoin by the Agency would be
subject to all of the notice, hearing, and other requirements of the Colifornia Eminent Domoin
Law (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. seq.).
The Agency's Report to the City Council (attached to the resolution as UAttochment AU) contains
information as worranted under the Redevelopment Law, including the reasons for the
amendment and a description of some of the blighting conditions that could be alleviated if
eminent domoin authority is extended as proposed. For additional information, the Report
references pertinent sections of the Original Report to the City Council presented when the Plan
was originolly opproved in 1990. Approval of the Report permits the document ta be forwarded
to the City Council and made available for public inspection prior to the August 6, 2002 public
hearing. While the report includes the Negative Declaration for the amendment, no action is
required under CEQA at this time. The Negative Declaration will be presented for adoption at
the August 6 public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT
The amendment process, including the joint public hearing, will involve notice mailing ond
publication costs of approximately $8,000. There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of the
Agency's action tonight. A contract with the firm of Rosenow Spevacek Group and funding for
the proposed redevelopment expansion was opproved by the Redevelopment Agency in July of
2001.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan
J,\commdev\Stoff rep\07 -16.02\Agency Report to Counc;1 - Em;nent Domo;n Amendment.doc [07/10/2002 3,04 PM]
...5-3
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND TRANSMITTING ITS REPORT TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council") adopted
Ordinance No. 2420 on November 27, 1990, approving and establishing the Redevelopment Plan
for the Southwest Redevelopment Project, and the City Council has since amended said
Redevelopment Plan on July 9, 1991 by Ordinance No. 2467, on November 6, 1994 by Ordinance
No. 2612, and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2819; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency")
has proposed a fourth amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment
Project ("Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, the Amendment proposes to extend the time limit to commence
eminent domain with respect to the Project Area, except for residential property in a residential
zone, and,
WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared a report required by the California
Community Redevelopment Law at Health and Safety Code Sections 33352 and 33457.1; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider the Amendment has been scheduled to
occur before the Agency and City Council on August 6, 2002.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Chula Vista hereby approves and transmits its Report to the City Council on the
proposed Fourth Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, attached herewith as Exhibit
"A".
PRESENTED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
<
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
YCOMMDEVIRESOSIRcsu - Report to Council- ED Amendmentdoc
..3-4
EXHIBIT A
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
MERGED SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Southwest Redevelopment Project adopted on
November 27, 1990 by Ordinance No. 2420, as amended on July 9, 1991 by Ordinance No.
2467, November 6, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2612, and August 22,2000 by Ordinance No. 2819
(the "Plan"), is hereby further amended as follows:
Section 503 of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"I. (503) Acquisition of Real Propertv
The Agency may acquire real property by any means authorized by law,
including by gift, grant, exchange, purchase, cooperative negotiations, lease
or any other means authorized by law including eminent domain. However,
for the duration of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency shall not exercise
the power of eminent domain to acquire any residential dwelling units,
except with the consent of the owner, that are then being used for residential
purposes, within land use designations or zoning classification areas
designated for such residential purposes under the adopted Specific and
General Plans of the City of Chula Vista, or as these documents may
hereafter be amended by the City ofChula Vista.
The Agency shall not acquire real property on which an existing building is
to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use without the
consent of the owner, unless: (I) such building requires structural alteration,
improvement, modernization, or rehabilitation; or (2) the site or lot on
which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape, or use; or
(3) it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standard
restrictions and controls of the Plan and the owner fails or refuses to
participate in the Plan by executing a participation agreement.
Except as otherwise provided herein, or otherwise provided by law, no
eminent domain proceeding to acquire property within the Project Area shall
be commenced after twelve (12) years following the date of adoption of the
ordinance approving and adopting IJ~~_\I1l"lldl1iè11t IC' this Plan_~11 I
Sèplèl1lhl'l 17. '1IIL'.. Such time limitation may be extended only by
amendment of this Redevelopment Plan."
d-S'
C)MyFiI~)Pmj,,")Pl," Am"dm"" & E'p'""oolAmdm,,' m So",hw~' PI," doc
ATTACHMENT 1
Fourth Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan
Report to the City Council
July 17, 2002
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
217 North Main Street, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92701
Phone: (714) 541-4585
Fax: (714) 836-1748
E-Mail: info@webrsg.com
.,,3-'
Table of Contents
Introd uction ........... ......................... .......................... ...... .................. ......... i
Contents of this Report.............................................................................................ü
Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific Projects
Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting
Conditions Found in the Project Area.................................................... A.1
A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in the
Project Area ........................................................................................... B-1
Summary of Original Blighting Conditions.................... ......................................8-1
Blighting Conditions Still Present Today....................... ......... ....... ........B-3
Five-Year Implementation Plan ............................................................. C-1
Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot Be
Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the City's Use of
Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment............................... D-1
The Method of Financing ....................................................................... E-1
The Relocation Plan............................................................................... F-1
Analysis of the Preliminary Plan............................................................ G-1
Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission .................. H-1
Report of the Project Area Committee................................................... 1-1
General Plan Conformance.................................................................... .1-1
Environmental Documentation .............................................................. K-1
Report of the County Fiscal Officer ....................................................... L-1
Neighborhood Impact Report ................................................................M-1
Relocation............................................. """"""""""""""""""""""""""'".....M-1
Traffic Circulation.... ......... ..... ........... ....... .....................................................M-2
Environmental Quality..........................................................................................M-2
Availability of Community Facilities and Services........................ ....................M-3
Effect on School Population and Quality of Education...... .............. ..................M-3
Property Taxes and Assessments........... ........................................................M-3
Low and Moderate Income Housing Program....................................................M-4
J:\COMMDEVITAPIA\FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLANDOC
...3-7
Summary of Agency's Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies.. N-1
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Map
Exhibit 2 Proposed Fourth Amendment
Exhibit 3 Photo Survey/Samples of Existing Conditions
Exhibit 4 Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission
on the Fourth Amendment
Exhibit 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration on the Fourth Amendment
J:ICOMMOEV\TAPIAIFOURTH AMEÑOMENT TO THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.DOC
..3 -y
n
Introduction
On June 4, 2002, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
("Agency") referred this Report on the proposed Fourth Amendment
("Amendment") to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") to the City
Council. The primary of the Amendment is to extend the time limit on
commencing eminent domain with respect to the Southwest Redevelopment
Project Area ("Project Area"), with the exception of residential properties in
residential zones. The Plan was originally adopted by the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista ("City Council") on November 27, 1990, and provides the Agency
various redevelopment tools and powers for use within the 1, 050-acre Project
Area.
Exhibit 1 presents a map of the boundaries of the Project Area. The Project Area
contains industrial, commercial, public, and residential uses, and generally
includes properties along Main Street, Third Avenue, Broadway, and certain
properties on the east and west sides of Interstate 5 between L Street and Main
Street.
This document is the Agency's Report to the City Council ("Report") on the
proposed Amendment, and has been prepared pursuant to the Califomia
Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code §§ 3000 et seq.),
specifically Health and Safety Code Sections 33457.1 and 33352 The
Community Redevelopment Law is hereinafter referred to as the "Law". Pursuant
to Section 33352 of the Law, the Agency is required to submit a Report containing
specific documentation regarding the proposed Amendment. The purpose of this
Report is to provide the information, documentation, and evidence required to
support the adoption of the Amendment. This information, documentation, and
evidence are provided to assist the City Council in its consideration of the
proposed Amendment, and in making the various determinations in connection
with its adoption.
With respect to the Amendment, this Report supplements the documentation and
evidence contained in the previous Reports to the City Council prepared in
connection with the original Plan and the subsequent amendments (collectively,
the "Original Reports"). The Original Reports are incorporated herein by
reference.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 -1- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3 -'1
Contents of this Report
The contents of this Report are presented in 14 sections, which generally
correspond to the subdivisions presented in Section 33352 of the Law. The
sections are as follows:
SECTION A Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific
Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or
Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area
SECTION B A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions
Existing in the Project Area
SECTION C Five-Year Implementation Plan
SECTION D Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot be
Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the
City's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax
Increment
SECTION E The Method of Financing
SECTION F The Relocation Plan
SECTION G Analysis of the Preliminary Plan
SECTION H Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission
SECTION I Report of the Project Area Committee
SECTION J General Plan Conformance
SECTION K Environmental Documentation
SECTION L Report of the County Fiscal Officer
SECTION M Neighborhood Impact Report
SECTION N Summary of Agency's Consultations with Affected Taxing
Agencies
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 -11- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3-(0
It
Reasons for the Amendment and a
Description of Specific Pr\ects Proposed
and How These Projects ill Improve or
Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the
Project Area
The Plan was originally adopted on November 27, 1990 by Ordinance No 2420.
On July 9, 1991, the City Council amended the Plan by Ordinance No. 2467 to
expand the Project Area by approximately 10 acres. Adopted on November 8,
1994 by Ordinance No. 2610, the Second Amendment to the Plan modified
financial and plan effectiveness time limits in compliance with Assembly Bill 1290.
The Third Amendment to the Plan, adopted by the City Council on August 22,
2000 by Ordinance No. 2817, merged the tax increment funds of the Project Area
with the Agency's Otay Valley and Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Areas.
As proposed the Fourth Amendment would extend, from November 2002 to
September 2014, the time limit to commence eminent domain to acquire property
with respect to the Project Area. The Fourth Amendment proposes no other
changes to the Plan.
Section 400 of the Plan delineates various redevelopment goals for the Project
Area. These goals include the following:
. Elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration and to
conserve, rehabilitate, and redevelop the Project Area in accordance with the
Redevelopment Plan and future Annual Works Programs,
. Promotion of planned light industrial development within the Main Street
corridor,
. Stimulation of investment of the private sector in the full development of the
Project Area,
. Removal of impediments to land assembly and development through
acquisition and reparcelization of land into reasonably sized and shaped
parcels served by an improved street system and improved public facilities,
. Expansion of the resource of developable land by making underutilized land
available for development, and
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 -A-1- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
...3-I{
. Alleviation of certain environmental deficiencies, including substandard
vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, insufficient off-street parking,
and other similar public improvements.
To this end, the Plan permits the Agency to acquire real property by any means
authorized by law, including eminent domain. Pursuant to Section 503 of the
Plan, eminent domain may not be used by the Agency to acquire residential
properties within areas designated for such uses by the General Plan and zoning,
except with the consent of the owner of such property. The Plan currently
contains a time limit on commencing eminent domain that expires on November
27, 2002.
Despite the Agency's best efforts, much of the blight that existed in 1990
continues to persist today. The real estate reCESsion depressed Project Area
property values in the early 1990's, curtailing the amount of tax increment funds
anticipated to be collected by the Agency during the first 10 years. According to
the Original Reports, approximately $12.1 million of gross tax increment revenue
was anticipated to be collected by the Agency through the year 2000-01.
According to the Agency's financial records, the Agency received less than half
this amount ($5.5 million) due to lower than expected assessed values. Further,
of the gross tax increment, only 41 % is available for nonhousing redevelopment
projects such as land assembly, due to mandatory affordable housing set aside
deposits and taxing agency mitigation payments.
Due to the highly developed and mixed character of the Project Area,
redevelopment will likely involve instances where land assembly, relocation,
demolition, and lot consolidation will be necessary. However, these projects are
extraordinarily risky and expensive to undertake, even for a redevelopment
agency. The limited amount of tax increment funds has contributed to the
Agency's lack of progress in this area. As revenues have begun to grow more
recently, the Agency is now facing the expiration of its 1¿.year time limit on
eminent domain.
The private sector alone cannot easily assemble property in light of the diverse
ownership patterns in the Project Area. A reluctant owner can hold out and
effectively halt a land assembly and redevelopment effort. For this reason, the
Plan includes the ability to use errinent domain to acquire property for
redevelopment purposes and the greater good of the Project Area. However, this
authority expires in November 2002, and an extension of this time limit is
essential to permit the Agency sufficient time (an additional 12 years) to
undertake land assembly projects in the Project Area. As a result, the Agency is
seeking to adopt an amendment to the Plan that would extend the time limit on
eminent domain to September 2014. A copy of the proposed Amendment is
included in Exhibit 2.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 -A-2- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3 - I 2...
"
A Description of the Physical and Economic
Conditions Existing in the Project Area
Section 33352(b) of the Law requires a description of the physical and economic
conditions that cause the Project Area to be blighted. This information was
provided in the Original Reports prepared and provided as evidence that the
Project Area was deemed blighted at the time of adoption. That the Project Area
is blighted is now deemed conclusive under the Law and that finding and
determination of blight cannot now be challenged. The following information on
blighting conditions in the Project Area is, however, presented for information and
reference purposes.
Summary of Original Blighting Conditions
The following information was extracted from the 1990 Report to the City Council
for the Plan. It is a report of the abundance of physical and economic blight found
in the Project Area.
Physical Blight
Age, Obsolescence, Deteñoration, Dilapidation
. 50.8% (322.37 acres) of the parcels within the Project Area contained
structures with the aforementioned characteristics.
. 82% (1,110 buildings) of all structures were deteriorated. Of these, 375
(33.8%) needed major rehabilitation and 216 (19.5%) were deemed
economically and/or structurally infeasible for rehabilitation.
. Some of the characteristics of blight included: peeling paint, overgrown and
unkempt yard areas, discarded items stored outside but adjacent to the
structure, dislocated shingles, broken windows and screens, and cracked
pavement and stucco.
. The main locations of these structural deterioration were in the West Fairfield,
Broadway/Harborside, Main Street Corridor, Broderick's Otay Acres and
Woodlawn Park sub-areas.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 - B-1- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUlWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
...3-/,3
Defective Design and Character of Physical ConstRICtion
. 19% (198 acres) of total Project Area exhibited signs of defective design.
. 692 residential and commercial units on these acres lacked sufficient off.
street parking, or were used in manners that did not reflect their original intent.
. This condition was scattered throughout the Project Area, but was particularly
prevalent in West Fairfield, the Third Avenue Corridor, the Main Street
Corridor, and Broadway/Harborside.
Faulty Interior Arrangement and Exterior Spacing
. 12.8% (133 acres) of the Project Area was characterized by excessve lot
coverage, inadequate setback or side yard space, and lack of off-street
parking.
. These areas were mostly concentrated in the Main Street Corridor, West
Fairfield, and Broadway/Harborside sub-areas.
Inadequate Provisions for Light and Ventilation
. 3% (32 acres) of the Project Area suffered from inadequate provisions for
light, ventilation, and open space.
. 109 units exhibit garages and other structures converted to residences, with
an occasional excessive number of occupants.
. This condition was prevalent in West Fairfield, Broderick's Otay Acres, and
Woodlawn Park.
Mixed Character - Shifting Uses
. The mixed character of the buildings and site layouts in the Project Area
resulted in inadequate parking, site access, and overall ineffective use of the
property.
. 28% (1,077 acres) exhibited this blighting condition.
. This problem was concentrated in the Main Street Corridor, the Third Avenue
Corridor, and Broadway/Harborside.
Open Space
. There was a grave lack of accessible recreational and open space facililes in
the Project Area.
. The only existing public park in the Project Area is the 2.9(}acre Lauderbach
Community Center.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10,2002 - B-2- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
J -{.¡ REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
. The Chula Vista General Plan called for a park standard ratio of 4 acres of
local parkland for every 1,000 persons served. Being that the Montgomery
population is 25,000, the local existing park requirement is 100 acres. Thus
there was a serious deficiency in public parks.
Economic Blight
IlTegularly Fonned or Shaped Lots
. Throughout the Project Area, properties were sub-divided either into parcels
that are too small to accommodate contemporary development practices, or
parcels of irregular form and shape to allow for sufficient utilization.
. The areas with this condition of blight were the Broadway! Harborside sub-
area and portions of the Main Street and Third Avenue Corridors.
Lots Laid Out in Disregard to Physical Characteristics
. Portions of the Project Area included lots laid out in disregard of topographical
and site physical features which limit access, visibility and effective private
reuse.
. This condition was particularly acute in the West Fairfield and Woodlawn Park
sub-areas
Inadequate Public Improvements
. 23% (241 acres) of entire Project Area showed sign of inadequate public
improvements
. The major areas of inadequacy were street improvements, drainage, sewage
and community and recreational facilities.
. There were (36.7%) 493 existing residential and commercial units in the
Project Area on properties displaying inadequate public improvements.
Blighting Conditions Still Present Today
Although no additional evidence of blight is necessary to support the proposed
Amendment, the Agency nevertheless undertook additional analysis to confirm
the need for the Amendment. In June 2002, Agency staff and consultants
surveyed the Project Area and identified several blighting conditions that continue
to persist, particularly those that may require land assembly by the Agency.
(Exhibit 3 presents a photo survey of the some of the conditions found.)
As described in the Original Reports, the Project Area includes several blocks
containing deteriorating, mixed and incompatible uses developed on small
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10,2002 - B-3- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
...;¡ - (S-
parcels. Prime examples of these conditions are located along the north side of
Main Street, from Broadway to Albany Avenue. In these areas, esidential
properties facing Main Street are subjected to truck traffic, noise, and smoke from
this heavily traveled arterial. Most of the parcels were originally subdivided and
developed for single family residential use, and back up to other single famly
residential residences to the north. However, many properties were allowed to
recycle into nonresidential use prior to the City's annexation of the area in
November 1985.
Located on parcels sized for single family residential development, commercial
and industrial uses along the north side of Main Street do not have space for off
street parking, loading and storage. Many properties within the Project Area
today lack street parking. For example, residential property owners and
occupants on Main Street are forced to park on their front yards because street
parking is limited and the lots are too small to accommodate for driveways or
garages. As for nonresidential properties, the lots can only provide a limited
supply of parking spaces. Without the Slpport of street parking, over parking
becomes evident as the demand for parking is not met. The lack of convenience
parking discourages patronage of local businesses and is detrimental to the
overall character of the Project Area.
There is a lack of adequate front and side setbacks. In the field survey, many
houses were cited to be located less than 10 feet away from a gas station or auto
repair facility that creates nuisance such as noise and fumes to the residents.
This condition is particularly true i1 areas on Main Street, Mace Street, and Third
Avenue.
Conversion of residential buildings into commercial use is also found today. One
example was a house that was converted into an auto repair shop on Mace
Street. The auto repair shop was operated fran the garage and may be
dangerous, as the structure of the house was not originally designed to handle
the load of an auto repair operation. The facility was located next to a house,
where nuisance is unavoidable.
The median lot size of non residentially zoned properties along the north side of
Main Street between Fourth Avenue and Albany Avenue is 7,019 square feet,
with most lots 55 feet wide and 130 feet deep. Although well suited for residential
use, the commercial and industrial uses that have moved into the area need more
land to accommodate their use. Lot consolidation, where adjacent parcels are
purchased to form a larger lot, is essential to correct this problem. However,
mixed ownership in the area is epidemic; as a result, this corridor is cuttered with
poorly planned and functioning uses, excessive ingress and egress that congests
traffic flows, and diminished property values, particularly among the older
residential uses that remain in these commercial and industrial areas.
Clearly, the proliferation of nonresidential uses along Main Street is a result of the
changing nature of this general area to a more industrial character. The
remaining residential properties in this area, particularly those in the
nonresidential zones are severely impacted by the increased industrial intensity of
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC, CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 - 8-4- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
....5 - I (¿;,
the area. According to a resale analysis of 2001 sales from Metroscan, median
single family home prices in the Project Area were $224,250 in residential zones
and $140,000 in nonresidential zones. By comparioon, the median home price in
the City was $256,711, which is between 14% and 83% higher than prices in the
Project Area.
The Amendment provides the Agency the ability proactively engage in land
assembly endeavors to address incompatible and mixed land use character in
these areas. By assembling and consolidating lots under mixed ownership, the
Agency can facilitate the redevelopment of land uses compatible with the City
General Plan, while minimizing the detrimental impacts on surrounding uses as a
result of having more land area.
In addition to addressing the changing nature of Project Area land use patterns,
redevelopment is also needed to address age and obsolescence of existing
structures. Almost half of the parcels in the Project Area are more than 40years
old. The residential parcels contain the highest concentration of older buildings.
The average age of structures on residential parcels is about 40 years old (built
1962). Nearly 55.0% of the residential parcels in the Project Area were
constructed prior to 1961.
From the field survey, conditions of obsolescence, deterioration, and dilapidation
still exist today throughout the Project Area. The residential units on Main Street
show the most serious signs of deterioration and dilapidation. Such dilapidation
and deterioration is caused by deferred maintenance, damage, and aging. These
severe conditions were observed throughout the Project Area, including buildings
with significant roofing wear, warped framing and exterior walls, crumbling
foundations, and gaping holes in walls. (Photographs of some of the conditions
found today are included in Exhibit 3)
Repairing obsolete structures may not be an adequate long-term solution for
many properties in the Project Area, since many properties lack suffcient area for
parking, loading, and ingress/egress. Investment in structures that lack land area
for typical commercial and industrial use is not a economically viable option for
many property owners, since structural rehabilitation requires investment hat will
likely not be recouped in increased rents or higher business patronage. Not
surprisingly, it appears that few buildings have been rehabilitated since the
Project Area was created in 1990. When it is not economically feasible to
rehabilitate an existing structure on a substandard lot, the Agency could use its
land assembly tools to assist in the acquisition of adjacent parcels to create a
better-designed and more viable project. By extending the Agency's eminent
domain authority, the Amendment provides the Agency the full range of tools
needed to accomplish these activities.
As noted earlier, pursuant to Section 33368 of the Law, the adoption of the
ordinances adopting the Plan and subsequent amendments are final and
conclusive, and it is thereafter conclusively presumed that the Project Area is a
blighted area as defined by Sections 33031 and 33032 of the Law and that all
prior proceedings have been duly and regularly taken. No new findings of blight
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 -8-5 - 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3-(7
are required for the Amendment. The foregoing information, however, confirms
that redevelopment actions remain necessary to alleviate blighting conditions and
that the Amendment is necessary to provide the Agency with a critical tool to
implement redevelopment projects to address the blighting conditons.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 - 6-6 - 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUlWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
...3-1'6'
rei
Five- Year Implementation Plan
On November 9, 1999, the Agency adopted Resolution No. 1650 approving its
Five Year Implementation Plan for the Project Area ("Implementation Plan"). The
Implementation Plan contains specific goals and objectives for the Project Area,
the specific projects and expenditures proposed to be made during the five-year
planning period, and an explanation of how these goals, objectives, and
expenditures will eliminate blight within the Project Area. The Implementation
Plan is not affected by this Amendment, and is incorporated herein by reference.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 -C-1- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOU1WEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
.&. -I c¡
m
Why the Elimination of Blight and
Redevelopment Cannot Be Accomplished by
Private Ent~rise Acting Alone or by the
City'!¡ Use Financing Alternatives Other
Than Tax Increment
Section 33352(d) of the Law requires an explanation of why the elimination of
blight in the Project Area cannot be accomplished by private enterprise alone, or
by the City's use of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing. This
information was previously provided in the Original Reports and supporting
documentation prepared and provided at the time of the adoption of the original
Plan. The proposed Amendment will not make any changes that would affect the
validity of the previously prepared documentation.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 - 0-1 - 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUlWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
J-,,2..0
PI
The Method of Financing
Section 33352(e) of the Law requires inclusion of a proposed method of financing
the Project. This documentation was provided in the Original Reports,
incorporated herein by reference. Because the Amendment will not alter the
Project Area boundaries or affect the base year value of the Project Area, the
Amendment will not change the method of financing the Project.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10. 2002 - E-1 - 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUlWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
J-,;¿.I
n
The Relocation Plan
Section 33352(f) of the Law requires inclusion of a method of relocation for the
Project. Concurrent with the original adoption to the Plan in 1990, the Agency
adopted as its method of relocation the California Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Guidelines, as they existed or are subsequently amended.
Also, as a public agency, the Agency is required to adhere to State Relocation
Law to the extent relocation is necessary.
The Amendment does not alter the Agency's existing method of relocation.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 - F-1 - 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
J-..l.d(
m
Analysis of the Preliminary Plan
Section 33352(g) of the Law requires the inclusion of an analysis of the
Preliminary Plan. This information was provided in the Original Reports prepared
at the time the original Plan was adopted. The Amendment does not alter project
area boundaries or affect the base value of the Project Area. The proposed
Amendment does not alter the analysis of the Preliminary Plan contained in the
Original Reports.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 -G-1- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
...$-.2..3 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
I!
Report and Recommendation of the Planning
Commission
Section 33352(h) of the Law requires inclusion of a report and recommendation
of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"). On
July 24, 2002, the Planning Commission will consider a resolution as its
recommendation to the City Council on the Amendment.
A copy of the Planning Commission's July 24, 2002 recommendation will be
incorporated into this report and forwarded to the City Council upon its
completion.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 17, 2002 -H-1- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOU1WEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
..3 -.;¿ .¡ REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
n
Report of the Project Area Committee
Prior to the adoption of the Plan in November 1990, the City Council called upon
Project Area residents, business owners, and property owners to form a Project
Area Committee to review and pass a recommendation on the original Plan. On
October 8, 1990, the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Committee (PAC)
adopted a report recommending adoption of the Plan, including approval of
eminent domain authority as stated in the Plan. A copy of the PAC's report is
contained in the Original Reports and incorporated herein by reference.
Because the Amendment would only extend the time frame of eminent domain
authority contained in the original Plan and reviewed by the PAC, the Amendment
did not necessitate a reevaluation of the PAC's original recommendation.
Project Area property owners, residents, businesses and the general public have
had several opportunities to provide input on the proposed Amendment as a part
of the ongoing process. This includes the following public meetings:
June 4,2002 Agency/City Council Refer Amendment/Set Hearing
July 1 Resource Conservation Commission Review Neg. Dec.
July 23 Agency Approve Report to City Council
July 24 Planning Commission Report/Recommendation
August 6 Agency/City Council Joint Public Hearing
September 3 Agency/City Council Approve Responses/Neg. Dec.
September 3 City Council First Reading of Ordinance
September 17 City Council Second Reading of Ordinance
Notice of the August 6, 2002 joint public hearing were transmitted via first class
mail to all Project Area property owners, residents, and businesses 30 days prior
to the public hearing. All affected taxing agencies received similar notice by
certified mail. In addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the Star
News for three consecutive weeks (Friday, July 12, July 19, and July 26, 2002).
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 17, 2002 -11- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUlWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
J-'¿S-
It
General Plan Conformance
Section 333520) of the Law requires a finding of General Plan conformance per
Section 65402 of the Government Code. The Amendment only extends the time
limit to commence eminent domain, and does not approve any specific
development or land assembly project, nor alter any provision of Plan relating to
land use policy or other matters involving the General Plan.
On July 24, 2002, the Planning Commission will consider a resolution (Exhibit 4)
determining if the Amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 17, 2002 -J'- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3 -.2. (p
I!I
Environmental Documentation
8ection 33352(k) of the Law requires environmental clearance prepared pursuant
to Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code. Concurrent with the adoption of
the original Plan and the subsequent amendments, the Agency undertook
appropriate environmental documentation as necessary. In 1990, a Program
Environmental Impact Report ("1990 EIR") was prepared in conjunction with the
1995 Amendment. The 1990 EIR reviewed and established mitigation policies
relating to impacts associated with implementation of the Plan as amended by the
1995 Amendment. The 1990 EIR was included in the 1990 Report to the City
Council and is incorporated herein by reference.
For this Amendment, an Initial 8tudy was prepared pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines, which found that the proposed Amendment
to extend the time limit of the Plan's existing eminent domain authority would not
have a significant adverse impact on the environment As such, a Negative
Declaration for the proposed Amendment was completed and made available for
review and comment.
The 30-day circulation period began on June 21, 2002, and terminated on July
21, 2002. On July 1, 2002, the City's Resource Conservation Commission
reviewed Negative Declaration 18-02-048 for compliance with CEQA
requirements, and recommended adoption of the said Negative Declaration.
On July 24, 2002, the City's Planning Commission will review and make a
recommendation on Negative Declaration 18-02-048.
A copy of Negative Declaration 18-02-048 is included as Exhibit 5 to this Report.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 17,2002 -K 1- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
.3 -.2. 7
n
Report of the County Fiscal Officer
The proposed Amendment does not alter Project Area boundaries; therefore, the
constituent base year reports for each component area of the Project Area,
prepared pursuant to Section 33328 of the Law by the County of San Diego
Auditor-Controller and State Board of Equalization respectively ("Base Year
Reports"), do not need to be reformulated. The constituent Base Year Reports
are included in the Original Reports and incorporated herein by reference.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 - L 1 - 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3 -,)...!¡
m
Neighborhood Impact Report
The Law requires that a Neighborhood Impact Report discuss the impact the Plan
will have on low and moderate income persons or families in the following areas:
relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of community
facilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education,
property assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical and
social quality of the neighborhood.
Additional issues that the neighborhood impact report must address include: the
number of low or moderate-income dwelling units to be removed or destroyed;
the number of low or moderate income persons or families expected to be
displaced; the general location of housing to be rehabilitated, developed or
constructed; the number of dwelling units planned for construction or rehabilitation
to house persons and families of low or moderate income (other than
replacement housing); the projected means of financing the aforementioned
dwelling units; and the projected timetable for meeting the Plan's relocation,
rehabilitation, and replacement housing objectives.
The Amendment would permit the Agency to continue implementation of the
redevelopment program authorized in the Plan. This Section describes the
implications of the Amendment on Project Area neighborhoods.
Relocation
The Agency does not have any plans to relocate residents or businesses in the
Project Area at this time. If relocation activities are undertaken, the Agency will
handle those activities on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with its method of
relocation. As a public agency formed under the provisions of state law, the
Agency is required to adhere to the State Relocation Law (Government Code
Sections 7260 through 7277) and follow the California Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Guidelines ("State Guidelines") as established in the
California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 6.
Prior to commencement of any acquisition activity that may cause substantial
displacement of residents, the Agency will adopt a specific relocation plan in
conformance with the State Guidelines. To the extent appropriate, the Agency
may supplement those provisions provided in the State Guidelines to meet
particular relocation needs of a specific project. Such supplemental policies, if
adopted in the Agency's sole discretion, will not involve reduction, but instead
enhancement of the relocation benefits required by State Law.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 -M1- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
~-.2-C¡
Traffic Circulation
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared to assess the traffic and
other environmental impacts of the Amendment. A copy of the Negative
Declaration is contained in Exhibit 5 to this Report. In general, because the
Amendment modifies an existing provision in the Plan (specifically to reestablish
eminent domain authority on nonresidential property), the Initial Study concluded
that the Amendment would result in no significant traffic impacts.
The Plan does not provide for the direct development of any private or public
development projects that would generate traffic and impact existing levels of
service of any roadways in the Project Area. However, the development of
projects would indirectly generate traffic both during and after project construction,
impacting existing levels of service on road segments and intersections that serve
the Project Area both within and outside its boundaries.
The City's General Plan will control the land use designations and intensities of
the Plan; its implementation will not create locally or cumulatively significant
impacts beyond what is anticipated under the General Plan. It will also not alter
or intensify the General Plan's land uses, traffic generation, levels of service, or
intersection capacities. Plan implementation will not cause traffic or circulation
impacts that were not considered and mitigated in the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report. The Agency, via the Plan, will adhere to policies in
the circulation element of the General Plan in lessening traffic and circulation
impacts.
The Plan permits the Agency to construct improvements to improve traffic
circulation. These projects will improve circulation, mitigate traffic deficiencies,
and provide general benefits to the Project Area consistent with the circulation
element of the General Plan.
Environmental Quality
The Initial Study and Negative Declaration reviewed the impacts of the
Amendment, and concluded that the Amendment itself would not result in any
significant environmental impacts. The Amendment does not propose any
specific development, redevelopment, or land acquisition project. As stated in the
Plan, all development must conform to the City's General Plan and other
applicable state and local building codes and controls.
Because the Plan does not propose uses or intensities beyond the General Plan,
adherence to adopted General Plan policies will ensure that implementation of
the Plan will lessen or avoid potential impacts. This will assure that the quality of
the environment is maintained.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10,2002 -M2- 4TH AMENOMENT TO SOUlWEST REOEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
J -.3-0
During implementation of the Plan, specific redevelopment proposals may
warrant further specific environmental analysis as required by the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, ~ ~.
("CEQA").
Availability of Community Facilities and Services
The Initial Study and Negative Declaration determined that the Plan would not
have a significant impact on public facilities including fire protection, police, water,
wastewater, storm drain, and solid waste services.
The Plan provides that any redevelopment activity is to be subject to, and
consistent with, the policies set forth in the City's General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, and local codes and ordinances, as they now exist or are hereafter
amended; the General Plan incorporates policies to mitigate impacts on public
services and facilities. Implementation of the Plan and its proposed projects are
expected to improve the City's existing community facilities and services. The
Plan will allow the Agency to utilize tax increment revenues to provide for the
upgrading of existing, and construction of new, community facilities, which will be
of benefit to the Project Area.
The Amendment does not affect the foregoing analysis.
Effect on School Population and Quality of Education
The Project Area is served by the Sweetwater Union High School District and the
Chula Vista Elementary School District. The Initial Study and Negative
Declaration assessed the direct and cumulative impacts of the Amendment on
area schools, and concluded that adoption of the Amendment would not result in
any significant impacts.
Development fees and/or land set-asides for schools would be sufficient to fund
these facilities under Plan implementation. Plan implementation will not resutt in
excess development of that allowed by the City's General Plan. Therefore, the
adoption of the Amendment, nor implementation of the Plan, will not cause the
Project Area to generate more students than could occur in connection with
development allowed in the General Plan. The City has adopted policies in the
General Plan to mitigate impacts of General Plan buildout on schools;
implementation of the Plan will adhere to the General Plan policies to mitigate
impacts on schools.
Property Taxes and Assessments
The Plan calls for various methods of financing its implementation, none of which
are affected by the proposed Amendment. Because redevelopment agencies do
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10. 2002 -M3- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUlWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
J-.3/
not have the constitutional authority to impose taxes, implementation of the Plan
will not cause an increase in property tax rates. Rather, the principal method of
financing redevelopment will be the utilization of tax increment revenues
generated by the Project Area. Tax increment financing reallocates property tax
revenues generated by increases in the assessed value of property in the Project
Area. Although redevelopment of the Project Area will increase the assessed
valuation, Project Area property owners will not experience increases in property
taxes beyond those normally allowed by other state law and state constitutional
provisions. The Amendment does not alter or affect the base year value nor the
payment of property taxes by any person, firm, or entity.
Low and Moderate Income Housing Program
A. Number of Dwelling Units Housing Low and Moderate Income Households
Expected to be Destroyed or Removed by the Project
While there are no plans to destroy or remove any housing units, the Agency
estimates that approximately 10 housing units could be destroyed or removed
over the duration of the Plan. If the Agency does become involved in a project
that resuijs in the removal of either of these units in the future, the Agency could
be responsible for providing relocation assistance to qualified occupants, and
ensuring that replacement housing is provided for any lost affordable units.
B. Number of Persons and Families of Low and Moderate Income Expected to
be Displaced by the Project
As discussed above, the Agency estimates that up to 10 households of low- and
moderate-income could be displaced by Project implementation.
C. General Location of Replacement Low and Moderate Income Housing to be
Rehabilitated, Developed and Constructed
At this time, there are no plans to remove Project Area housing units. If any
removal of displacement occurs as a result of Agency participation in a project,
the Agency will ensure that replacement housing required by the Law is provided.
Replacement housing would be located in areas in the City that permit residential
use.
D. Number of Dwelling Units Housing Persons of Low and Moderate Income
Planned for Construction or Rehabilitation Other than Replacement Housing
The Agency will invest its Housing Fund resources into a variety of housing
programs permitted under Law and the Plan. At this time, the Agency does not
have any specific plans for construction or rehabilitation of any low- and
moderate-income units in the Project Area.
E. Projected Means of Financing Rehabilitation and New Construction of
Housing for Low and Moderate Income Households
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC, CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 -M4- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOU1WEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3 -~ ~
The Agency intends to utilize not less than 20% of its tax increment revenues to
finance the rehabilitation, construction, purchase, and mortgage assistance of
housing for low and moderate income households, in accordance with the
provisions of the Law as it now exists or may hereafter be amended. The Agency
will also cooperate with the City to pool funds and resources beyond the tax
increment set aside funds if it is determined to be necessary by both bodies in
order to improve the City's affordable housing stock.
F. Projected Timetable for Meeting the Plan's Relocation, Rehabilitation and
Replacement Housing Objectives
Implementation of the Plan should not cause the Agency to relocate or remove
and thus replace, any Project Area housing. The time frame for rehabilitating
units pursuant to the Plan will be subject to the availability of housing fund
revenues. Rehabilitation activities will be gradually phased over the duration of
the Plan.
The Amendment does not affect land uses nor invdve the implementation of any
specific redevelopment project. As such, the analysis set forth above with respect
to Neighborhood Impact contained in the Original Reports remains valid.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 -M5- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUlWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3 -.3 3
m
Summary of Agency's Consultations with
AffeGted Taxing Agencies
The proposed Amendment would not detrimentally impact affected taxing
agencies because the Amendment does not affect the financing of the Project
Area in any way, nor will it change the plan's land use policies or list of public
improvement projects.
On July 5, 2002, the Agency transmitted the notice of the August 6, 2002 joint
public hearing to all affected taxing agencies. Thus far, the Agency has not been
contacted by any taxing agencies seeking consultations regarding the
Amendment.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 -N 1- 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUlWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
...5'-!J'Í
n
Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Map
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUfflEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
...s -.3 ::;-
t-
Z
w
~
~
0.---'-\
...J
W
>
W
c-
w
0::
t-
en
w
~
:J:
t-~ ~>-
::) !!!Z
0 >0
jEf .....z
en ~~
u
...:1-.3-(,
II
Proposed Fourth Amendment
The Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Southwest Redevelopment Project
adopted on November 27, 1990 by Ordinance No. 2420, as amended on July 9,
1991 by Ordinance No. 2467, November 6, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2612, and
August 22,2000 by Ordinance No. 2819 (the "Plan"), is hereby further amended
as follows:
Section 503 of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"1. (503) AcQuisition of Real Propertv
The Agency may acquire real property by any means authorized by law, including
by gift, grant, exchange, purchase, cooperative negotiations, lease or any other
means authorized by law including eminent domain. However, for the duration of
the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency shall not exercise the power of eminent
domain to acquire any residential dwelling units, except with the consent of the
owner, that are then being used for residential purposes, within land use
designations or zoning classification areas designated for such residential
purposes under the adopted Specific and General Plans of the City of Chula
Vista, or as these documents may hereafter be amended by the City of Chula
Vista.
The Agency shall not acquire real property on which an existing building is to be
continued on its present site and in its present form and use without the consent
of the owner, unless: (1) such building requires structural a~eration,
improvement, modernization, or rehabilitation; or (2) the site or lot on which the
building is situated requires modification in size, shape, or use; or (3) it is
necessary to impose upon such property any of the standard restrictions and
controls of the Plan and the owner fails or refuses to participate in the Plan by
executing a participation agreement.
Except as otherwise provided herein, or otherwise provided by law, no eminent
domain proceeding to acquire property within the Project Area shall be
commenced after twelve (12) years following the date of adoption of the
ordinance approving and adopting the Fourth Amendment to this Plan on
September 17, 2002. Such time limitation may be extended only by amendment
of this Redevelopment Plan."
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUlWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
.3 -3 7
EXhibit
. .. . , . -
-. . ,-
.
- ,- ...
.. , -. ..
- ..- - .
.. . -. . ". .-
. " . . . -. .. . .
- ... . .
.
Photo 2: 1200 Block of Third Avenue. The picture above is an example of
defective design and character of physical construction. The structure
on the right is a residential unit that lacks street parking and cars are
forced to park in front and side of the house, which partially blocks the
driveway of the commercial facility on the left. Like most residential units
on Third Street, the property above suffers exterior wall, roof, window,
and foundation damages.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3 -3 c¡
Photo 3: Near the corner of Third Avenue and Anita Street. The photo above
demonstrates incompatible use. A house on the left is next to a
converted used car dealership on the right, where nuisance such as
noise is found. The dealership lacks the adequate space for a
dealership operation as cars are over parked.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3 -'I 0
~--:, -
. 0 O' - o.
. 0
-- o. 0
- 0 0 0
.0
.. . -. . . -. ..
, " . . . -. . - - ,
- ... . .
. I I
. .1.
I OIl
I I
-. . .. - " I ..
0 to I . . - I .. . .
. .. - . .
Photo 6: 3600 Block of Main Street. The abandoned residential structure is falling
apart. Parts of the wall and roof have collapsed. The unit also shows
sign of graffiti and illegal dumping, occurrence of crime.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 4TH AMENOMENT TO SOUTWEST REOEVELOPMENT PLAN
...3 -4.3 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Photo 7: 160 Block of Mace Street. The auto repair shop on the right was
converted from a house and was not originally designed for commercial
use. The facility lacks the parking, interior spacing, and proper design to
operate as an auto body shop. Since it is an auto body shop, the fumes
from the spray paint are unavoidable to the residents of the house on the
left.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
.Æ -" '-/ REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Photo 8: Near the intersection of Trenton Avenue and Palomar Street. The fruit
stand is next to two abandoned houses and shows sign of deterioration,
the wood siding and roof is separated. The post is leaning. The site
does not support retail operation, as there is no street parking and
customers are forced to park less than 10 feet away from the fruit.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3-..¡~
Photo 9: Near the corner of Arizona Street and Industrial Boulevard. The auto
repair shop is vacant and next to some non-operating paint booths. The
structures suffer from roof and foundation rotting. The facility lacks
space for parking and egress/ingress and is located next to a
deteriorating residential unit on the right.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10. 2002 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3-r.¡r,ø
,
, ,- -
, "
- ,
-. . .. . ' . 0 o'
t " 0 o . - 0 .. . .
. .. - . .
Photo 11: 900 Block of Broadway. The residential complexes on the right are
located next to a gas station, where the noise and fume is a nuisance.
The residential units have a small driveway of approximately 15 feet is
also serving as a playground. Since on-site and street parking is limited,
the residents are forced to park in the driveway.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
J -4 ¥' REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
II
Report and Recommendation of the Planning
Commission on the Fourth Amendment
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUTWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
..$-49 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
II
Negative Declaration
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JULY 10, 2002 4TH AMENDMENT TO SOUlWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
..3 - ~()
Negatjve Declaration
PROJECT NAME: Southwest Redevelopment Plan Amendment To
Extend Eminent Domain Authority
PROJECT LOCA nON: Southwest Redevelopment Project Area
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: V ARlOUS
PROJECT APPLICANT: City ofChula Vista
CASE NO.: IS-02-048
DATE: May 29, 2002
A. Project Setting
The amended Southwest Redevelopment Project Area (SWRPA) boundaries, found totally
within the City of Chula Vista, are illustrated on the map attached hereto and incorporated as
Exhibit A.
B. Project Description
The project involves an amendment to the existing Amended Southwest Redevelopment
Project Area Plan, dated November 1990. While the Redevelopment Plan itself does not
expire until the year 2030, the power of eminent domain, which the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Chula Vista may exercise (under the provisions of the California Community
Redevelopment Law) is set to expire on November 26, 2002, unless otherwise amended. The
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, with the approval of the City Council,
proposes to amend that Plan by extending the provision of eminent domain to'November 27,
2014, as allowed by California Community Redevelopment Law. Although there are no
current plans to acquire additional property through the use of eminent domain, the Agency
has indicated that should either a commercial or residential project be undertaken in the
future, that the extension of the time limit to exercise its eminent domain powers could be
crucial to the success and completion of those projects, and hence, to its overall success in
removing blight from the Project Area.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The proposed use is consistent with the underlying zone districts and General Plan
designation.
D. Comments
On April 29, 2002 a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to City and governmental staff.
Seven Department staff members responded with no comments.
',> 1 .3 -tJ-( OS/29102
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environment;il
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant
environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts NO MITIGATION REQUIRED
G. Consultation
1. City ofChula Vista:
Marilyn Ponseggi, Planning Division
Paul Hellman, Planning Division
John Schmitz, Planning Division
Jim Geering, Fire Marshall
Frank Rivera, Engineering Department
Joe Gamble, Landscape Architecture Division
Bill Ullrich, Public Works/Operations
Frank Herrera-A, Planning Division
Miguel Z. Tapia, Community Development
Benjamin Guerrero, Community Development
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code, September 1997
Redevelopment Project Area Plans
Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments
received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period
for this negative declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City
of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is
available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
CA 91910.
~~. Date: 6 F frYL
Planning & Environmental Services Manager
2 ...ð-S;Z OS/29/02
<t
w
~
<t
t-\
0
w
.,
0
~
0..
t-
Z
W
~
0..
o::J;
--'
w
>
w
c-
w
~
t-
(/)
W
~
J:
t-~ ~.....
:::) !2Z
0 >0
~f1:
(/) ~~ ~z
0
.3 - $"3
Case No.IS-O2-048
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Nnmber of Proponent: 276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5291
4. Name of Proposal: Fourth Amendment to tbe Soutbwest
Redevelopment Plan to extend Eminent Domain
Authority
5. Date of Checklist: May 30, 2002
""mlIaD,
""~IIa" SIpil'~.' ""'tho.
S;gnü~.' v."" s...;r~., No
Imp><! MIt;pI'" 1m"," 1m"",
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 0 0 181
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 181
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 181
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain autbority will not result in any direct physical changes to tbe
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to land use. Indirect
physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition
of property tbrough its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to
analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the
extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to furtber environmental
review. Said projects would also be required to comply witb tbe City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance
and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
Compliance witb all applicable federal, state and local laws with any approval from any responsible public
agency would also be required.
The approval of this extension would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
commulllty.
,- .1 ¿j -:;j,-c/ 5/30/02
""~""
""..tially SIgn'Ika.' "" <ha.
Sign;';"",' U."" SigaiJIcaa' No
Impact "'ign"" Impact Impact
Mitigation: None
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 181
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly 0 0 0 181
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 181
housing?
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to population and
housing. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment
Agency's future acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development
are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as
a result of the extension of eminent domain authority. would, at the time of proposal. be subject to further
environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan.
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes. conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws with any approval from any
responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 181
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 181
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any 0 0 0 181
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 181
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, 0 0 0 181
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards 0 0 0 181
such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground
2 . -..5' ,,:,S'S 5/30/02
.....tlaIly
.....IiaUy Slpilkut ""!ha.
_.t U""" SIgaIIkut N.
Im- 'IJdpt<d Imp'rt Imp'rt
failure, or similar hazards?
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to ground surface or
geologic conditions. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the
Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and
subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which
may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of
proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with
the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations
and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws
with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or 0 0 0 till
the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 till
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of 0 0 0 till
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 till
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of 0 0 0 till
water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
1) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 till
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 till
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 till
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? 0 0 0 till
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 till
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redeyelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to water resources.
Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future
acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development are too
speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result
'..3 ;.~~ 5/30/02
......"Uy
"'~"'Uy ">gn1Ikan' .....,...
",.,w-"".' V.I", SIgal""'.' N.
Im..d Mldga'«I Impad Impad
rof the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
eenvironmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan,
ZZoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
rof Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approyal from
aany responsible public agency would also be required.
l\Mitigation: None
W. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 0 0 0 tj
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 tj
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 0 0 0 tj
cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 tj
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non- 0 0 0 tj
stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
(Comments:
TThe proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
eextension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
eenvironment; therefore. the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to Air Quality.
Ilndirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future
~acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development are too
sspeculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result
cof the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
eenvironmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan,
LZoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
cof Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from
aany responsible public agency would also be required.
1\Mitigation: None
WI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 tj
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp 0 0 0 181
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 0 0 0 tj
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 tj
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 tj
4 .3-S'7 5/30/02
"",'lally
Pol"""" Si..."~.t Uu,b..
Sion_oI UnJun Sionif~nt No
Import blliI.."" Impo" Imp."
0 0 0 181
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or
more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more
peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to the city's
transportation or circulation system. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of
the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and
subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which
may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of
proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with
the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations
and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and
with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitiye species, species of concern 0 0 0 181
or species that are candidates for listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 181
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak 0 0 0 181
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 181
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181
efforts?
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to biological
resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment
Agency's future acquisition of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development
are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as
a result of the extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of proposal , be subject to further
environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan,
5 ..3 -~-r 5/30/02
",,~,WJy
""'D'laU, S-...ifkDDI Log 'hDD
5I"""DI U""'" S¡gnil'~D' ND
Impact MJd..'" Impact Impact
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal. state and local laws and with any approval from
any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 0 0 CiI
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 CiI
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 CiI
protection, will this project impact this protection?
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to energy or mineral
resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment
Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development
are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects. which may occur in the future as
a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan.
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from
any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 CiI
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response 0 0 0 CiI
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 CiI
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 0 0 0 CiI
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 CiI
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any creation or exposure of humans or
. 6...3 - ~-<¡ 5/30/02
P"'~I".Y
P""Dlb.y SignlJkaDI L<u Ih'D
Signi/kanl U'"'" Sign""'DI ND
Impact M.lgalod Impact Imp'ct
animal species to hazardous situations. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result
of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and
subsequent deyelopment are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which
may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of
proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with
the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations
and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and
with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 181
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant noise impacts. Indirect
physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition
of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too speculative to
analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the
extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental
review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance
and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible
public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181
c) Schools? 0 0 0 181
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 181
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to public services.
Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future
acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent deyelopment are too
speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result
of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
.7..!1-G:.O 5/30/02
P"~'-
"'~"'U1 51_.' L<ø.haD
...."""'., U..... $"""",., N.
Impact Mil""'" 1m.." 1m.."
enyironmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan.
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from
any responsible public agency would also be required.
No new or altered governmental services will be required for this project.
Mitigation: None
Xß. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the 0 0 0 C5I
City's Threshold Standards?
As described below. the proposed project does not significantly impact any of the seven Threshold
Standards.
a) Fire/EMS 0 0 0 C5I
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls
within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the cases.
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to fire rescue or
emergency medical services. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the
Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and
subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which
may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of
proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with
the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations
and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and
with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
b) Police 0 0 0 C5I
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5
minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or
less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less.
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to police seryices.
Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future
acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too
speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result
of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal. be subject to further
environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances and regulations and procedures of the
.' 8 ..3 -'=- I 5/30/02
Pot'"'IaU,
Pot'n'IaU, S'ognifkan' 1= ,han
Si",ifian' Un"" Sign;fian' Nn
Impact Mh'p"" Im,Dct Impact
City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval
from any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
c) Traffic 0 0 0 181
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to the city's traffic
system. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's
future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too
speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result
of the extension of eminent domain power. would. at the time of proposal, be subject to further
environmental reyiew. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from
any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 181
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to parks or
recreational resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the
Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and
subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which
may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of
proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with
the City's General Plan. Local Coastal Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions,
ordinances and regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable
federal. state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be
required.
Mitigation: None
e) Drainage 0 0 0 181
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improyements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards.
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to city's drainage
9..3-'-;)... 5/30/02
PotmHaO,
Pot..t"., "'gn;r~.. Lou tba.
"'_nt U""" Slgnllka.' No
Impa" MI",..... Impa" Impact
system. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's
future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development are too
speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result
of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from
any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
f) Sewer 0 0 0 t!'
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Indiyidual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency' s existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to the city's sewer
resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment
Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development
are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as
a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan.
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from
any responsible public agency would also be required.
No sewer facilities or services are required to serve this project. Therefore, no conflict with the City's
threshold is anticipated.
Mitigation: None
g) Water 0 0 0 t!'
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities
are constructed concurrently with planned growth and those water quality standards are not
jeopardized during growth and construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set
program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments: The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain
authority. The extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical
changes to the environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to
water resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment
Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development
are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as
a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions. ordinances and regulations and procedures of the
:. 10..3 - ".3 5/30/02
Pot"llo.y
""..liaIIy _DI L<u Ib..
SI_D! UDI~ SIgni/kaD! N.
1m"", Mill,..", Impact Impact
City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approyal
from any responsible public agency would also be required.
No water service is required for this project. Therefore, no conflict with the City's threshold is anticipated.
Mitigation: None
XIIl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations ro the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 C!!I
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 C!!I
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 C!!I
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 C!!I
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 C!!I
t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 C!!I
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to utility and service
systems. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment
Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development
are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as
a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and proced]lres of the City
of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from
any responsible public agency would also be required.
The proposed project would not require new systems to be installed. or alterations of existing utilities.
Mitigation: None
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic yista or view open to the 0 0 0 C!!I
public or will the proposal result in the creation of
an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic 0 0 0 C!!I
route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 C!!I
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 C!!I
increase the leyel of sky glow in an area or cause
this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
11 ..ß - "c./ 5/30/02
Pot..d.O,
Pot,,'IaO, Si..if'~" Loulh..
SignUk.., U.I... Signiß",.t N.
1m.." MId,.... 1m.." 1m.."
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 c;;
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore. the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to aesthetic
resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment
Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development
are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as
a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan. Local
Coastal Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and
procedures of the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and
with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the 0 0 0 131
destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 131
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 131
physical change that would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 c;;
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 c;;
EIR as an area of high potential for archeological
resources?
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore. the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to cultural
resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment
Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development
are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as
a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from
any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None ...3 - "S-
,
12 5/30/02
Pot..'IoU,
......IoU, S;gn;r"".. '-""ba.
..,..;tka.t U.I~ Signm"., No
Impact Mhlga."¡ Impact Impo"
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 181
proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of
paleontological resources?
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to paleontological
resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment
Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development
are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as
a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
environmental review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from
any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional 0 0 0 181
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 181
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans 0 0 0 181
or programs?
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts '.to recreational
resources. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment
Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and subsequent development
are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as
a result of the extension of eminent domain power, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further
enyironmental reyiew. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City
of Chula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from
any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of
significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should
be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 0 0 181
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
13 ...3-"" 5/30/02
poI,....ny
...,ntòa1ly SI.,.;fk>D! Ldsth.n
Signllkan' Un"" Signilkan' No
l..part M;OI..'" I..part l..part
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
or California history or prehistory?
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redeyelopment Agency's existing eminent domain authority. The
extension of existing eminent domain power will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore. the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to sensitive plant or
animal communities. Indirect physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the
Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition of property through its power of eminent domain and
subsequent development are too speculative to analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which
may occur in the future as a result of the extension of eminent domain authority. would, at the time of
proposal, be subject to further environmental review. Said project would also be required to comply with
the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all applicable codes, conditions, ordinances, regulations
and procedures of the City ofChula Vista. Compliance with all applicable federal. state and local laws and
with any approval from any responsible public agency would also be required.
Mitigation: None
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 r¡
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments:
Extending the existing eminent domain authority of the city would not significantly affect the long-term
environmental goals of the City of Chula Vista.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0 0 0 r¡
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
Comments:
The proposed project only extends the Redevelopment Agency's existing power of eminent domain. The
extension of existing eminent domain authority will not result in any direct physical changes to the
environment; therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant cumulative impacts. Indirect
physical changes resulting in land use impacts as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's future acquisition
of property through its eminent domain authority and subsequent development are too speculative to
analyze at this time. Any redevelopment projects, which may occur in the future as a result of the
extension of eminent domain authority, would, at the time of proposal, be subject to further environmental
review. Said projects would also be required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance
and all applicable codes, conditions. ordinances, regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
Compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and with any approval from any responsible
public agency would also be required.
14 .3 A,"} 5/30/02
P"",'bOy
Pot,,'bOy _., '-'" tha.
S;gnü"",' U..... Slgn""" N.
Impact Mltl""" Impact Impact
Mitigation: None
d) Does the project have environmental effects that 0 0 0 11
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
No subsumtial significant effects on human beings would result from extending the city's existing eminent
domain authority.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: NONE REOillRED
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
NO MITIGATION MEASURES REOillRED
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: NONE CHECKED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems
0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 CultUral Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Paleontology 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
15 .3-(P g 5/30/02
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, .
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enyironment, 0
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at 0
least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 0
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been
prepared to provide a record of this determination.
~~~~
Date May 29. 2002
Brian Hunter
Planning & Enyironmental Services Manager
City of Chula Vista
..3_foC¡
16 5/30/02
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: +
MEETING DATE: 07/23/02
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING AN EXPANDED
REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA FOR STUDY PURPOSES PURSUANT
TO PART 1 OF DIVISION 24 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SUBMlnED BY: COMMUNITY DEV~OPMENT DIRECTOR L~ ~ t..S
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER P
4/5THS YOTE: YES 0 NO0
BACKGROUND
In August 2001, the Redevelopment Agency initiated an internal review of potential modifications to
the five existing redevelopment project areas in the City. With the ossistance of legal counsel and
consultants, staff concluded that several commercial and industrial areas in west Chula Vista may
qualify for inclusion in 0 redevelopment project area. The preliminary report identifying the areas to
be considered will be presented to the Redevelopment Agency for consideration on August 20,
2002.
Among these properties are the West Foirfield site, currently within the iurisdiction of the City of San
Diego adjoining on older industrial area in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, and the
properties located within the Lower Sweetwater Valley (the KOA Campground, the Redevelopment
Agency property, and other properties under private ownership). These properties, however, were
not in the original Survey Area when the redevelopment project areas were established and,
therefore, are not currently eligible to be included in the expansion areas to be studied. Therefore,
in order for these properties to be considered for redevelopment, the Survey Area needs to be
expanded to incorporate these properties. By adopting the attached resolution, the process to
expand the Survey Area and the redevelopment project area boundories would be initiated. The
map attached to the resolution shows the proposed new Survey Area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution designating an expanded
redevelopment Survey Area for study purposes.
4- /
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 07/23/02
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
No action is needed of the Planning Commission ot this time. If the resolution is adopted by the
City Council, the next step in the process will be for the Planning Commission and Agency to
select any new redevelopment areas from within the expanded Survey Area.
DISCUSSION
As a means to address the alleviation of blighting conditions and to expand economic development
tools within older retail and industrial areas in the western of Chula Vista, the Redevelopment
Agency is considering adding commercial districts into one or more of the redevelopment project
areas. Presently, most of the commercially-zoned areas on Broodway are not in a redevelopment
project area, as is the Third Avenue corridor south of I Street. Unlike residents in other parts of the
City, western Chula Vista households lack contemporary, viable shopping and business areas.
Some areas contain undesirable and non-productive mixed land uses. Redevelopment tools could
be employed in these areas to correct these blighting conditions and revitalize all commercial
districts in the western part of Chula Vista.
To initiate the process to include additional property in a redevelopment project area, the California
Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) requires the City
Council to establish a survey area for study purposes and to request the Planning Commission to
propose redevelopment project area(s) or amendments to existing project areas from the property
within the survey area.
The last time the City Council established a redevelopment Survey Area was in May 1990, prior to
formation of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. Thot current survey area generally includes
all properties bounded by the city limits on the north, west, and south; the eastern boundary line
runs along Second Avenue from the north city limit to just north of Main Street, then goes east to
include the residentiol areas west of Melrose Avenue and Rios Avenue. This orea is better shown in
the map attached to the resolution. Basically, the Survey Area will remain as it is now, except for the
proposed inclusion of the West Fairfield orea (currently within the City of San Diego) and the Lower
Sweetwater Valley properties (southwest of Highway 54/lnterstote 805 interchange), as shown in the
attached map.
The inclusion of these properties into the Survey Area will facilitate the proposed redevelopment
analysis for possible inclusion in the future. The West Fairfield expansion will facilitate the
implementation of the actions outlined in the Letter of Intent (Lal) being considered by the City
Council tonight on a separate agenda item. The actions contemplated under the La! are geared
toward the accomplishment of important goals for redevelopment of the West Fairfield area and
further implementation of the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan. The Lower Sweetwater Valley
properties are currently encumbered by lack of adequate access and infrostructure deficiency issues
and should be considered and evaluated for inclusion in redevelopment. But in order to do that, the
Survey Areo needs to be exponded to include those properties. Upon adoption of the resolution, the
4-2
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 07/23/02
12-month process to expand the project areas to include additional commercial and recreational
districts would be initiated.
Expanding the project areas requires an amendment to the redevelopment plans. In odditian to
expanding the project areos, Agency staff is planning on making some minor technical changes to
the redevelopment plans as a part of the amendment process. These technical changes and the
proposed project area boundaries would be identified in 0 preliminary plan, which would be
subsequently considered by the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency board if the City
Council approves the expanded survey areo. Inclusion of areas currently located in the City or
County of San Diego within a redevelopment area will require the cooperation and approval of
those public ogencies.
A tentative schedule of actions related to the proposed omendment and redevelopment area
expansion is shown as Attachment A to this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact will result from the adoption of tonight's resolution by the City Council. A
contract with the firm of Rosenow & Spevacek Group and funding for the project was approved
by the Redevelopment Agency in July of 2001.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Schedule of Actions for the 2003 Redevelopment Plan Amendments
nCOMMDEV\STAFF.REP\07 -16-02\Redevelopment Survey Area Expan,;on Report.doc (07/10/2002 3,31 PM]
4-3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DESIGNATING AN EXPANDED REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA
FOR STUDY PURPOSES PURSUANT TO PART I OF DIVISION 24 OF
THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council") desires
that a certain area be studied to determine if formation of a redevelopment project area or project
areas, or amendment area or amendment areas are feasible, pursuant to Part I of Division 24 of the
Health and Safety Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did previously adopt a survey area by Resolution No.
15631 on May 22,1990 ("1990 Survey Area"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the 1990 Survey Area to include
properties as depicted on the map attached herewith as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33310 of the Health and Safety Code authorizes
the City Council to designate redevelopment survey areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista hereby:
1. Designates the Expanded Redevelopment Survey Area as described on Exhibit
A attached herewith, and finds that said Expanded Redevelopment Survey Area
requires study to determine if a formation of a redevelopment project area or
project areas, or an amendment area or amendment areas, are feasible.
2. Authorizes and directs Agency staff and the Planning Commission to select a
feasible proposed redevelopment project area or project areas, or amendment
area or amendment areas, within the Expanded Redevelopment Survey Area and
prepare a preliminary plan pursuant to Section 33322 of the Health and Safety
Code.
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
PRESENTED BY
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
lICOMMDEV\RESOS\Redevelopment Survey Mea Expansion Reso.doc [0711 1/2002340 PM]
4-'-1
ATTACHMENT A
EO
.¡
~ ~
~ B
... I a ~
-t I ~ ~ ~ 9
I ~
~ 1
..
.!J ~
J ~
~ ~
J 8 ~
¡¡ - --
1. ~ 1 ~
J ----
jiNl ð U ~
-&'-"5 eJ
I t -.
it ~...
£ i i
} Jt !I.
!5 «
J j
u
1 I~ I I i I I
§ ~ ~ ~ N N .....................~ I~
N.... j~ ~ f; g ~ ~ 5\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~
~ ~àli~--i!l~~i~Sj ~
f !Ii i ~ i
. J I ~J ~ 51 I I ~ I ~ j .
I ! J Ii i t1i i £ ~ '0 I: 8 i 11 ~ ~ ~
Z I it I I' ~ ãJ Jl Ii S I !! ¡¡ iI II ..
I I II ¡ fhU¡ ill' L 1 !~ j ï ! I is
. J s >- ~I!í Iii .5 Iii- ~'ii 'ð-8'x)j!' .¡
HU~ 2Huu ~dHHnl H f I I
...N....,............~::~:;!:t~ '"
.. -::;.-
¡5
a:
<
>-1-
>-a:u
~1!i~
CZO
z::>a:
::>oc..
OlD I-
lD¡5æ
¡5~::õ
~>-g;
>-W¡¡j
~~Ìjj
O!5Χ
ZenDa:
WCJWCJ
C)ZCZ
W¡::~¡::
-I!!1c..!!1
~~~
,\1...1....1................1.....1.......
/ ......
'\ ......
\ ......
c..1
<I
::õ
¡¡5
a:
<
~~
~~
¡¡¡~
I-if
ZU
w"-
::!:O
g;~
¡¡Jë3
Ìjj
CI
w
a:
¡
,.j
t;
z
« US! émm~! !
wi ~ / ffi
~i /~~= ..-~=~;<-:I. ~
0 /~/w .. ~
W II 0 Ii!
0 f Z ~
Z ~/ « g
Cf. //::::/ a.. ~
~.//. .:.~ OJ ,
PAGE I, IIEM NO.: :;)
MEETING DATE: 07/23/02
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A SALARY INCREASE FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT
MANAGER POSITION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT TO ALIGN THE SALARY WITH THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT MANAGER POSITION, AND AMENDING THE FY
2002-03 OPERATING BUDGETS TO IMPLEMENT SAME
SUBMlnED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR L\t. c.5
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR ~
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER t- r/
4/STHS VOTE: YES0NOD
BACKGROUND
The Community Development Deportment requested that the Human Resources Department
conduct a classification analysis of the Redevelopment Manoger position in light of elevated duties
and responsibilities established for the position. Human Resources conducted a review of the
incumbent's duties and responsibilities as well as associated internal equity relationships.
It was determined by Human Resources that the findings did not support a reclassification, but
supported a salary increase of 5% to reflect an appropriate internal alignment of the Redevelopment
Manager position with the Economic Development Manager.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency/City Council adopt the resolution approving a
5% annual salary and benefits increose ($5,133) for the Redevelopment Manager position in the
Community Development Department; aligning it with the Economic Development Manager
position and amending the FY 2002-03 General Fund and Redevelopment Agency budgets by
oppropriating $5,133 to the Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency
personnel services budgets to be paid to the General Fund from unanticipated reimbursement
revenue from the available fund balance of the Redevelopment Agency Merged Project Fund.
S-!
PAGE 2, IIEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 07/23/02
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION
Community Development submitted 0 request to the Human Resources Department to conduct a
clossification analysis of the Redevelopment Monager position due to elevated duties and
responsibilities required of the position. Community Development recommended that the
position be aligned with the Economic Development Monager to reflect 0 more appropriate
internal alignment of responsibilities.
The elevated duties and responsibilities have evolved over time as the number, scope and
complexity of the City's redevelopment projects and programs have grown ond expanded, olong
with greater focus and attention being paid to western Chula Vista revitalization efforts. In
recognition of this growth and associated workload demands, Community Development
conducted an internal teambuilding and assessment process, that resulted in a number of
significant positive changes for the Deportment. These internal changes include revised roles ond
responsibilities for the Director ond Assistant Director, development of a more refined inter-
divisional "team" approach to project management, os well as a number of strategic initiotives to
be undertaken by Community Development thot complement ond supplement the General Plan
Update process lead by the Planning and Building Deportment. These internal changes were
necessary in order to improve departmental efficiencies and effectiveness and keep pace with
workload demands.
During the course of the departmental assessment process, it became opparent that the
Redevelopment Manager position would be more appropriately aligned with the Economic
Development Manager positian that is currently compensated ot 5% above the other three (3)
Division Managers within the Department. The recommendation generally stems from a change
in program management and oversight lead responsibilities relotive to the Director and Assistant
Director that has occurred slowly over the last four to six months. The Assistant Directar's role
has been expanded to serve in a more prominent leadership (not project management) capacity
for broad-based western Chula Vista urban core revitalization program oversight in the
Redevelapment and Housing divisions, while also maintaining responsibilities for day-to-day
department operations, personnel, staff management, budget and agenda oversight, os well as
general support to the Director. This change, among other things, has resulted in freeing up the
Director to focus on pressing regional, multi-jurisdictional efforts related to the Port District
properties, bayfront development, economic development initiatives (including the Economic
Development Strategy), school district issues and significant General Plan Update citywide policy
Issues.
.s-:J...
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 07/23/02
This change In leadership roles has also resulted in elevated respansibilities for the
Redevelopment Monoger. Western Chula Vista revitalization efforts in the Redevelopment
Division include current and future projects and programs such as Broodway Revitalization
(forthcoming in August), Motel Conversion Strategy, Third Avenue Master Plan, Chula Visto
Center repositioning project, as well os the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendments and
related financial strategy (August). These higher-level criticol inter-deportmentol efforts managed
by the Redevelopment Manager and redevelopment staff under direction of the Assistant Director,
are more comparable and similar In scope, nature and importonce as the Economic
Development Strategy (EDS), Business Response Team (BRT) initiatives, ond related economic
development projects ond programs managed by the Economic Development Manager.
Although the other Division Managers within the Deportment have significant ond similor duties
ond responsibilities in many respects, the scope and complexity of the Redevelopment Manager
responsibilities, higher-level of staff supervised, greater decision-making authority ond autonomy,
and greater visibility more appropriotely aligns the position with the Economic Development
Manager.
As indicated earlier, after careful review and analysis by the Human Resources Department, it
was determined that a reclassification wos not appropriate, however, the findings did support a
salory adjustment to reflect an appropriate internal alignment with the Economic Development
Manager. It needs to be noted that in the compensotion plan adopted by Council in January
2000, this position, as well as the Housing Manoger and Planning and Environmental Services
Monager positions in Community Development were equoted to the Principal Planner. The
Principal Plonner position was the benchmark used in the solary survey with the Economic
Development Manager placed at a 5% higher salary level. All positions are mid-monagement.
Community Development is cognizant that as a result of this recommendation, two (2) division
monager positions in the department will be compensated at 0 higher solory thon the other two
(2) division managers based upon different levels of responsibilities; and that future evaluations
of these positions as well as the Principol Planner will need to be considered at the appropriate
time.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the resolution will result in the Redevelopment Manoger position receiving a 5%
onnual salary and benefits increase ($5,133) and the operating budget being amended to reflect
odditional revenue to the General Fund from the Redevelopment Agency Merged Project Fund to
cover the cost.
J:\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\O7-23-02\Redevelopment Manager Salary Adjustment.doc
.:;- - 3
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO.
AND
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A SALARY INCREASE FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT
MANAGER POSITION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT TO ALIGN THE SALARY WITH THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT MANAGER POSITION, AND AMENDING THE FY
2002-03 OPERATING BUDGETS TO IMPLEMENT SAME
WHEREAS, in January 2000 the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted a salary plan
with the Redevelopment Manager, Housing Manager, and Planning and Environmental Services
Manager positions in the Community Development Department aligned with the Principal Planner
and the Economic Development Manager position was placed at a salary 5% above the Principal
Planner; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department requested that the Human Resources
Department conduct a reclassification analysis of the Redevelopment Manager position and place
the salary in alignment with the Economic Development Manager; and
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department conducted the analysis and concluded that
the position did not warrant a reclassification but did warrant being placed at an equivalent salary
with the Economic Development Manager based upon the current and expected duties and
responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Redevelopment Agency and City Council of the
City of Chula Vista do hereby approve a 5% salary increase for the Redevelopment Manager
position in the Community Development Department to align it with the Economic Development
Manager position; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Redeveiopment Agency and City Council of the City
of Chula Vista do hereby approve amending the FY 2002-03 operating budgets by appropriating
$5,133 to the Community Development Department personnel services budget from unanticipated
reimbursement revenue from the Redevelopment Agency Merged Project Fund.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
J:\COMMDEV\RESOS\RDA Manager Salary Adjustmentdoc
S-t../