HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1991/07/30
'i[ dtc:;:;o u~<cr ~erl.:;;t}; C'; P:'TIU:"Y that I am
Cf;,}/':.',-c'.\ ;Jj 't':'J \~;1~:/ ;:.;t Chu::J Viu:n in the
G y;CC :::;,; ~~;,:- Cl ~>t Cl~r~: ,;,nd tl~c~,~ i po~tcd
'i_~i:" /\2(::"::'~~!:'~oJ:~j-:!.: ~il '(;"!.:.;l Bu1i(~;:;n Bo~rd at
th:) i, ~(j:'frrrPI' ';$ i3Uil,',iinSG~'n at \.l;,i~' Hall 0 ,/!
-nc' "'- "'1; tl1 ~'("I"D f.J! .,
Tuesday, July 30, 19Y'l"" "--". r_; -=J ,';';," -, -(j
6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
Adiourned Meetin~ of the City of Chula Vista City Council
CALLED TO ORDER
1.
CALL TIlE ROIl.:
Councilmembers Grasser Horton _, Malcolm -' Moore -'
Rindone _. and Mayor Nader _'
2. PLEDGE OF AIJ.EGIANCE TO TIlE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None-submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF TIlE DAY: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacteJ1 by the
Council by one motion wi1Jwut discussion unless a Cowu:ilmember, a member of the public or City staff requests
that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speok 011 one of these items, please fill out a .Request to
Speak Form' available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speok in opposition to the staff
recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Public Hearings and Oral
CommunU:ations. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRlTfEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
6.
RESOLUTION 16258
APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND DIRECTING STAFF TO ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH TIlE PROPERTY OWNERS OF
PARCEL 618-152-16 (1070-1072 FIFTH AVENUE) FOR DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO TIlE FIFTH AVENUE STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECf FROM "L' STREET TO NAPLES STREET
_ The property owners of 1070-1072 Fifth Avenue are requesting
in accordance with the City's drainage policy for lateral channels
that the City participate in improving the drainage facility across
their driveway. The policy states that the City may participate in
up to 50% of improvements for lateral channels. This proposed
drainage improvement would consist of a rectangular concrete
channel connecting to the City's existing facilities at Fifth Avenue
and extending westerly to the existing corrugated metal pipes.
Staff recommends Council appropriate $37,000 and approve the
resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
Continued from the 7/18/91 meeting.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
Agenda
-2-
July 30, 1991
PUBIJC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hemings as required by law. If you wish to speak
to any item, pkase Jill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submiJ iJ to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Comp1ere the green form to speak in favor of the staffrecommendation; comp1ere the pink form
to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individuaL
7.
PUBIJC HEARING
PCS-90-02: REQUEST TO SUBDMDE 404.9 ACRES KNOWN AS RANCHO
DEL HEY SECllONAL PLANNING AREAIII, CHULA VISTA TRACT NUMBER
90-02 LOCATED BETWEEN EAST "H" STREET AND TELEGRAPH CANYON
ROAD, IMMEDIATELY SOUTII OF RANCHO DEL HEY SPA I; RANCHO DEL
HEY PARTNERSHIP - The public hearing on this matter was continued
from the meeting of July 9, 1991 to allow for notification of additional
residents within the vicinity of the proposed project. The City Attorney's
Office has revised the draft resolution to reflect changes in the tentative
map conditions which were voted on by the Council prior to taking action
to continue the hearing. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Planning) Continued from the 7/18/91 meeting.
RESOLUTION 16222 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP FOR RANCHO DEL HEY
SECllONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) III, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-02
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportuniJy for the general public to address the City Cowu:il on any subject matter within the Council's
jurisdidion thJJt is not an iJem on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the CiJy Cowu:il from
taking adion on any issues not inclutkd on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Cowu:il on such a
subjec~ please comp1ere the yellow "Request to Speak Undo Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby
and submiJ iJ to the CiJy Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address
far record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
ACllON ITEMS
The iJems listed in this section of the agenda are expected to eliciJ substantiol discussions and deliberations by the
Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Cowu:il and staff
recommendatiollS may in certain cases be presented in the a1ternative. Those who wish to speak, please Jill out
a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submiJ iJ to the CiJy Clerk prior to the meeting. Public
comments are limited to five minutes.
8.
REPORT
ON ENDANGERED IJSTING STATUS OF THE CAlJFORNIA GNATCATCHER
AND CURRENT REGIONAL AND SUB-REGIONAL EFFORTS TO PREPARE
A HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN - The report contains a review of the
current status of the California Gnatcatcher as a state and federal
endangered species. Current programs by other agencies and groups which
are proposing to preserve sensitive biological habitat, and Chula Vista's
options are also listed. Staff recommends Council: 1) authorize the City
Manager to send a letter to the California Fish and Game Commission
regarding the potential listing of the California Gnatcatcher as a candidate
for state endangered species; and 2) direct staff to prepare a habitat
Agenda
-3-
July 30, 1991
conservation program for areas within the City contammg sensitive
biological habitat, including coastal sage scrub habitat. (Director of
Planning) Continued from the 7/23/91 meeting.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items whU:h have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or CommiJtees.
None submitted.
ITEMS PULJ.ED FROM TI-IE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Ca1endm. Agenda
items puUed at the request of the publU: will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmemben. PublU:
comments are limited to five minutes per individuaI.
OTHER BUSINESS
9. CI1Y MANAGER'S REPORTCS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
10. MAYOR'S REPORTCS)
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Malcolm
a. Support of Desalinization Bill by State Assemblyman Steve Peace.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in a closed session inunediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Garcia versus the City of Chula
Vista, et al.
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on August
6, 1991 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
ITEM NUMBER
'-
"~58
RESOLUTION NUMBER
ORDINANCE NUMBER
ITEM NUMBER REFERENCED ABOVE HAS BEEN
CONTINUED TO
SEE AGENDA PACKET FOR THIS ITEM
ON .:TIJL.Y I' Ifq I
'-I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / ~
1
,
ITEJIl TITLE:
Meeting Date 7/16/91
Resolution 1l-1-c;&, Appropriating funds and directing staff
to enter into an agreement with the property owners of parcel
618-152-16 (1070-1072 Fifth Avenue) for drainage improvements
adjacent to the Fifth Avenue Street improvement project from
"l" Street to Naples Street. ..~
Director of Public wor~~
City Manager~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes...!...No_)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWm BY:
During the early stages of construction for the Fifth Avenue Improvement
Project between "l" Street and Naples Street, the property owners of 1070-1072
Fifth Avenue [John and Jennie Rindone] requested that the drainage channel
located on their property be improved in conjunction with the Fifth Avenue
Street improvements. The new drainage facilities constructed with the Fifth
Avenue project will discharge water in the same manner as in the past which is
upon the driveway of 1070-1072 Fifth Avenue and heading westerly into two 42"
corrugated metal pipes. The property owners are requesting that the City
participate in constructing a new channel.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Appropriate funds in the amount of $37,000 from the unappropriated
balance of the Residential Construction Tax fund.
2. Direct staff to return to Council with an agreement which would
provide for the property owners participation in the cost of
drainage improvements across 1070-1072 Fifth Avenue.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The property located at 1070-1072 Fifth Avenue has a concrete drainage channel
running through the property which is also used as the driveway and parking
lot for this duplex. As a consequence, during heavy rains, flooding occurs in
the driveway, occasionally up to the level of the foundation of the
buildings. This drainage system was constructed when the duplex units were
built under the jurisdiction of the County.
At this time the property owners are requesting, in accordance with the City's
drainage policy for lateral channels, that the City participate in improving
the drainage facility across their driveway. City drainage policy for lateral
channels states that the City may participate in up to 50% of improvements for
lateral channel s. Thi s proposed drai nage improvement woul d consist of a
rectangular concrete channel connecting to the Ci ty' s exi st ing facil it ies at
Fifth Avenue and extending westerly to the existing corrugated metal pipes.
Staff estimates that the approximate construction costs will be $50,000. The
-i4-t (,.. I
,
"'
" ,
~
Page 2, Item I ~
Meeting Date:J7I679T
Rindone's have agreed to pay one-half of the construction cost of the project
not to exceed $25,000. The owners are also willing to grant the City an
easement which will contain the proposed drainage facilities. Both the
Rindone's and the City have met with the adjacent property owner to discuss a
three-way cost sharing to the project. While the adjacent property also
floods when it rains, the owner was quite firm that they could not afford to
rarticiPate in the project. None of the existing or proposed channel is
ocated on the adjacent property.
Staff estimates that the total cost of the project wil 1 be approximately
$62,000, $12,000 of which wil 1 be for staff costs. The property owners have
agreed to pay one-half of the construction costs and propose that the City pay
all staff costs for design and inspection. Under the proposed agreement, if
the actual construction costs come in above $50,000, neither party is
committed to proceed. Both the City and the Rindone's contribution for the
construction contract is limited to $25,000 each. If the contract costs come
in higher, we would only award it if both parties agreed to pay more.
The proposed drainage improvements would serve two purposes:
1. to prevent small children from being swept into the open pipes
westerly from the driveway area during a major storm, and
2. to help provide flood protection.
Attached are correspondence between the Rindone's (or their representat i ve)
and the City. The 1 atest correspondence dated June 11, 1991, from thei r
attorney, Hr. Cliff Reed, outlines several conditions in which they suggest
the City would try and assist the property owners. Staff has researched these
items and feels at this time that since the adjacent owner has clearly
indicated he does not wish to participate, they are not applicable. While
staff will continue to cooperate with the Rindone's efforts to obtain
financial participation from the neighbor, we do not totally understand what
Mr. Reed's definition of cooperation would involve. We would not recommend
that the City take any action to force participation such as an assessment
~ district.
FISCAL IMPAI;T: The project will require the appropriation of funds in the
amount of $37,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Residential
Construction Tax fund.
DD/mad:AO-076
WPC 5686E
~..~
~
RESOLUTION NO. 11,2.551
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND DIRECTING
STAFF TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCEL 618-152-16
(1070-1072 FIFTH AVENUE) FOR DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO THE FIFTH AVENUE
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FROM "L" STREET TO
NAPLES STREET
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, during the early stages of construction for the
Fifth Avenue Improvement project between "L" Street and Naples
Street, the property owners of 1070-1072 Fifth Avenue [John and
Jennie Rindone] requested that the drainage channel located at on
their property be improved in conjunction with the Fifth Avenue
Street improvements: and
WHEREAS, the new drainage facilities constructed with
the Fifth Avenue project will discharge water in the same manner
as in the past which is upon the driveway of 1070-1072 Fifth
Avenue and heading westerly into two 42" corrugated metal pipes;
and
WHEREAS, at this time the property owners are
requesting, in accordance wi th the Ci ty' s drainage policy for
lateral channels, that the City participate in improving the
drainage facility across their driveway: and
WHEREAS, the City drainage policy for lateral channels
states that the City may participate in up to 50% of improvements
for lateral channels; and
WHEREAS~ the proposed drainage improvement would consist
of a rectangular concrete channel connecting to the City's
existing facilities at Fifth Avenue and extending westerly to the
existing corrugated metal pipes with an estimated construction
cost of $50,000: and
WHEREAS, the Rindone' s have agreed to pay one-half of
the construction cost of the project not to exceed $25,000 and
are also willing to grant the City an easement which will contain
the proposed drainage facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby direct staff to return to
Council with an agreement which would provide for the property
owners' participation in the costs of drainage improvements
across 1070-1072 Fifth Avenue.
'-' -1-
~ ~ '~-
BE
appropriate
Residential
Presented by
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
$37,000 from the unappropriated balance of the
Construction Tax Fund.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
9049a
~- 'l
~. -2-
'l
, Clty Attorney
. .
.
CLIrrON E. REED
AtlOrn~ at taw
357 Thud A\.~nu~
Chula VIsta. CA 92010
161!!1426-4362
"
June 11, 1991
Mayor and City Council
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth ;~enue
Chula Vista CA 91910
Subj: STORM DRAIN :IMPROVEMENTS - ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 618-152-16
Dear ~ayor and Council:
After much discussion between City officials and my clients,
Jennio and John Rindone, my c~ients are willing to give the City
the eusement across their property thr City requires to complete
the Fifth Avenue Street Improvement project. My clients agreement
is conditioned upon Council approval of l! staff proposal as
follows. .
The city will design and construct a drainage facility across
the Rindone property substantially in accordance with diagram liB"
in the attached Exhibit 1. The Rindones will pay one-half of the
construction costs of that project not to exceed $25,000.00. If
the construction bid proposed to be accepted exceeds $50,000.00,
the bid shall not be awarded without further approval by the City
and the Rindones.
The easement agreement will contain appropriate hold harmless
provisions relating to the construction and use of the public
facility. The Ci~y staff will continue to cooperate with my
clients' effort to obtain reimbursement from a neighbor benefitting
from the project but the City is not required to establish an
assessment or benefit district as a part of this cooperation. City
staff shall also cooperate with the Rindones in attempting to
locate financing sources which may be less costly than commercial
loans available to the Rindones. This cooperation does not mean,
however, that the City is obligated to locate or provide such
financing and locating such financing is not a condition to the
Rindones obligations to finance their share of the project.
sz;:.y ~
Clifton E. Reed
CER:DNS
061191-1
~ ~---S
.
-J
.
. .. _." .
:. r
.
,.
..
to-
l!~
~I~
'.' .
~~' 11
\Sr
~ ~[
U\ ~t"
.. k'
r.
.~
iD;)
.
:~.
,...
.(!;j
"llIl
L:
.
, -.
;.
4
.j!
:,
.'1
:.1
.-....
-;
,
I
- .,.
I
.. -" If'. ;. -- ..
i;:
;...__.~-
-" . --.,.
--. -- -- . ".
t1- .... e..
. --. ..
....:_-...:
I ;
....... -~. ." -.. .......__.~.
~ I . -., .1 I .J -Ll :.J . : ' :. ~.. I-
I , :' . I: :: .' i I !
Ji, . !_-;-, I ~: 'I ':1:':- i "!':I;~~~iJlU'1,;1 ;Ji~1 U
I . t' ! , " , I . " 'I
.. I'. .. fl.
7"'r'" :"r' ,. ,.-~..-... l .J_,~..., .n'i--i--~i--i' ,-1-'-.-1"+-
I: "', ! :: ': I ! I , I I I ! ' I ! !
.. I -. , . r-.; . " ';-1 'T'-j' . · - '-'1-- '''J L"-;"'1-:-
ql-L-..:...; .,. + .. _._ J.n!. n!,.. ,_ !.. J. -f".--.J-H.. L -1....~--'
- 1- ~ ~. ~ ~_. ....1'.. ~ -;"'-t-..j.- ..~~_. ~._~-~+- .~--i--~-.I. .~
ff' , 17:;- f '--,- T-~ ~ ,Ht -j-' +i-f-H r+-]-r ,"
1 ~- !..~ l~;' . ~-~~- ~-:~~_i. F--;-:J~..- -" .L~ =r~'i~l=rn L-f-r -1 I '_
'J ~-j.~-_..:_.:.L.;! ,:.__!._~ _J._J._.~.J t--L_1-i -L~_+++ l
l-W--l. t. L 'i._ ~ ~.. LI-j-~-~-.-- - ;--~.-thLl_L! L-L:.J-W-i-L
tji. ..... ,.": i t I I . ~:~! ,.. i Ii; 1 I '
---4-.1... · --~- '"'-., ..i . ---.r- -- h_-+- -. ot ....--- 'I~ _. "--r-
: ": ~'. . '. i I I ':L E: '::l i . ;
, I ;--- ";-- .~.: t. .-t-;---i-t-ri-[.-t~::-t-::l' tL:J , +-4-"-
_L.T ...; ";'-r -;- I ~i 'r "".::}-r:.l rTI i I .
..-1-.. --. ._.h. -.; ~ -t ...... . ._-/ vl_..... T-~.j..--....-
. . .- ~ . ~ " I I I I I
~ . In ....". i +' I :,
--j'-; · ~ ;.~__:....._t-:..~":;.~.. ..' - ~. "i-', I I ; ~ i,L.-t .' ,_
.',-';' . r-'-":.,:.'i.; rj'-'II"-I--.jI"1-i~"r'-j-~!-- '+-,,_. ,
-y- r . ~~ .~~ ~i;. ,....;. -, --!---. ---t.--, ~/~' . 'J: ... =1=1-:-
--1--'-' "'- .W~~ ~-: !1"T'i--;'-~ !...~......i.... '.JB
. . . T ., .,. I. .
-" i ~ ! f': . j; . -:.t ~ '.', 'ij'J' ., ' ; . 1....1 .:- :- --i -"7
'-JI.. I :....'1 . ~., . I . !- : 'r -J,u..: -"j - [--i t-oI-"'-t- :-l' I
~. "'II I:-.~"r"'i '1- ~_.! ~ ;.. j .....:..; J..~--l-r. .~-"--r- f '" i
-" .. 1,"",._ !-r-j-+ Ki .,-. .;: ~.... 'J' _..~:..- I:-j" ~t
. I .... ........"... +,
-- --',"': "i' - ~:...i '~'.' . ~ - rt!~_rT-'---,- ,- r-
"1 I" rOo': -i ~ .l-.:i:---- ~- L::'+- ;.. '-1--. t--I.-~it;l-t--.I-.. ...~ - I _.~__.
~ ~"1" :. -H ..;- .(,I_'~I-I -.: - '-. 'rrrl"-r' I . ~.
--" ~! : ..,
"
.
Karch 15, 1991
. t(Q)[pJ1(
" . ,..... . r'" "''I ~
...... I...;. ; ~ r.. , .....
.
Mr. Cliff Swanson
Engineering Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 92010
RE: OPEN DRAINAGE DITCH ACROSS DRIVEWAY OF 1070-72 FIFTH AVENUE
We, as property owners adjacent to the drainage ditch crossing
1070-72 Fifth Avenun, Chula Vista, are concerned about the health
and safety standardE if the existing flood/drainage ditch is not
improved while improvements are being made in the un~erground
drainage system on Fifth Avenue, and the open box for the
drainage pipe at this address. When we have a rainy season, the
water flows very rapidly from the large open drainage pipes
(scheduled to be replaced with new pipes) at Fifth Avenue to the
other set of open large drainage pipes in back of 1070-72 Fifth
Avenue. The force of the water is such that it carries grocery
carts and debris along its path. The water level approaches the
doorsteps of 1070-72 Fifth Avenue, and floods the backyards of
1076-1078 Fifth Avenue. During periods of heavy rain, the
potential of flooding exists for, 1076-78 Fifth Avenue as this'
property is lower than 1070-72 Fifth Avenue. We feel this is a
safety hazard for children as the pipe openings are large enough
to permit entry, and a health hazard should chemicals enter into
the drainage sys~em, as well as a flood hazard.
.'
Upon the annexation of the Montgomery area, we believed that the
City of Cbula Vista would aSSUllle all the costs of improvement and
reconstruction at the time of eventual reconstruction. However,
the city staff bas declined to JDake this recOllllDendation in the
case of the above identified problem. We disagree with staff's
recDlllllendation.
Please note: Policy 1522-~1 page 2, 13. Policv for Financina
various Cateaories of Drainaae Pro;ects, a. Flood Control
Proiects. "The Federal government usually pays for all costs
except right-of-way, relocation and reconstruction of utilities.
These latter costs are paid by the City with reimbursement by the
State of California, Department of Water Resources." We consider
this drainage system to be a utility (i.e. something useful to
the public), and ~is project is considered to be a
reconstruction of existing poor facilities.
~~ Co-}
.
,~
.
t(Q)[P>1(
According to staff, the City could not pay for correcting this
problem they inherited from the Co~nty when annexing this area,
as it only involves the two addresses listed. Apparently, City
Council Policy #3 .Policv for Financina Various Cateaories of
Drainaae Pro;ects. item (a) Flood Control Pro;ects previously
quoted is deemed by the City to pertain to larger areas of
flooding.
'f'berefore, J.f agr_ent cannot be reached between the City
Engineering staff and the owners of; the property in question, we
request that this _tter be presen~ to the City COuncil for
resolution at the DeXt: session, KarCh 26.
Xf we, the property owners, agree to partially pay for the
construction of the flood/drainage facility, can the following
terms of understanding and agreement be assured:
1. Re: Policy #522-01 Drainaae - Storm, page 2, b. Lateral
Channels. .~he responsibility for the cost of design and
construction of lateral channels and structures may be shared
equally by the city and propE,rty owners involved." The City
Staff informed us this was considered a lateral channel. In our
opinion, the City Policy states that the City could pay Sot of
the construction cost, however, your staff has a different
interpretation of the policy. As we understand your staff's
interpretation, if both property owners agree to share the cost,
each party will pay one-third. However, if only one of the
property owners will participate, the City could pay sot in order
to correct this problem. Provided the City deems there would be
no way this part of the flood/drainage reconstruction could be
totally included in the City'S expenditures for current
reconstruction of the Fifth Avenue drainage problems, we believe
the City should pay one-half the total cost of correcting this
existing flood/drainage problem to connect the underground
drainage system from Fifth Avenue to the pipes behind 1070 Fifth
Avenue, and the~wners of the adjacent property (1070-72 and
1076-78 Fifth Avenue) which are affected by this flood potential
divide the '.other half of the cost between them.
2. If the property owners are required to pay a portion of the
costs to correct this flood/drainage problem, then we believe
that a twenty-year repayment schedule (special tax assessment
district) is appropriate because the approximate total cost
ranges between $43,000 and $50,000. The City staff informs us
that a ten year repayment period is maximum. Is there any
flexibility in your policy by staff or is the City Council
required to make the final decision?
3. As we understand the possible solutions, there are two
alternatives to solving this problem. One is an open rectangular
drainage ditch with a chainlink fence. The other alternative
involves the use of prefabricated pipes which would continue
enclosing the drainage system to the pipes at the back of the
ftttJi
(.....~
.
.
.
.
..
CC(Q)~1f
property. There are approximately 150 feet of open spillway
across 1070-72 Fifth Avenue located next tc the property line of
this property and 1076-78 Fifth Avenue. If we are required to
pay for a portion of the costs to correct this flood/drainage
problem, we would like to be permitted to have input into which
system 1s used after the definite costs are ascertained.
We would appreciate the City staff response prior to the deadline
for submitting items for the March 26 Council Agenda. We are
hoping to reach an agreement regarding this flood/drainage
problem with City staff. However, should agreement not be
reached before the deadline for submitting items to the Council
Agenda, we would like the opportunity to present our problem to
them for their input toward a solution on the March 26 meeting.
Decisions need to be made so that construction can progress
within the time schedule currently established for this project.
Sincerely,
John and Jennie Rindone
cc: Hr. John Goss, city Manager
Hr. Dennis Davies, Associate civil Engineer
:.
f;zI; b"'~
t~ .. ,
.
~(Q)flf
September 20, 1990
Mr. John Goss
city Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE:
J:MPROVEMENT OF FIFTH AVENUE BETWEEN "L"
STREET AND NAPLES STREET
.
AO-'076
FJ:LE:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PARCEL NUMBER:
107&-72 Fifth Avenue
618 152 16 00
SUBJECT:
CHANGE OF DRAINAGE PLAN TO PIPES BELOW GROUND
ACROSS DRIVEWAY OF SAID PROPERTY INSTEAD OF
ABOVE GROUND OPEN DRAINAGE
Dear Mr. Goss,
Please accept this letter as a request to change the drainage
plan for our property as identified above. We have spoken to Mr.
Dennis Davies of the Engineering Department and we believe that
we understand the plan as developed. However, we would like the
City to reconsider this drainage plan because of our concerns for
the safety of children and the very real potential water damage
to our property and the property of our neighbors.
Previously, we, as owners of 1070-72 Fifth Avenue, brought this
drainage problem to the attention of the Planning Department of
San Diego County when the property was in the Montgomery
District, and again before the Chula Vista City when an apartment
complex was constructed behind our,property. '
The problem with the above ground drainage, which begins where
the pipes at Fifth Avenue open up allowing rapid flow drainage
across the driveway of 1070-72 Fifth Avenue to the pipes on the
land behind our property, has always existed. J:t is my
understanding that the drainage plan will not be changed because
there is no increase in the flow of the water after the
completion of the project. However, this does not ma~e sense to
us. The properties become flooded with the existing flow, and
the failure to correct this situation at the time of this
construction may tend to liable the City in the event of
accidents or water damage. J:n a phrase, you inherited a problem
with the annexation of the Montgomery area, and the maintenance
of the problem at the same level is not acceptable.
(,-'0
~
.
.
.
.
J
!
"
~
:*
~(Q)~V
Permit me to be graphic in describing the problem. Not only does
the existing amount of water drainage cause flooding problems
during heavy rains with the water coming up to the doorstep. but
there is the added problem of safety to young children who could
easily be swept into the open pipes with the force of the water.
~he tenant at 1072 has seen even grocery carts being swept
through the area by the force of the water, along with much
debris. ~here is also the added problem of children playing in
the pipes during the dry season. Before the complex was built
behind our property, we brought in a picture taken during a storm
which shows water up to the doorsteps of our apartm~nts so that
the city engineers would be aware of this problem before the
construction progressed too far on the property behind ours. We
would be glad to show ~his picture to anyone involved in the
decision-making process for this project. We understand we will
be asked to deed over'a corner of our property on Fifth Avenue
for construction of a n~w opening. Instead of the expense of
building this concrete structure, we feel a better use of funds
in the long run would be to continue undergrounding the pipes and
connecting to the pipes on the property behind ours. Since the
problems of Fifth Avenue are being corrected, why not correct
this problem and prevent any potential loss of.a life or
property.
We would like to discuss this matter with you or those who have
the authority to make recommendations for changes.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in advance.
Sincerely,
9~ ~~ c4?~~
John and Jennie Rindone
430 Corte Maria
Chula Vista, CA 92010
420-7979
cc: Mayor Greg Cox
Mr. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works
Mr. Dennis Davies, Associate Civil Engineer
-
,...,1
~
TInS PAGE BLANK
ra-/~
/1- /~
/ /
.
ITEM NUMBER
7
RESOLUTION NUMBER
ORDINANCE NUMBER
ITEM NUMBER REFERENCED ABOVE HAS BEEN
CONTINUED TO
SEE AGENDA PACKET FOR THIS ITEM
ON
~~~
~ '7jq/'I1
~ to 7/16/91
~
~
1-1
~
Rcn-,' ','~
-t 1. , : l~ ~ ti ,'- I ~
I ~~-;~
PLr\i ;"~:,.~ r.~
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
l
July 14, 1991
..-=-,--_.~~_..---...." ..,
!-Iayor Tim 'IIader
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Nader:
This letter is in response to the announcement of the public
hearing regarding Chula Vista Tract 90-02 of the Rancho del Rey
SPA III project. The hearing is scheduled for July 18, 1991. As
I will not be able to attend, I would like to express my concerns
via this letter.
I am opposed to the development planned for this area. My
objections center around the fact that 1380 units are going to be
squeezed into this small space. Development in Chula Vista may
be inevitable, but does it have to be such complete and total
development?
Why can we not have plain open space available for the
surrounding neighborhoods? The builders' idea of open space is
to leave bare the sides of a canyon where houses couldn't be
built anyway. At the bottom of the canyon is a well-coiffed,
water-guzzling park or two.
Is it asking too much to have real, natural open space left
for the residents? Why do you, the council, consider any square
inch of vacant land a sin which must be covered up and built on
as soon as possible?
Psychologically people need contact with nature to remain
sane. They need space. This particular parcel of open land is
criss-crossed by trails which are used by walkers with or without
dogs, joggers, bike riders, model airplane fliers, children, and
people who just need a few minutes once in awhile to get away
from the noise of neighbors and traffic.
You will notice that the crime rate in the neighborhoods
near this space is lower than in highly congested areas where
there is no real nature available. People become neurotic,
irritable and hostile when they are packed together like
sardines. You may deride this notion, but having access to some
natural, quiet space is a safety valve which keeps people
balanced and energized to cope with high stress urban lives.
A manicured square of grass with a couple pieces of playground
equipment is not even a distant compensation for the trees and
bushes, the rocks and trails, the sage-scented air and all the
little wild creatures that are there now.
The terrifically high density planned for this parcel will
be the .cS~e of man~,1Problems for years to come. Among the major
problems are these:
1. 1380 new units are all going to be using water. How
can you justify continuing to build dwellings of any type
during this drought? ~o matter how many water-saving
devices the builders promise in these new homes, the fact
remains that more people will require more water. The city
council should be imposing a moratorium on all building
rather than allowing more units to be constructed.
2. The huge new population of children entering the local
elementary school will create large class sizes and a
deterioration in the current high quality of education.
This may seem alarmist or extreme, but speaking as a teacher
of 16 years, I know the effects of overcrowding in the
classroom. I also know that adding "temporary" buildings is
an exercise in ugliness at best.
The same concern extends to the effects on the junior
and senior high as well.
3. The above concern could be answered by saying that new
schools will be built to accommodate the resulting
overcrowded conditions in existing schools, but building new
schools will not ease the increasing traffic congestion.
Telegraph Canyon and H Street are both becoming slower and
more crowded due to the growing number of traffic signals
and cars. The increase in air pollution will be sickeningly
evident and inevitable.
I am not alone in my distress about the development that is
surrounding and suffocating all of us for the ultimate profit of
just a few developers. Yes, the process of building creates jobs
for awhile, but not for the long term. Are we going to keep
using jobs as a justification to continue building until all land
is covered?
Basically, the plan for this parcel is some one or two
peoples' idea of what would be "nice for the community". Let's
give them some senior housing and an all-purpose center and throw
in a couple of parks and :hey'll be happy. This is what they
should want, and they won't notice the 1380 uni~s of housing
we're going to make a fortune from. ~ell, it is not what we
want, and we are noticing.
As our mayor and representatives, you must not rob us of
every last piece of natural space. You must not overburden our
schools and roads and further deplete the drought-stricken land.
Your responsibility is to us, the tax-paying citizens, and not to
a few developers, some of whom do not even live in San Diego let
/
'0 ~
-~_.~
- --;_.-
-'-'--'--~'-~
alone ~hula Vista. Please scrap this plan. declare a moratorium
on building here, and let us live in peace.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
~~~a ~
Cynthia A. Tait
Copies to Councilpersons:
Ms. Shirley Grasser-Horton
Mr. David Malcomb
Mr. Leonard Moore
Mr. Jerry Rindone
/
SC::F
CONSULTING
00 rn@rnnwrn ill
JUL I 8 1991
CITY COuNCil OfFICES
CHUlA ViSTA, CA
c::..
-'
. Organizational Development
. Employee Assistance
. Drug Free Workplace
1358 Los Coches
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 421-1563
Jul I' 17, 1881
Tim Nader, Mayor
City of Chula VIstal
276 4th A"e.
Chula Vista, CA 81810
Dear Mayor'
This letter Is in response to the building he.ring that will taKe
place In regard to the high density housing and Jr. High School that
15 being planned for Rancho del ReI' between H St. to the north and L
street to the south and West of Buena Vista.
I am adamantly opposed to this proposal for se"eral reasons' first,
the density 15 way to high for this ar.al second, this represents
unbridled growth for chula Vista, and finally, we already do not ha"e
enough water in the Otay M8sa area ie no reservoir, old pipes and to
mAny new house5 being built. I believe that the number one item to
consider is the water issue which is not only a problem for Chul.
Vista but also San Diego County.
I VOTE NO ON THIS PROPOSEO PROJECT.
~~:C~~
Stephen F. Chappell
CAPT U.S.N.(ret)
.
\~ rn ~ rn 0 W ~ rm
Un JUL I 8 1,99\ ~
CII ( COlJl;CIL OFFICES
CHULA VISTA, CA
Vlckl'e )( /7/SS
chuj", t/J'.r-f-", CI7 7/7'/0
I
~~7 /~ /ff/
Chujc.... iI/sfc,- C;'7 Cou/lcll
~u..b/,c. ~er VI Ge.. 13101;.
0< 76 Fou-,/I> nile,
cAuL V/~i",- Cn ;/'1/0
I
/{z. Pcs-Jo-o:{
/0 -rA e. COD u.. n Cd / :
I/-;/S le/lel IS II/ IcsfCJ/7se- to the. c..nnOV-/7ce/n~
of the. rc--h/,e ;J'e.c-.f'U7;:: cAtA-/c.. u/J.:-~ '10-0':<' of fA~
I( CA/) ~/;o ~/e/ K'i S~/1?Z fYroJ'e C-~ WI fA ~0.-cJ, ..sho/"'-f
~of; ce. J If /Y) ,^-/Ve.s I f I /YlfOSSi,6 Ie... -['01 /Yle. 1-& =-fle/ie!
fAe '.Lj;:>/'YI /?'7eel-l/J7' Iwou-Id I,'f(e fo e../r/'es.s my
Con cef'/J s; VJ'a. fA/s Ie. flc/'.
I CA/YI ~r~(l..se-..( fo rAe de ve...lof/n<=-?-..f ;o/e<-n/7d -(Of' -I-/;,.s
c<-!'eA-, /7 06:jec..f/o/J.s Cenle-/' CL,OtL/l of -the.. fa.cT fACi._f
13d'c? -.SrI' U./7J'I:-. af'e lOJ/7/; lv, he S;t..-C';,7e..e 1/710 , fA,s-
-S./Y'lc-...//-V:><A-ce. /"Ae.. li,!1i ~eJ7 SIf'/ f'/C<../lr)e-ef -(Of' f-)uS
raJ'ce../ &..)/ /1 l:Je -I ~e Co-t-<.-" e.. 07 rnc:ur1 rf'LJ/;~/Y>.s fo/'
I ev-f' ..s h Co /Y1 e.. , I he. ,07 "J 0 I" ;a /' tJ ;; Ie n--..s ;
(;) /..3 ~ .sF, u-11,'fs e<../'c a....// lo/r>! fo he.. U-S,'n I wc....fc~ !
w,'fA Ci- cl..f'o7/d //1 ff,oces:,s he'J c-...n jou.. ~<-<--sllfj
tA,'s 4- WAf s/'ov..../d /?'II fc<-/n"1 Co"f hc<-c/( ou.....r uS'le..
-.;<-
..S....sf
/0 COr>1fe/)-so..../e flJese /Jew LLJI/Is
7
~) We wOl.A.-ld J/Ke -fo I:n ~w e-Jhe,...1 w/ II j, c.-/~e-r. +0 fA e...
w,./d ,!;-{e ~ We entl -fl}(:, LeSe.. 0 f fJIIs CA- /'~ 7 Tu..*"7
Ov...r c.Addie/) A;k'j cf- o//0-S17 fhe/7l -/0 the.. a..n//"Yl...../s.
~) jOl.v w.-I/ nof-Ice. fAe. c.J'//Yle ('",-Ie /-E rrue-nf7. lower
In Ol.J....1 C\. 1e.vL dt-<-e... -I-v the 0;:>"->--< -src~c-e. w, fhe. 'a.i..1 -J;J;e... .
1Jv..-1;e.f c.,/.L.~S how G.)I'II je,^- he.. o...h Ie. -10 A/Ie o-u/f/ol1 J
~o!lce 0 f f, C "-/\S .
(L/) 7J;e hVje- /?r.:.&J ;oorl..~/c... f;'c?r1 of cA,f:/l'en &hlelJ 7 fhe..-
/occ../sc/'oo/S w/ II c 1~~/e. /C<..f'le... c/~ss -S/z. es or ""-
cfeferlo,,,,,/;'tlrJ In tAe Ci/....rreJl r A'jh ok'~//7 0 f eeflA-'d'on.
C~) Iro..ff,'c- on ie/e.;/'C<..fJ; CC<.7C'r1 cJfI-.,:;/-reel- a.re hol'h
hc..c..o.n--.,'7 s/owe.J' 4 rr>or eezaaje- c.J'owJJI Jd..,t"7
C-ncfAe IW..tf-Wf'// o/J// ~ fz-; -f'he CAJies:/-;'o/'J' Th-e-
/l1cr~Se air ~(///k-I-/on w,'/I he. -s/c..ke/!/7-'"
. IS
/71I/'€..o.lA-esf -Iv jOCA..- cf- c.....11 -rhe dCoc:-n u '! )?7~ IJe/' S - r: <e.
-Iv 100/-( 0...-1 a.../f -s /c1e~ of -fh/.s l.ssO--e... +"f'e.-,kC/-c.e.. tiJlS
fJO'J\ In /)v-In hers ((
fA Cl..11 k YOk- for /o~ -f/me of- c.-O/JS I'de 1'",.-1-/0/7
fA /s /n Life-i".
//)
OJ~ c.K~
im rn @ ~ ~ w rn ~
CITY COuiiCll OFFICES
CHUlA ViSTA, CA
.~ .J_
-!
L
Ttte
OF C. U. IRft(!T '1D-O.:1.
au
T)M
)) I SM A
.
WITH Tt+c:o D"\3.1./ . 0 us ~TR.A; S D,J
U'8L El'<-lJi~ -n+is L.A.tJ 'u ReVEA-L
. .
/rnPAo..Ts o~ TtfGZ ENVIR...oNT>1IZJVI- f3 H
~ FLoR.ft "NJ::. U.rJA D F fH-t::.- !<.EG-;DN :
oe,-
Pt uJl<..S
,
,J(
1l-'tJ.
I-i-G" 0
JIM CUNNINGHAM
e /I.it I~:A c.. C, () rJ N j rJ G-~
LL.
L-L
u
s
t;;;;
=T', VE
5)
, I
AJ:J>/C- =nONS TD
'- rfZ/) SQ./fo
iJ./.-'/ S Wb IJ}, e:i<-FUL SI/.i:b r !+R.t;i#JP,
f-l.J:. T.p T 0 F H-~
s 13 r:;eIJ :be; Q.L..
1-00 TR-oL PrRE. , W J+-PrT Hit s
HA-P fJ t::AJ e 1> To 'T1-f6 0 R i Gr/ N L .P E"C!.'( S i () ,.J
IZ> t3U'L ON Tfti+-T SPfHU=:'?
II STReoc:.T t;;, Nh
Pit D j.J D.b w / :is N 1;U ~ s.
I)f<-
tJ:b~
L.
'SIR e:s
:.s rJ
1J -0 c.otJSTR.;~
j rJTb fr
f<.€ W, LL f(e:sU.L"
AA&fr M'5 N Dr:,- €("
~
JIM CUNNINGHAM
CIIJTf{A 0., QutJ/Jf/Jc;.~A-fr\
S~I!EN,
uJ~ U. 'f<..GEf ~
i ~ rJ U fYl ~ eRS
S~tJSe: 0 .be-~,.J
'5
6'1< '.s
e:
(!A) tV QA!!;'R. /J
-
July 17, 1991
Via:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
)phn Goss, City Mana~
;1(.1 Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director
To:
From:
Subject:
Modification to Condition for El Rancho del Rey Unit #3 Subdivision
As part of the carry-over of this public hearing to provide additional noticing to residents in the
area, the City Council discussed adding a condition regarding the applicant's commitment to a
fire station site within El Rancho del Rey. The developer's representatives expressed specific
concerns regarding the language as it was drafted for the July 9 hearing. Since that date, City
staff has had an opportunity to redraft the condition. The new language is agreeable to the
applicant and is numbered as 53.5 and reads as follows:
. 53.5 Developer and City shall, prior to the recording of the first final
map including all or any portion of the territory of the tentative
map, have entered into a Development Agreement which shall
include, but shall not be limited to, a promise satisfactory to the
City requiring the developer to advance the entire costs of
relocating, or at City's option, to build and relocate, Fire Station
No. 4 to a site satisfactory to the City, in exchange for which
. developer shall be granted certainty of entitlements, or such other
mutually agreeable consideration.
KGL:nr
(ERDRl)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item Z.
Meeting Date 7/]8/9]
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMI'ITED BY:
Public Hearing: PCS-90-02: Request to subdivide 404.9 acres known as
Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area III, Chula Vista Tract No. 90-02
located between East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, immediately
south of Rancho del Rey SPA I; Rancho del Rey Partnership
Resolution ! {,'J " 'l.. Approving the tentative subdivision map for Rancho
del Rey SPA III
Director of Planning /t1t
City Manage~ b~thS Vote: Yes _ No ..x.J
REVIEWED BY:
The public hearing on this matter was continued from the meeting of July 9, 1991, to allow for
notification of additional residents within the vicinity of the proposed project. Copies of the
original Agenda Statement and attachments are available. The City Attorney's office has revised
the draft resolution to reflect changes in the tentative map conditions which were voted on by
the City Council prior to taking action to continue the hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the Findings and Conditions in the attached draft City Council Resolution, approve the
tentative subdivision map for Rancho del Rey SPA III.
FlSCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
(lDRJCC.2)
~t
-,
9--1
-
.
TIllS PAGE BLANK
-1.-'- +-~
,
j
RESOLUTION NO. /,.,.7-')..
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) IU, CHULA
VISTA TRACT 90-02
.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative
subdivision map was filed with the Planning Department of the
City of Chula Vista on November 8, 1989 by Rancho del Rey
Partnership, and
WHEREAS, said application requested the subdivision of
approximately 405 acres into residential lots, open space areas,
a Bchool lot, park and community purpose facility lot, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public
hearing on said project on May 8, 1991, and continued to May 22,
1991, and
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a
hearing on said tentative subdivision map application and notice
of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and
its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the
hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as
advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., June 18, 1991, in the Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said
hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the City Council recertified EIR-89-10, with
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and associated Mitigation
Monitoring Program for Rancho del Rey SPA III.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL finds as
follows:
Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
tentative subdivision map for Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) III, Chula Vista Tract no. 90-02, is found to be in
conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan
based on the following: . .
1. The site is physically suitable for residential
development and the proposal conforms to all standards
established by the City for such projects.
1
-t. ~ '1---B
~
The design of the subdivision will not affect the
existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. __
which have been designed to avoid any serious problems.
3. The project is in substantial conformance with the
Chula Vista General Plan Element as follows:
2.
e. Land Use - The project is consistent with the
General Plan, El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and
the SPA III Plan which designates the property
PC -Planned Community, with a variety of land uses
and residential densities.
b. Circulation - All of the on-site and Off-site
public streets required to serve the subdivision
are consistent with the circulation element of
Chula Vista General Plan and the circulation
proposed within the El Rancho del Rey Specific
Plan. Those facilities will either be constructed
or in-lieu fees paid in accordance with the Rancho
del Rey SPA III Public Facilities Financing Plan.
c. Housing - A low and moderate housing program with
an established goal of 5% low and 5% moderate will
be implemented subject to the approval of the
City'S Housing Coordinator. Computation of the
satisfaction of this condition will include the
entire El Rancho del Rey Specific Planning Area.
d. Conservation and Open Space - The project provides
148.3 acres of open space, 36% of the total 404.9
acres. Grading has been limited on hillsides and
grading plan approval will require the
revegetation of slopes in natural vegetation.
Approval of EIR-89-10 included the adoption of a
mitigation monitoring program outlining the
mitigation measures required for project impacts
on geology, soils, biology, air, water, cultural
resources, land form, transportation and utility
sources.
e. Parks and Recreation - The project will be
responsible for the improvement of the 10 acre net
neighborhood park and payment of PAD fees or
additional improvements as approved by the
Director Parks and Recreation. In addition, a
trail system will be implemented through the south
leg of Rice Canyon, connecting with other open
space areas.
f. Seismic Safety - The Rancho del Rey site is
crossed by the La Nacion Fault Zone which has one
2
~ ~ 1-~
:
l
..
g.
h.
h.
1.
j.
prominent fault, running north to south, with
other potential traces. The mitigation monitoring
program adopted with EIR-S9-10 provides for
measures to be taken to mitigate the impacts of
development in association with the fault zone.
Safety - The site will be within the threshold
response times for fire and police services. The
project will increase the need for additional
personnel, however, the City is planning to meet
that need with additional revenues provided by
this project.
Public Facilities Element - This project is
obligated in the conditions of approval to provide
all on-site and off-site facilities necessary to
serve this project. In addition to that, there
are other regional facilities which this project (
together with SPAs I and II) is contributing to,
including a public library site, fire station
site, and fire training facility site. The
subdivision is also contributing to the Otay Water
District's improvement requirements to provide
terminal water storage for.this project as well as
other major projects in the eastern territories.
Noise - The units will be required to meet the
standards of the UBC with regard to acceptable
interior noise levels.
Scenic Highway - The project does not affect this
element of the General Plan.
Bicycle Routes
Telegraph Canyon
Ranchero Road as
Bicycle paths are provided along
Road, East "H" Street and Pas eo
shown in the Circulation Element.
k. Public Buildings - No public buildings are planned
for the site. The project shall be subject to RCT
and DIF fees.
4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act,
the Council certifies that it has considered the effect
of this approval on the housing needs of the region and
has balanced those needs against the public service
needs of the residents of the city and the available
fiscal and environmental resources. The development
will provide tor a variety of housing types from single
family detached homes to attached single family and
senior housing. In addition, the addressment to
./1
-2. .~
=1--5
-
i
l
5.
providing a percentage of low and moderate priced
housing is in keeping with regional goals.
The configuration, orientation and topography of the
site partially allows for the optimum siting of lots
for passive or natural heating and cooling
opportunities. .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
for Rancho del Rey SPA III, Chula Vista Tract 90-02, is approved
aubject to the following conditions:
Ceneral/Preliminarv
1. The Public Facilities Financing Plan shall be followed with
improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as
required to .eet threshold standards adopted by the City of
Cbula Vista. In addition, the sequence in which improvements
are constructed shall correspond to any future East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan adopted by the City. The city
Engineer and Planning Director may at their discretion, modify
the sequence of improvement construction should conditions
change to warrant such a revision.
2. All mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects itemized
in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Environmental Impact
Report EIR-89-10 as required prior to Final Map approval, are
hereby incorporated as conditions of approval. The Director of
Planning may modify the sequence of mitigation at his discretion
should changes warrant such a revision.
3~ The developer shall comply with the Community Purpose Facility
Ordinance. The areas proposed to show compliance with said
ordinance shall be provided prior to approval of the first final
map. Areas of consideration for qualification must be within
the areas of SPAs I, II or III. Amendment to the El Rancho del
Rey Specific Plan and Sectional Plan Areas may be necessary to
accomplish compliance.
4. Prior to final map approval for Phase 1, a Precise Plan shall be
approved by the City Council detailing the development of the
Specialty Housing project. The precise plan shall include but
is not limited to: detailing the density of the various portions
of the project; identifying the amount of recreational and open
space facilities; detailing the financial arrangements available
to proposed tenants; identifying the age limits and any income
requirements of tenants; and showing the percent of the project
for sale or rent. _
........
-;2-~ :J-..-Cp.
'.
S~ree~.. Riah~s-of-Wav and rmDrovements
5.
Prior ~o any final map approval for Phase 2 or 3 or any unit
thereof, the developer shall obtain all necessary right-of-way
for the construction of the unimproved off site portion of East
-J- S~eet west of Paseo Ladera, from River Ash Drive to Red Oak
Place.
.
~
~
6. The developer shall construct the unimproved off site portion of
East -J- Street west of Paseo Ladera, from River Ash Drive to
Red Oak Place, to a Class II Collector Standard, except that the
5 foot sidewalk may be asphalt concrete instead of portland
cement concrete. The construction of these improvements shall
be guaranteed prior to final map approval for Phases 2 or 3 or
any unit thereof. The subdivider may request the formation of a
reimbursement district for these off-site improvements in
accordance with section 15.50 of the Municipal Code.
7. The developer shall request the vacation of that portion of
Paseo Marguerita as necessary to accomplish the design as shown
on the ~entative map. Said vacation shall be accomplished prior
~o the approval of the final map for Phase 2, Unit 3.
8. The off site portion of East "JII street adjacent to Buena Vista
Way shall be granted in fee to the City for Open Space, public
utilities and other public uses. The grant of this property
shall be completed prior to approval of a final map for Phase 3,
Unit 3. The developer shall enter into an agreement to not
oppose the inclusion of this property in Open Space District #
20 (Zone 7) prior to approval of any final map for Rancho del
Rey SPA III. The developer shall be responsible for the costs
associated with annexing this property to Open Space District #
20.
9. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of off
site improvements at the westerly end of Pas eo del Norte in the
Casa del Rey SUbdivision. The construction of these
improvements shall be guaranteed prior to approval of the final
map for Phase 2, Unit 2. A cash deposit was previously
deposited with the City to pay the cost of this work. The
amount deposited is available to the developer for construction
of these improvements.
10. Prior to final map approval for Phase 1, the developer shall
dedicate additional right-of-way along the frontage of the
property on East "H" Street to provide a 20 foot parkway
(existing curbline to property line).
11. The developer shall be responsible for construction of a
sidewalk/recreational pathway along the entire frontage of
subject property on East "H" Street from Paseo Ranchero westerly
to Paseo del Rey to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
Director of Planning and the Director of Parks and Recreation.
The construction of these improvements shall be guaranteed prior
to final map approval for Phase 1.
y
-f - ? 1--::j-
j
12. The developer shall be responsible for construction of an
expanded 8 to 10 foot wide sidewalk/recreational pathway along
the western side of paseo Ranchero, to connect the trail systems
in the south leg of Rice Canyon and in the Telegraph Canyon Roaa
open space area. These improvements shall be installed in
conjunction with the construction phases of Paseo Ranchero
specified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan.
13. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of wider
sidewalks at transit stops, subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
14. The final design of Paseo Ranchero shall include eight foot wide
landscape easement buffers as required by the Street Design
Standards or be adjoined by an open space lot at least eight
feet wide with slopes no greater than 5:1, except in the
following areas where the final design shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Director, Landscape Architect and City
Engineer:
a. Adjacent to the lots fronting on Cabo Calabazo, Calle
Candelero and Punto Miraleste where a special slope and
retaining wall design will be implemented;
b. Along the Junior High School site;
c. Along the existing Ladera Villas and Mission Verde
subdivisions where existing conditions shall remain; and
d. Adjacent to the out~parcel owned by the Chula Vista School
District.
15. The final design of East "J" Street shall include 5.5 foot wide
landscape easement buffers as required by the Street Design
Standards or be adjoined by an open space lot at least 5.5 feet
wide with 5:1 maximum side slopes, except in the following
locations where the final design shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Director, Landscape Architect and City
Engineer:
a. Along the park site;
b. Along the two corner lots at the intersection of East "JII
Street and Camino Miel (lots 82 and 97 of Phase 2, Unit 1)
and the southeast corner lot of East IIJII Street and Cabo
Capote (lot 85 of Phase 2, Unit 2);
c. Adjacent to the out-parcel owned by the Chula vista School
District; and
d. Along-the existing Bel Aire Ridge SUbdivision where
existing conditions shall remain.
16. All retaining walls which interface with the pUblic street
system shall be constructed to match the Ranch Rancho del Rey
SPA III Design Guideline standards for exterior walls.
.e--
-1..~ .
-:r .. ~
J
17. The developer shall be responsible for construction of full
street improvements for all public and private streets shown on
the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary; and for the
construction of off-site improvements to construct Paseo
Ranchero, East "J" street and Paseo Ladera as shown on the
Tentative Map, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
-
Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt
concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk,
sewer and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights,
signs, fire hydrants and transitions to existing improvements.
street intersection spacing as shown on the tentative map is
hereby approved.
18. All the streets shown on the Tentative Map within the
subdivision boundary, except private streets, shall be dedicated
for public use. Design of said streets shall meet all City
standards.
19. A temporary turnaround conforming to City standards shall be
provided at the end of streets having a length greater than 150
feet, measured from the center line of the nearest intersecting
street to the center of the CUl-de-sac, except as approved by
the city Engineer.
20. CUl-de-sacs and knuckles shall be designed and built in
accordance with City standards unless otherwise approved by the
City Engineer.
Lot Confiauration
21. Frontage on all lots shall be a m1n1mum of 35 feet at the right-
Of-way line except as approved by the City Engineer. This
condition does not apply to flag lots, as defined in the
Municipal Code.
22. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes except as
approved by the City Engineer. When adjacent to open space
lots, property lines shall be located a minimum 2.5 feet from
the top of slope.
23. The preparation of final maps and plans for the locations listed
below shall be carried out in accordance with the
following criteria unless otherwise.approved by the city
Engineer and Director of Planning:
a. Provide a minimum 50 feet from the corner of Paseo Ranchero
and East "J" street to lots 6 and 7, Phase 3, Unit 2, to
provide additional buffer and transition area at the
corner.
b. Provide a pedestrian throughway between lots 130 and 131,
Phase 3, Unit 2,' from Camino Calabazo to east "J" Street
across from the school and park sites.
~
~ , =1-~'t
c. Lot 128 of Phase 2, Unit 1, shall be widened to a minimum
50 foot width to accommodate a combined slope and maximum 5
foot retaining wall. This is to avoid a "tunnel" effect
created at side lot lines.
..
..
~;
.:.
d.
Lots 3 and 5, Phase 2, Unit 3 shall utilize maximum 5 foot
high retaining walls, andlor a combination of retaining
walls and crib walls.
e. Provide a different name for each of the portions of
Palazzo Court located to the east and west of East "J"
street and the portions of Dorado Way located to the east
and west of Camino Miel.
S~ree~ ~ees/ODen SnBce
24. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and
maintenance easements along all pUblic streets as shown on the
Tentative Map. The width of said easements shall be as outlined
in the City's Street Design Standards Policy.
25. The developer shall be responsible for street trees in
accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code. The use of cones shall be included where necessary to
reduce the impact of root systems disrupting adjacent sidewalks
and rights-of-way.
26., All open space lots adjacent to public rights-of-way shall
maintain a width so as to provide 10 feet of landscaping
treatment behind the back of sidewalk.
27. Maintenance of all facilities and improvements within open space
areas covered by home owners associations shall be covered by
CC&Rs to be submitted and approved by the Planning Department
prior to approval of the associated final map.
28. Prior to the approval of any final map, the developer'shall
request in writing that maintenance of all facilities and
improvements within the open space area associated with such map
shall be the responsibility of the Rancho del Rey Open Space
Maintenance District.
29. Prior to approval of the first final map, a comprehensive
landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the
City Landscape Architect and Director of Parks and Recreation.
Prior to approval of each final map, comprehensive, detailed
landscape and irrigation plans, erosion control plans and
detailed water management guidelines for all landscape
irrigation shall be submitted in accordance with the Chula Vista
Landscape Manual for the associated landscaping in that final
map. These detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be for
the review and approval of the City Landscape Architect and
Director of Parks and Recreation. The landscaping format within
the project shall be to emphasize native, drought tolerant plant
material. Exceptions can be made for areas where reclaimed
.....
: - /1)
':1-10
water is exclusively used. The comprehensive landscape plans
ahall address:
.
'f
~
Slope enhancement and landscape treatment for the slope in
Open Space Lot A, Phase 3, Unit 3, beneath the Junior High
School lot. The plan shall address and provide for mature
aize plant material, boulder work and/or buttress work on
the slope.
b. A naturalized revegetation program for areas of grading in
open space lots, which may include temporary irrigation.
e.
c. The disturbed "native" areas within Telegraph Canyon Road
open space corridor. This area shall include tree
groupings or tree groves. These plantings shall be treated
as random plantings and shall be identified in at least six
areas along the corridor with each location providing
plantings of 50 to 100 trees. The exact number of trees
and locations are to be approved by the Planning.Department
and Department of Parks and Recreation. The intent of
these grove areas is to provide a consistency with existing
grove areas in the open space corridor west of the Rancho
del Rey SPA III area.
30. Prior to approval of the first final map, details showing the
location and design of the trail system and a sign program shall
be submitted to and approved by the Directors of Planning and
Parks and Recreation. The trail system in the open space lots
shall be a minimum 6 feet wide within an 8 foot horizontal clear
space and a 10 foot vertical clear space. The associated sign
program shall identify the trail network in the open space areas
and connecting along Paseo Ranchero, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning and Parks and Recreation.
31. Prior final map approval for Phase 3, Unit 3 and Phase 4, Unit 2
as shown on the Tentative Map, cross sections shall be submitted
to and approved by the Director of Planning and City Engineer
illustrating the interface where the trail is located adjacent
to the drainage ditch along Telegraph Canyon Road. The fencing
of the drainage channel shall be aesthetically pleasing
incorporating the use of plantings, equestrian type fencing and
vinyl clad fencing. These cross sections and decorative fencing
program may be included with the comprehensive landscape plan.
Fence gates shall be provided at locations approved by the City
Engineer to allow maintenance of the drainage channel.
Parks
32. The developer shall be obligated for 12.5 acres of parkland as
described in the approved SPA Plan, including land, and/or fees,
and/or additional improvements, in accordance with the Parkland
, Dedication Ordinance. The actual final acreage will relate to
the number of units approved with the final maps.
. 33. The park located in Phase 3, Unit 4 shall be a minimum 10 net
useable acres. Design and development of the park shall be
.>
4 14 =1--11
subject to the approval of the City's Director of Parks and
Recreation and shall conform with the park master plan to be
adopted by the City Council.
r
: 34. An adequate buffer and separation of 50 feet shall be provided
· between the residential lots at the eastern end of Palazzo Court
~
~. and the existing park facilities, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Parks and Recreation. Solution may include but is
not limited to relocating an existing tennis court or lot
redesign.
35. A minimum 20 foot wide access corridor shall be maintained at
the end of Paseo Palazzo where the cul-de-sac abuts the existing
park. Said area shall be made part of the park. Detail and
design of the access shall be submitted to and approved by the
Departments of Planning and Parks and Recreation prior to final
map approval for Phase 3, Unit 1.
GradinaJDrainaae
36. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as
part of the grading plans.
37. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to
detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission
of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished
on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and
the Grading Ordinance (No. 1797 as amended). The developer
shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance with all
drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual.
38. Grading proposals shall be reviewed and approved by the city
Engineer and Director of Planning for consideration of balanced
cut and fill, utilization of appropriate soil types, effective
landscaping and revegetation where applicable. Grading shall
occur in separate phases unless a single phase operation is
approved with the grading plan.
39. A letter of permission for grading shall be obtained from SDG&E
prior to any grading within or adjacent to an SDG&E easement or
which would affect access thereto. .
40. The developer shall make a reasonable effort to obtain
permission to grade the slopes along Buena Vista Way at the
former intersection of East "J" Street. If permission to grade
said slope is not reasonably attainable as determined by the
city Engineer, the regrading of these slopes shall not be
required. The provisions of this condition shall be complied
with prior to approval of the final map for Phase 3"Unit 3.
41. Prior to approval of any final map for single family residential
use, the developer shall submit a list of proposed lots
indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut or
a transition between two situations.
~.
J- - /:4-
"':/ or' ;l.,
,
42. Lots shall be S9 graded as to drain to the street or an approved
drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over
slopes. Lots 71, 72 and 89 of Phase 2 Unit 1 shall be designed
so that there will be no negative grading or drainage impacts to
the adjacent Off-site properties. .
~
43. Graded access shall be provided to all public storm drain
structures including inlet and outlet structures. Paved access
shall be provided to drainage structures located in the rear
yard of any residential lot or as approved by the City Engineer.
44. The use of boulders in minor drainage basins and energy
dissipators in the canyon and open space areas in the manner
approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director, is
encouraged to allow water to be captured and to allow trees to
grow naturally.
Sewer
45. The developer shall be responsible for performing sewage flow
metering to monitor three segments of main identified in the
Rick Engineering report dated September 5, 1990 as sections OR,
X1X2 and KL. Metering shall be accomplished at the locations
determined by the City Engineer. Metering shall be accomplished
prior to the issuance of any building permit for SPA III and be
repeated at intervals directed by the city Engineer. Should any
of these segments have metered flows which fill more than 80% of
the pipe diameter, the applicant shall construct parallel
facilities as determined by the City Engineer. The developer
shall enter into an agreement with the City prior to first final
map approval providing for all items indicated above.
46. An improved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet shall be
provided to all sanitary sewer manholes. The roadway shall be
designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by
the City Engineer.
47. The developer shall obtain permission from the City to deposit
sewage in a foreign basin. The developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City relative to the diversion of sewage
prior to final map approval for any phase or unit thereof
proposing said diversion.
48. The developer shall be responsible for the removal of the
existing sewer pump stations (Mission Verde and Candlewood).
Prior to approval of any final map entailing said removal, the
owner and the city shall enter into an agreement to establish
the scope of work and the amount to be reimbursed by the city to
the subdivider for performing said work. The developer may also
request the formation of a special sewer service area to provide
for the cost of connection of the area currently being served by
the Candlewood pump"station to the permanent gravity sewer
system.
unless otherwise approved by the ~ity Engineer, the scope of
work at both sites shall be limited to the removal' and disposal
.k1
ol-/~' =1-~(3
,
i
of equipment. qrading, landscaping and construction of new
sewerlines and manholes required for connection to the proposed
Rancho del Rey sewer system. Any upsizing of Rancho del Rey
Sewer lines due solely to the flow generated by the Mission
Verde and Candlewood areas shall also be included.
Reclaimed Water
4'. Prior to approval of the associated final map, the developer
shall provide on-site infrastructure to accept and to use
reclaimed water when it is available, along Paseo Ranchero from
Teleqraph Canyon Road to East "H" Street and along East "J"
Street from Paseo Ranchero to the park site, per the adopted
Public Facilities Financing Plan.
50. Any costs incurred from retrofitting the reclaimed water system,
When reclaimed water becomes available, shall be paid by the
developer. Monies for this shall be held by the City, through a
deposit set up by the developer. The amount shall be determined
by the developer, approved by the City and in place prior to
approval of each associated final map.
Fire
51. Fire hydrants will be required per the Fire Department
standards. Hydrant spacing is 500 feet for single family and
300 feet for multi-family dwellings.
52. Maximum hydrant pressure shall not exceed 150 psi.
53. Fire hydrants and roadway access (per city Fire Marshall
approval) shall be installed, tested and operational prior to
any combustible materials placed on-site.
53.5 Develoner and City shall have entered into a Reimbursement
Aareement which nrovides for the develoner to adva~~; th~ entire
costs of relocatina Fire Station No. 4 and for ~~~~~ e:r~;~~;~
shall be comnensated for same above and beyond ___ _e______r'_
fair share thereof.
Aareements/Covenants
54. Prior to final map approval for Phase 1, Unit 1, the developer
shall enter into an agreement with the City to guarantee the
development of the parcel specifically for senior housing.
55. Prior to the approval of the first final map, the developer
shall enter into an agreement to provide a right turn lane at
the intersection of Paseo del Rey and East "H" Street. to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, if the threshold standards
for this intersection as expressed in the then current Growth
Management Ordinance are exceeded at any time during the
development of this project.
56. Prior to approval of the first final map, the developer shall
enter into an agreement to provide a park-n-ride facility near
-I.
)K
fI/-
1'..,+
,
the intersection of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero to
include 50 parking spaces, 10 bicycle lockers, lighting, trash
receptacles and circulation striping to the satisfaction of the
City Transit Coordinator. In addition, a transit stop, to
include a bench, shelter and trash receptacle, shall be provided
on the north side of East uH" Street. A plan of said
t improvements and the timing thereof shall be submitted and
1 approved by the City Transit "Coordinator. Requirements of this
condition may also be met by dedication, improvements, and/or
financial participation in a park-n-ride facility master plan,
at the sole discretion of the city Council. The sDeci~~c ~ite
shall be in the vicinitv of the site indicated herein a an
alternative site Do~siblv off the t~rritorv of the t~~t~~~~~.~~~
which alternative s1te shall meet w1th the BDDroval __ ___ _1___
57. Prior to approval of each final map, copies of proposed CC&Rs
for the subdivision shall be submitted to and approved by the
city Planning Department.
58. Prior to approval of the first final map, the developer shall
provide a schedule, subject to the approval of the Planning
Director and City Housing Coordinator, for the development of
low income housing as defined in the agreement executed between
the City and Rancho del Rey Partnership per City Council
Resolution No. 15751 dated August 7,1990.
59. Prior to the approval of any final map for the subject
subdivision or any unit thereof, the developer shall obtain all
off-site right-of-way necessary for the installation of required
improvements for that unit. The developer shall also provide
easements for all on-site and off-site public storm drains,
sewers and other public utilities prior to approval of the final
map. Easements shall be a minimum width of 6 feet greater than
pipe size, but in no case less than 10 feet.
60. The developer shall notify the City at-least 60 days prior to
consideration of the final map by City if off-site right-of-way
cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of approval.
(Only off-site right-of-way or easements affected by Section
66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this
condition.
After said notification, the developer shall:
a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or
easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the
tentative Map.
b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said
right-of-way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by
the city Engineer.
c. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats
prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to
commence condemnation proceedings.
"~
-t.
iJ-
.
1- -/(
J
..-
d. %f the developer so requests, the City may use its powers
to acquire right-of-way, easements or licenses needed for
off-site improvements or work related to the Tentative Map.
The developers shall pay all costs, both direct and
indirect incurred .in said acquisition.
The requirements of a, b, and c above shall be accomplished
prior to the approval of the Final Map.
All off-site requirements which fall under the purview of
Section 66462.5 of the state Subdivision Map Act will be waived
in accordance with that section of the Act if the city does not
comply with the 120 day limitation specified in that section.
61. Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter
into an agreement with the city to include the SUbdivisions in
the Mello Roos public facilities district or an acceptable
alternative financing program, subject to the approval of both
the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater High School Districts.
62. Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter
into an agreement with the City wherein he agrees to comply with
that version of the Growth Management Ordinance in effect at the
time a building permit is issued. Such compliance includes but
is not limited to the then current East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan and the adopted Air Quality
Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan for Rancho del Rey
SPA III.
63. Prior to final map approval for any phase or unit thereof, the
developer shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby:
a. The developer agrees that the City may withhold building
permits for any units in the subject subdivision if anyone
of the following occurs:
1. Regional development threshold limits set by the then
current adopted East Chula Vista Transportation
. Phasing Plan have been reached.
2. Traffic volumes, level of service, public utilities
and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the
then effective Growth Management Ordinance.
b. The developer agrees that the City may withhold occupancy
permits for any of the phases of development identified in
the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Rancho del
Rey SPA III if the required public facilities, as
identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual
Monitoring Program have not been completed.
64. Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall agree
to not protest the formation of a district for the maintenance
of landscaped medians and parkways along streets within and
adjacent to the subject property. .
..;J..t-
-I. - /b
'1-/~
~
65. Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter
into an agreement with the City wherein he holds the City
harmless for any liability for erosion, siltation or increased
~low of drainage resulting from this project.
66. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City
whereby the developer agrees to participate in the monitoring of
existing and future aewageflows in the Telegraph Canyon Trunk
Sewer and the financing of the preparation of the Basin Plan
and, purauant to any adopted Basin Plan, agree to participate in
the ~inancing of improvements set forth therein, in an equitable
manner. Said agreement shall be executed by the developer prior
to final map approval for any phase or unit proposing to
discharge sewage into the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer.
67. The developer shall permit all franchised cable television
companies ("Cable Company") equal opportunity to place conduit
to and provide cable television service for each lot within the
subdivision. The developer shall enter into an agreement with
all participating Cable Companies which shall provide, in part,
that upon receiving written notice from the City that said Cable
Company is in violation of the terms and conditions of the
franchise granted to said Cable Company, or any other terms and
conditions regulating said Cable Company in the City of Chula
Vista, as same may from time to time be amended, developer shall
suspend Cable Company's access to said conduit until City
otherwise notifies developer. Said agreement shall be approved
by the city Attorney prior to final map approval.
68. The developer ~hall utilize the Paseo Ranchero corridor for
construction traffic unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. A construction traffic plan shall be submitted for
review and approval prior to approval of the first final map or
issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. The plan
shall include provisions for dust control and state hours of
operation. Revisions to said plan shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
Fees/Pavments
69. The subject property is within the boundaries of Open Space
District #20 (Zone 7), Open Space District #10 (Phase II) and
Assessment District #87-1. Prior to final map approval or other
grant of approval for any phase or unit thereof, the developer
shall pay all costs associated with:
a) detachment of subject property from Open Space District #10
(Phase II); and
b)
reapportionment of assessments for Open Space District #20
(Zone 7) and Assessment District #87-1 asa result of
subdivision of lands within the project boundary.
70. The developer shall pay:
~
1- -11 t-.-I'1"-
.
1
a. Spring Valley Sewer Trunk connection fees ($130/acre) prior
to final map approval for any phase or unit thereof
contributing flow to the Spring Valley Trunk Sewer.
b.
Telegraph Canyon drainage fees in accordance with Ordinance
2384.
~
71. PAD fees shall be waived or modified as provided in the adopted
Public Facilities Financing Plan for Rancho del Rey. RCT fees
and DIF fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable
regulations. includina the dutv to nav the fees in effect at the
time the bu1dina nermits are issued. PAD fees shall be
guaranteed until such time as the City waives said fees.
Mi8cel1aneous
72. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California
System Zone VI (1983).
73. Prior to final map approval for any unit, the developer shall
submit a copy of said final map in a digital format such as
(DXF) graphic file. This Computer Aided Design (CAD) copy of
the final map shall be based on accurate coordinate geometry
calculations and shall be submitted on 5 1/2 HD floppy disk
prior to recordation of the final map.
74. The developer may file a master final map which provides for the
sale of super block lots corresponding to the units and phasing
or combination of units and phasing thereof, shown on the
tentative map.
If said super block lots do not show individual lots depicted on
the approved tentative map, a subsequent final map shall be
filed for any lot which will be further subdivided.
The City Engineer may condition approval of such a final map to
require necessary plans to provide infrastructure necessary top
meet City threshold policies and to conform to the approved
Public Facilities Financing Plan. All super block lots created
shall have access to a dedicated public street.,
Bonds in the amounts determined by the city Engineer shall be
posted prior to approval of a master final map. Said master
final map shall not be considered the first final map as
indicated in other conditions of approval unless said map
contains single or multiple family lots shown on the tentative
map.
Code Reauirements
75. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, State and
Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer
shall be responsib1~ for providing all required testing and-
documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the
city Engineer.
;Jt<
~_.f'
+--/g
~
-
76. The deve~oper sha~~ comply with all applicable sections of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code as they exist at the time of issuance
of the building permit. Preparation of the final map and all
plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Map
Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordina~ces and
Subdivision Manual.
77. Applicant shall comply with, remain in compliance with, and
implement, the terms, conditions and provisions of the Sectional
Planning Area Plan, and such Water Conservation Plan, the Air
Quality Plan and the Public Facilities Financing Plan approved
by the Council ("Plans") as are applicable to the property which
is the subject matter of this Tentative Map, prior to approval
of the Final Map, or shall have entered into an agreement with
the City, providinq the City with such security (includinq
recordation of covenants running with the land) and
implementation procedures as the City may require, assuring
that, after approval of the Final Map, the Applicant shall
continue to comply with, remain in compliance with, and
implement such Plans. Develooer shall aa~ee t~ ~a;ve ~n~ ~laim
that the adootion of a final Water Conser_atio 1 n 0 ~i_
Oualitv Plan constitutes an imorooer subseau;nt i;~ositio~ of
the condition.
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the
property.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALXFORNXA, this 18th day of July, 1991, by the followinq vote, to-
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Presented by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
aESl"'" lIES
/!"f.
1-'" :t--'9
TInS PAGE BlANK
-4 -2.0
~. JD-
July 26, 1991
Subject:
M~ocTImNoo~ '~
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manage/1", 9'
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning /t/l(
Additional Information Regarding Rancho del Rey SPA III Tentative Map
To:
Via:
From:
Pursuant to your request, the following information is provided relative to consideration of the
tentative map for Rancho del Rey SPA III, which was continued to the meeting of July 30:
1. Attached are minutes from the Resource Conservation Commission meeting of May 20,
1991, at which the Rancho del Rey SPA III tentative map was considered. As noted in
the minutes, the RCC had no comments on this project.
2. Attached is a copy of the fiscal impact analysis which was prepared for Rancho del Rey
SPA III. A summary of this analysis was included in the Supplemental EIR for this
project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
RAL:nr
Attachments
cc: Councilmembers
(RdRTM.Mm)
I
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday, May 20,1991
Conference Room 1
Public Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDERIROll CAll: Meeting was called to order at 6:06 p.m. with a quorum, by
Chairman Fox. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Present:
Commissioners Ray, Johnson, Hall, Absent: Kracha. Ghougassian arrived at 6: 11 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUP (RaylHall) to approve the minutes of May 6, 1991.
NEW BUSINESS:
1 . Robin Putnam, Community Development Department. presented a staff report and review of
Recirculation Draft EIR on the Bayfront, EIR 89-08. Also present were an attorney and biologist
for the applicant, along with a representative from JHK Consultants. After much discussion on
the project, it was MSUP IGhougassianlRayl to recommend to the Planning Commission that RD-
EIR is adequate and meets' CEQA's requirements. It is noted that Mr. Barkett is close to having
the project approved.
2. Steve Griffin, Senior Planner, answered questions regarding monitoring applicants and time limits
on Conditional Use Permits. John Ray to draft a proposal on the City's stand on CUP's.
[Mr. Ghougassian left the meeting at 7:28 p.m.]
3. Review of Negative Declarations' no comments or action taken.
4. It was moved by Ray to postpone the review of Ordinance establishing RCC to the next meeting.
The motion died due to lack of second. The following items are suggested for review and/or
amendment:
'. Page 41, Item G, EIRlNegative Declaration review
· Item H . Oversee Mitigation Monitoring Programs and make recommendations to Council.
. Item I - RCC make written recommendations and comments to Council on each EIR and
other matters as deemed necessary.
. 32.020 - suggest the words" ...serve until replaced" instead of "...filling new vacancies."
. Omit Item A.
5. Items for the Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting of May 22, 1991 were reviewed with
no action taken by Commission.
STAFF REPORT: It was MSUP (Hall/Fox) to accept the resignation letter of Jim Stevens and to forward
same to City Council for replacement.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Fox at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~IA~1:;~
;
",
\
.
-,
j
AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
City Council Chambers
Wednesday, May 22, 1991 - 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of April 24. 1991
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdication but not an
item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five
minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
AD,lOURNMENT AT
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Chula Vista LCP Resubmittal No. 8
Amendment: EIR-89-08
a) Recertification of EIR-89-10. Rancho del Rey SPA III
b) Consideration of Water Conservation Plan for Rancho
del Rey SPAs II and III;
c) Consideration of Air Quality Improvement Plan
for Rancho del Rey SPAs II and III;
d) PCS-90-02: Request to subdivide 404.9 acres known
as Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area III.
Chula Vista Tract No. 90-02 located between East "H"
Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. immediately south
of Rancho del Rey SPA I, Rancho del Rey Partnership;
e) Consideration of Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning
Area III Design Guidelines;
f) Consideration of Amended Mitigation Monitoring
Program for EIR-89-10. Rancho del Rey SPA III;
g) Consideration of Amended CEQA Findings for EIR-89-10.
Rancho del Rey SPA III.
PCC-91-0S: Consideration of an appeal from a decision
of the Zoning Administrator relating to a condition
of approval requiring dedication of right-of-way along
Third Avenue and "L" Street for the property at the
northwest corner of that intersection.
p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of June 12. 1991
lit 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. .
I
I,
I'
.
r
,
I
I'
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RANCHO DEL REY SPA III
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
I'
f
I
i
APRIL 1989
I
I
Prepared for:
RANCHO DEL REV PARTNERSHIP
a joint venture of
,I
!
i
McMillin Communities
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, California 92050
'I
I
I
and
Home Capital Development Group
a subsidiary of Home Federal Savings & Loan Association
707 Broadway, Suite 1017
San Diego, Calnomia 92101
I
I
I
I'
II
i
Prepared by:
I
I
I
I
JOHN McTIGHE & ASSOCIATES
3160 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 205
San Diego, California 92108
(619) 281-772
I
I
,I
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
~
v
LIST OF FIGURES
vi ii
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1
SCOPE OF REPORT
1
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PLAN
2
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
6
CHAPTER II. OPERATING EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS
10
ONE TIME IMPACT
12
I
ON-GOING IMPACT
13
PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS
Street Maintenance
Street Sweeping
Street Tree Maintenance
Traffic Signal and Street Light Maintenance
Traffic Operations
14
14
18
18
20
21
PARKS AND RECREATION
Recreation Services
Park Maintenance
Open Space Administration
22
22
23
24
POLICE AND ANIMAL REGULATION
25
FIRE
25
LIBRARY OPERATIONS
27
i i
II
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
l. .Eiw.a
CHAPTER III - OPERATING REVENUE ANALYSIS 28
ONE TIME IMPACT 28
ON-GOING IMPACT 28
PROPERTY TAX 29
Buildout Rate 31
Appreciation 32
Turnover 32
SALES AND USE TAXES 33
FRANCHISE TAXES 35
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES 36
UTILITY USERS TAX 36
BICYCLE LICENSES 38
ANIMAL LICENSES 39
OlHERTAXES 40
MOTOR VEHICLE IN-LIEU 41
CIGARETTE TAX 42
I FINES. FORFEITURES 43
, SWIMMING POOLS 44
I
I
I
ii i
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
RECREATION PROGRAM AND OTHER CHARGES
~
45
INVESTMENT EARNINGS
46
TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
47
STATE LIBRARY ACT FUND
48
SPECIAL GAS TAX FUND
49
OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE FUND
50
APPENDIX A - INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION
A-1
APPENDIX B - EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS BY YEAR
B-1
APPENDIX C - REVENUE PROJECTIONS BY YEAR
C-1
APPENDIX 0 - PROPERTY TAX PROJECTIONS
0-1
APPENDIX E - PERSONS CONTACTED
E-1
r
APPENDIX F - REFERENCES
F-1
I
I
I!
II
11
iv
I
11
I
I LIST OF TABLES
I Table Title Page
- ... ... - ... ---------......-----...------------...--...-------------......--
1- 1 Land Use Plan 2
1- 2 Dwelling Units Occupied per Fiscal Year 3
1- 3 Residential Acres Absorbed per Fiscal Year 3
1-4 Non-Residential Acres Absorbed per Fiscal Year 4
1- 5 Residential Population Projection .4
1- 6 Projected Annual Operation Revenue & Costs 7
11- 1 City of Chula Vista 1988-89 General
I Fund Direct Service Activities' Full Cost 1 1
11-2 Effect on City Operation Expenditure
I Activities 12
11- 3 Summary of On-Going Annual City Cost
Increments from Development of Salt Creek 14
11-4 Number of Miles of City Maintained Streets 15
11-5 Average Daily Traffic Trips 16
, 11-6 Street Maintenance Cost Projections 17
I
I 11-7 Street Sweeping Cost Projections 18
I' 11-8 Street Tree Maintenance Cost Projections 19
,
1 11-9 Traffic Signal & Street Light Maintenance
Cost Projections 20
v
Ii
I
,
,
,
I
I
l'
I
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Title
,
,
I
I
"
----- --------------------------------------------------
11-1 0 Traffic Operations Cost Projections
11-11 Recreation Services Cost Projections
I
I
11-1 2 Park Maintenance Cost Projections
11-1 3 Open Space Maintenance Administration
11-1 4 Police & Animal Regulation Cost Projections
11-1 5 Fire Services Cost Projections
I
I
11-1 6 Library Operations Cost Projections
I
I
i
111-1 Summary of Annual Revenue Increments
Resulting from Development of Salt Creek I
,I
111- 2 Projected New Residential Market Valuations
111- 3 Property Tax Revenue Projection
111- 4 Sales & Use Tax Revenue Projection
f
111- 5 Franchise Tax Revenue Projection
,
I
II
I'
It
I
111- 6 Property Transfer Tax Revenue Projection
111- 7 "Utility Users' Tax Projection
111- 8 Bicycle License Revenue Projection
111-9 Animal Licenses Revenue Projection
vi
Page
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
I Table
-----
I 111-10
I
111-11
Title
--------------------------------------------------
Other Taxes Revenue Projection
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue Projection
111-1 2 Cigarette Tax Revenue Projection
111-1 3 Fines. Forfeitures & Penalties
Revenue Projection
111-14 Swimming Pools Revenue Projection
I'
i
111-1 5 Recreation Program & Other Fee
Revenue Projections
111-1 6 Investment Earnings Revenue Projection
111-1 7 Traffic Safety Fund Revenue Projection
111-1 8 State Library Act Revenue Projection
111-19 Gasoline Tax Revenue Projection
111- 2 0 Open Space Maintenance District
Revenue Projection
,J
,
I
,
I
If
,f
,
,
vii
I
I
i
Page
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
l'
l'
LIST OF FIGURES
I ,
Figure Title Page
.. .. .. .. .. .. ---------....--..-....------..---....-----....---....-....-....--
,
I 1- 1 Occupied Dwelling Units 5
,
!
! 1-2 Resident Population 6
I
1- 3 SPA III Cost and Revenue 8
1-4 SPA I & SPA II Cost and Revenue 9
111-1 Operating Revenue 28
.
,
I
I
I
I
!
(
I
I
,
i
I
I
I
I viii
I
I
I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
I ~
SCOPE OF REPORT
John McTighe & Associates (formerly Public Affairs Consultants, Inc.) was retained by the
Rancho del Rey Partnership to prepare an analysis of the fiscal impact on the City of Chula Vista
of the proposed Sectional Planning Area (SPA) III of the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. SPA III is
the third of three sectional planning areas contained within the EI Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan
area as amended in 1985.
Public Affairs Consultants prepared the fiscal impact analysis for SPA I in April 1987. That
analysis projected an annual positive fiscal impact from the development of the first
approximately 2,200 dwelling units and 89 acres of commercial & industrial development
contained within the SPA plan amounting to $147,195 (1987 $) at buildout. The analysis for
SPA II prepared by Public Affairs Consultants in September 1988 projected that SPA II would
result in a net annual surplus for the City of Chula Vista at buildout of $32,076 (1988 $).
This analysis has considered all known non-enterprise fund operating costs and revenues that
might be allributable to the development of SPA III.
City operating costs were projected based on a computer model that took into consideration the
fiscal year 1988-89 budget of the City and input received from the various City operating
departments. The model includes an allocation of indirect and overhead costs to direct service
activities of the City. In this manner the projections of added costs allributed to SPA III will in
fact reflect the full costs to the City of accommodating this addition to the City.
I'
11
I
11
II
City revenue projections were based on the existing revenue sources of the City. Computer
modelling of the relationship of individual revenue accounts to population, land use and other
factors was developed by John McTighe & Associates to simulate the changes in revenue that
could be expected over the development of this project. A separate model of assessed
valuation/property tax changes was developed to project the effect on City property tax
revenues based on the developer's prOjection of buildout rate and product pricing.
1
While every attempt has been made to assure accuracy in the projections given the assumptions
incorporated in the analysis, unforseen changes in State law, City Council policy, the general
economy or the rate and type of development could result in differences from the projected
outcomes.
The principal value of this type of analysis lies in being able to compare land use decisions with
the present circumstance and with one another. When these comparisons are combined with the
ecological, economical, social and political considerations and placed in context with other fiscal
factors affecting the City, a reasoned judgement about a project's relative effect on the Cily's
fiscal position can be made.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PLAN
The land use plan analyzed in this study is based on the statistical summary of the Site
Utilization Plan for Rancho del Rey SPA III dated March 31, 1989. Table 1-1 shows the land
uses contained in the SPA I and SPA II Fiscal Impact Analyses as well as the SPA III land uses at
buildout per the March 31, 1989 Site Utilization Plan.
Table 1-1
Rancho del Rey SPAs I, 11&11I
Land Use Plan
SPA I SPAA II SPA III Total
land Use Acres Acres Acres Acres
Residential 306.3 192.1 217.8 716.2
Employment Park 84.4 0.0 0.0 84.4
Community Facilities 11.7 6.8 0.0 18.5
I' Schools 10.7 0.0 22.5 33.2
Public Park 41.7 7.0 2.0 50.7
II Open Space 281.3 151.2 149.3 581.8
Circulation ....l2.5. -1U 168 103.1
Total 808.6 370.9 408.4 1,587.9
II Dwellin9 Units 2,201 567 1,380 4,146
1\ Population 5.781 1,825 3,691 11,297
I 2
11
I
I
.
I.
Table 1-2 shows the assumed rate ot buildout tor the residential dwelling units. Table 1-3
shows the assumed rate 01 residential land absorption based on the average density per
residential product type. Table 1-4 shows the assumed non-residential rate ot development.
These rates ot development were based upon inlormation provided by the Rancho del Rey
Partnership.
.,
Table 1.2
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Residential Building Projection
Dwelling Units Occupied per Fiscal Year
- -.... - -- -- -- - F i s c a I Ye ar..----- --- -----
Product Tvee 89-90 90-91 91 -92 92-93 93-94 94-95 IQ1al
Retirement
I Stacked Townhouses 30 60 60 60 11 221
Cluster Townhomes 36 72 72 52 232
I Patio Homes 24 48 5 77
3.520 s.f. pad 75 75
I 3,600 s.1 pad 96 19 115
4,180 s.t. pad 96 4 100
5,000 s.t. pad 72 131 72 6 281
6,000 s.l. pad 27 27
Townhomes -.aa -.aa ---Rll 252
Total 0 90 354 556 303 77 1,380
Cumulative Total 0 90 444 1,000 1.303 1,380
I
I
I
,
3
I.
I
I Table 1.3
I Rancho del Rey SPA III
Residential Acres Absorbed per Fiscal Year
I --mm--Fiscal Y ear-- --- - -----
Product Tvoe Ac.lDU 89 -9 090-9191 -92 92- 9 393- 94 94- 95 IQIAL
I Retirement
Stacked Townhouses 0.16 0.0 4.8 9.5 9.5 9.5 1.7 35.0
I Cluster Townhomes 0.16 0.0 5.7 11.4 11.4 8.2 0.0 36.8
Patio Homes 0.16 0.0 3.8 7.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 12.2
I 3,520 5.1. pad 0.18 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4
3,600 s.f pad 0.15 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 2.8 0.0 17.2
4,180 s.f. pad 0.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.6 0.0 15.7
5,000 5.1. pad 0.21 0.0 0.0 14.8 26.9 14.8 1.2 57.7
6,000 5.1. pad 0.27 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2
Townhomes 0.09 Ul iWl Ul 8...5 8...5 U Z2...4.
Total 0.0 14.3 63.9 86.6 44.5 8.3 217.8
Cumulative Total 0.0 14.3 78.2 164.8 209.3217.8
Table 1.4
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Non-Residential Acres Absorbed per Fiscal Year
Land Use
- - --- -- -- ---- Fiscal Y ear------ -- --- ---
89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 I21al
I'
i'
"
"
I
Community Facilities
Junior High School
Public Park
~ Space
Major Circulation
Annual Totals
0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.5
0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
0.0 86.0 41.4 21.9 0.0 0.0 149.3
00 -1J. -6Jl jJl --ll ----ll..6 16.8
0.0 89.1 69.9 27.9 3.1 0.6 190.6
0.0 89.1 159.0 186.9 190.0 190.6
Cumulative Total
I
f \
I
4
Figure 1.1 graphically illustrates the rate of residential buildout through Fiscal Year 1995,
while Figure 1-2 shows the projected population based upon a factors of 2.000 persons per
dwelling unit in the retirement community, 3.219 persons per dwelling unit for the single
family detached units and 2.801 persons per dwelling unit for the town homes included within
SPA III.
#
o
f
U
n
i
t
s
['
I'
r
r
I'
"
Figure 1-1
Rancho del Rev SPA III
Occupied Dwelling Units
1380
1242
1104
966
828
690
552
414
276
138
o
89-90
90-91
91-92 92-93
Fiscal Year
93-94
94-95
5
I
I
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Figure 1.2
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Resident Population
3700
3330
2960
2590
2220
1850
1480
1110
740
370
0
89-90 90-91
91-92 92-93
Fiscal Year
93-94
94-95
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
The development of Rancho del Rey SPA III is projected to have an overall positive fiscal impact
on the City of Chula Vista. In other words, cumulative operating revenues are projected to
exceed cumulative operating costs over the nine year period of time analyzed in this study. SPA
Ill's annual impact after buildout is projected to be a positive $64,877 per year in current
dollars.
It is important to consider that SPA III is just one part of a three part development. The fiscal
analysis of SPA I prepared in 1987 showed an annual positive fiscal impact amounting to
$147,195 at buildout. It is reasonable to expect that the recent significant increases in
housing values would result in an even greater positive fiscal impact if prepared today.
['
i'
II
!'
(
11
/
The Rancho del Rey SPA III development is expected to have a neutral effect on the City's capital
expenditures and revenues, in that the development will provide public facilities financed
either from the developer of the property or from the property itself through the use of public
debt mechanisms tied to the property (i.e. 1913 Act assessment districts). A separate Public
Facilities Financing Plan Is being prepared for Rancho del Rey SPA III that will detail the
methods to be used to finance the affected public facilities.
6
.
l
!
I
i
i'
The following tables and figures reflect the projections of operating cost and revenue by fund as
fully discussed in Chapters II and III.
"
;
I
Table '-6 shows the projected combined operating funds costs and revenues over the buildout
period and for five years beyond. The funds included in this grouping are the General Fund,
Special Gas Tax, Traffic Safety Fund and State Library Act Fund.
I
Table 1.6
Projected Annual Operating Revenues an~ Costs
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal Annual Cumulative Revenuel
~ RAvenue- Cost.. Net Imoact Net Impact Cost Ratio
1990 $9,035 $0 $9,035 $9,035 nla
1991 $58.765 $51.035 $7.730 $16,765 1.15
1992 $315.478 $275,311 $40.167 $56.931 1.15
1993 $685.210 $589.280 $95.930 $152,861 1.16
1994 $836,397 $747.107 $89.290 $242.151 1.12
1995 $856.986 $785,033 $71.953 $314,104 1.09
1996 $849.910 $785.033 $64,877 $378.981 1.08
1997 $849,910 $785,033 $64.877 $443.858 1.08
1998 $849.910 $785.033 $64.877 $508.735 1.08
1999 $849,910 $785,033 $64.877 $573,611 1.08
2000 $849.910 $785.033 $64.877 $638.488 1.08
I
I
I
;
:
I
I
!
,
i
(
. see Table 111-1
.. see Table 11-3
Figure 1-3 shows the relationship between the costs and revenues on an annual basis for each of
the first eleven years of development.
"
II
:'
I
7
r
f
r
r
r
856990
771291
685592
599893
514194
428495
342796
257097
171398
85699
o
I
I
Figure 1.3
SPA III COST AND REVENUE
f
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Fiscal Year
OSPA III Revenue ~SPA III Cost
I
I
I Keeping in mind that the calculations for SPA I and SPA II are not additive to the results from
" SPA III because they were based on an earlier base year, it is still important to view Figure 1-4
which graphically shows the outcome from the SPA I fiscal analysis and the SPA II fiscal
analysis for the comparable years covered by the SPA III analysis. Because SPA I includes the
employment center, it provides significant net revenues to the City well in excess of the costs of
providing City services.
I'
(
(
II
I
I
I
I
8
r
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1587270
1428543
1269816
1111089
952362
793635
634908
476181
317454
158727
o
I'
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
\
\
I.
I
\
I,
,
Figure 1-4
SPA I & SPA II COST AND REVENUE
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
FISCAL YEAR
o SPA I Revenue D SPA I Cost . SPA II Revenue _ SPA II Cost
9
11
I
" (
I
CHAPTER II
OPERATING EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS
I'
The analysis of municipal operating expenditures has been prepared based on information
gathered from a review of the City of Chula Vista's 1988-89 operating budget and discussions
and/or correspondence with various city departments.
I'
I
i
To determine the full costs of providing city services, John McTighe & Associates prepared a
cost allocation of the indirect and overhead costs contained in the City's budget. These costs have
been allocated to eighteen "direct service" activities. The eighteen activities and their associated
1988-89 direct service budgeted expenditures are listed on Table 11-1 below. Appendix A
shows the costs that were allocated to each of these activities based on the City's previously
developed allocation methodology.
I
I
I
" I
i
"
I
I
I
I
I
10
I'
I
I
I
I
Tlble 11.1
City of Chull Vlstl
1988.89 Generll Fund Direct Service Activities' Full Cost
"
I
I
Activity/Deoartment
1988-89
Full Cost
!'
\ General Govemment and
Non-Departmental
Planning
Community Development
Police/Animal Regulation
Fire Protection
Building & Housing
Public Works/Engineering
Engineering
Design & Construction
Land Development
Traffic Engineering
Public Works
Street Maintenance
Street Sweeping
Street Tree Maintenance
TraffIC Operations
Traffic Signal & Street
Ught Maintenance
Sewer Systems Maintenance
Pump Station Maintenance
Parks & Recreation
Ubrary
Total
$1.105.712
1.086.301
747,544
13.460.289
5.559.51
781,854
1.181,280
.712.458
445.852
I
I
I
1.368.221
253.700
569.816
374.823
1.088.293
894,800
167.922
3.509.232
2439.583
$35.747.192
II
II
II
1\
11
"
I
Source: City of Chula Vista 1988-89 Adopted Budget;
John McTighe & Associates
When all indirect and overhead costs were allocated. the resulting eighteen activities were
reviewed to determine which ones would be Impacted as a result of the proposed development of
Rancho del Rey SPA III as illustrated in the conceptual development plan in Chapter I. Table 11-
2 lists the type of Impact anticipated on each of the activities.
11
I:
11
I'
f '
II
11
11
11
,
I
I
I
, .
I
1
\
I
1
11
I'
,I
I t
II
II
Table 11-2
Effect of Rancho del Rey SPA III Development
on City Operating Expenditure Activities
No ImDact
Legislative &
Administrative"
Community Development
One-Time
ImDact
On-Going
Impact
Planning
Building Inspection
Engineering
Fire Prevention
Park & Recreation
Public Works
Operations
Police
Library Operations
Fire Suppression
"Approximately $3.802.920 of Legislative & Administrative costs have been
allocated as overhead to other activities.
Source: John McTighe & Associates
The following discussion assesses the impact of the proposed land uses on those activities shown
as impacted on Table 11-2.
ONE TIME IMPACT
Plannina
Planning will experience a one-time, impact as the plans for the development of the Rancho del
/
Rey SPA III area are formalized and processed. Since the buildout of this project is anticipated
to extend over a three year period. this impact should not have a significant impact at any
particular point in time. It is not now possible to quantify the cost of this impact on the current
planning activity. However, Chula Vista's planning fees have been established at a level intended
to recover the full cost of the Planning Departmenfs processing resulting in no net cost to the
City.
12
I
i I
II
II
Buildina Insoection
j'l
l.
The Building inspection activity provides structural plan check and field inspection services on
all new construction within the City. This activity will experience a one-time impact as the
construction on the site takes place. However, neither the magnitude nor the cost of this
activity can be estimated without specific construction plans for the site. The full costs for
these services are recovered through the levying of fees upon the subject construction. As a
result, no net costs are assumed to be incurred by the City for the services of the Building
Inspection activity during the buildout of Rancho del Rey SPA III.
Enoineerina
There would be a one-time impact upon engineering services during the development of the
property. Due to the lack of specific plans for development, it is not possible to project the cost
of this impact at this time. However, the City's engineering fees have been established on a full
cost recovery basis thereby assuring that the costs to be Incurred by the City for engineering
services will be fully offset by the imposition of fees upon the development requiring the
expenditures to be made.
Fire Prevention
Fire prevention would experience one-time costs for review of the building plans for all
structures proposed for the property. The costs for these services cannot be estimated at this
time due to the lack of specific building plans for the property.
ON-GOING IMPACT
:1
I
Table 11-3 summarizes the projected annual on-going costs for each of the first nine years of
buildout. The bases for the projections are discussed In the following paragraphs.
! I
! I
I
13
J
,
l
j 1
I
11
I 1
[ 1
\
I
I
Table 11-3
Summary of On-going Annual City Cost Increments resulting
from Development of Rancho del Rey SPA III
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
Year Cost
1990 $ 0
1991 51.035
1992 275.311
1993 589.280
1994 747.107
1995 785.033
1996 785.033
1997 785.033
1998 785.033
1999 785.033
2000 785.033
PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS
This activity consists of a variety of maintenance functions. primarily street maintenance &
repair.
Street Maintenance
Street maintenance costs were estimated using a combination of the projected number of miles
of public sireets and the projected average daily traffic trips.
One-half of the cost of street maintenance was projected on the basis of the current annual cost
per mile of maintaining the 250 miles of streets In the City's maintained system ($2.736.44).
This was multiplied by the estimated number of miles of public streets to arrive at half of the
annual costs of street maintenance.
14
11
I
11
11
11
~
The other half of the cost of street maintenance was projected on the basis of the projected
number of average daily traffic trips to be generated within the project area as found on
Table 11-5. These were estimated using traffic generation factors of 10 average daily trips
(ADT) for single family residential dwelling units, 4.5 ADTs per retirement housing unit, 8.0
ADTs per townhome Unit, 60 ADTs per acre of junior high school use and 50 ADTs per acre for
the neighborhood park. The City is currently projected to have 738,186 ADTs. One-half of the
estimated 88-89 cost of street maintenance divided by the estimated current ADTs yields an
average annual maintenance cost per ADT of $.93. This factor of $.93 was applied to the
estimated annual ADTs to arrive at the portion of the street maintenance costs attributable to
actual travel trips.
1
Table 11-4, below shows the total number of street miles projected per year that were used as
the basis for the cost projections.
I
I'
Table 11-4
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Number of Miles of City Maintained Streets
1
Fiscal
~
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
~
0.0
1.5
3.5
5.2
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
. ,
I 1
I'
I '
I'
! 1
I
Ii
I'
15
j'
I
r Table 11-5 shows the average daily tralfic trips that were projected by John McTighe &
I Associates for use In this analysis.
I Table 11.5
Average Dally Traffic Trips
I Residential ADTsI -m-----------Fiscal Year _____n_________
Product Tvpe DU 89-9090-9191-9292-9393-94 94-95 IQI&,
I Retirement
Stacked Townhouses 4.5 0 135 270 270 270 50 995
Cluster Townhomes 4.5 0 162 324 324 234 0 1,044
Patio Homes 4.5 0 108 216 22 0 0 346
3,520 s.l. pad 10.0 0 0 750 0 0 0 750
I
I 3,600 s.f pad 10.0 0 0 0 960 190 0 1,150
4,180 s.l. pad 10.0 0 0 0 960 40 0 1,000
I
I 5,000 s.l. pad 10.0 0 0 720 1,310 720 60 2,810
6,000 s.l. pad 10.0 0 0 270 0 0 0 270
r
I Townhomes 8.0 ~ --.Jl 0 768 768 480 2016
Total Residential 0 405 2,550 4,614 2,222 590 10,381
I Cumulative Residential 0 405 2,955 7,569 9,791 10,381
Non-Residential ADTsI
Land Use Ac. 89-9090-91 91 -92 92-93 93-94 94-95 IQI&,
Community Facilities
.
Junior High School 60 0 0 1,350 0 0 0 1,350
Public Park 50 ~ 1M 0 0 0 0 100
i' Total Non-Residential 0 100 1,350 0 0 0 1,450
( Cumulative Non.Residential 0 100 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,450
( Annual Grand Total 0 505 3,900 4,614 2,222 590 11,831
,I Cumulative Grand Total 0 505 4,405 9,01911,24111,831
I
I
" 16
,
I
,
.
I
i
,
,
I 1
I
11
II
I 1
17
"
, I
,
,
f'
I
Street Sweeoina
1
The cost of street sweeping shown on the following table has been projected on the basis of
$503 per mile of street. This is the current cantract cast the City pays far street sweeping. As
these can tract casts fluctuate. the overall cast may differentiate from that shown here.
I
Table 11-7
Street Sweeping Cost Projections
(In Constant 1989 $)
~
I
Fiscal
Year Cost
1990 $ 0
1991 764
1992 1.754
1993 2.600
1994 2.952
1995 3.018
1996 3.018
1997 3.018
1998 3.018
1999 3.018
2000 3,018
I 1
II
I'
I \
I 1
I
,
I
Street TrAe MaintAnance
Street tree maintenance was projected on the basis of the current average annual cast per mile
of public streets in the city in 1988-89 of $2.279. This was derived by dividing the full cost
of this activity ($569.816) by the 250 miles of streets estimated in the City's maintained
system in 1988-89. This cast per mile of $2.279 was applied to the estimated number of
miles of public streets to arrive at the estimate of annual casts for street tree maintenance in
18
I 1
I
I 1
I
"
I
I
Rancho del Rey SPA III. It should be noted, however, that this cost estimate is probably high in
the first few years, since the maintenance of young trees is not as labor intensive as for more
mature trees, However. over the long term the average maintenance costs would be applicable,
Table 11.8
Street Tree Maintenance Cost Projections
(In Constant 1989 $)
.
Fiscal
YAar Cost
1990 $ 0
1991 3.464
1992 7,947
1993 11.783
1994 13,378
1995 13.676
1996 13.676
1997 13.676
1998 13.676
1999 13.676
2000 13.676
.
! I
11
I 1
I 1
I 1
I t
I 1
I'
19
J1
i i
I'
Traffic Sional and Street Uoht Maintenance
.
Traffic signal and street light maintenance costs were calculated on the basis of the number of
miles of public streets based on the 1988.89 budget for an annual cost of $4,353 per mile.
\'
,
I
I
Table 11.9
Traffic Signal and Street Light Maintenance
Cost Projections
(In Constant 1989 $)
I
Fiscal
Year Cost
1990 $ 0
1991 6,616
1992 15,178
1993 22.503
1994 25.551
1995 26.119
1996 26.119
1997 26.119
1998 26.119
1999 26.119
2000 26.119
, .
I
,
,
I-
f'
,
I
1\
I
,
20
, .
Traffic Operations
.
I,
I
I,
The traffic operations costs were projected on the same basis as street operations. That is, one
half of the current year's cost was calculated on a per mile of public street basis of $749.65
and the other half was equated to be approximately $.25 per average daily traffic trip (ADT).
These factors were then applied to the projected increases in miles of publiC streets and ADTs to
arrive at the projections shown.
Table 11-10
Traffic Operations Cost Projections
(In Constant 1989 $)
,
I
: 1
11
I
Fiscal
Year Cost
1990 $ 0
1991 1,267
1992 3.732
1993 6.165
1994 7.254
1995 7,502
1996 7,502
1997 7,502
1998 7.502
1999 7,502
I I
I
11
i
I
21
I
: I
,
: I
: I
: I
PARKS AND RECREATION
Recreation Services
It is anticipated that further demand for recreation services will exist in proportion to the
increase in resident population from within Rancho del Rey SPA III. The City's current cost for
recreation services is estimated to be $11.82 per capita. If the recreation service activities
increase in proportion to the increased population. the increases shown on the following table
would be expected to occur:
Table 11-11
Recreation Services Cost Projections
(In Constant 1989 $)
f
I
Fiscal
Year Cost
1990 $ 0
1992 2.128
1993 13.007
1994 31.725
1995 41.173
1996 43.645
1997 43.645
1998 43.645
1999 43.645
2000 43.645
. 1
i
~
~ t
I
It
I
I
22
I
I
l.
I
I
Park Maintenance
Park maintenance costs are expected to increase with the addition of park acreage in the area.
The present per acre cost of park maintenance within the City of Chula Vista is $6.100. The
Rancho del Rey SPA III SPA Plan provides for the addition of a 2.0 acre neighborhood park in the
second year of development of the SPA: The following park maintenance costs are therefore
projected.
Table 11.12
Park Maintenance Cost Projections
(In Constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
Year Cost
1990 S 0
1991 0
1992 12.201
1993 12.201
1994 12.201
1995 12.201
1996 12.201
1997 12.201
1998 12.201
1999 12.201
2000 12.201
.
I
I
I
.
I
I
r
I'
23
II
: J
I r
! !
cnen ~
! I
l'
i!
The Rancho del Rey SPA III land use plans designate 149.3 acres as open space land. For
purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that the open space lands would be dedicated to an
open space maintenance district in an amount proportionate to the percent of all land uses
absorbed in each year of development. Therefore, based on the City's present estimated cost of
$215.42 per acre for the administration of open space maintenance, the costs shown on the
following table are projected. These costs will be offset by revenues to be received from an open
space maintenance district covering Rancho del Rey. There will be additional direct costs for the
actual maintenance of the open space charged against the open space maintenance district. Those
costs, however, cannot be estimated at this time, but because they will be charged against the
district, there will be no net cost incurred by the City.
'I
I
I!
. '
I:
! I
1 .
Table 11-13
Open Space Maintenance Administration
Cost Projections
(In Constant 1989 $)
! 1
Fiscal
Year Cost
1990 $ 0
1991 0
1992 18,526
1993 27,445
1994 32,162
1995 32,162
1996 32,162
1997 32,162
1998 32,162
1999 32,162
2000 32,162
II
"
I
! I
I
I
II
I
24
POLICE AND ANIMAL REGULATION
Based on the 1988-89 City Police full cost allocation budget, the per capita cost of police and
animal control services is $111.90. Applying this ratio to the projected population for Rancho
del Rey SPA III results in the projected cost of police services shown below.
Table 11-14
Pollee and Animal Regulation Cost Projections
(In Constant 1989$)
Fiscal
Year Cost
1990 $ 0
1991 20.142
1992 123.091
1993 300.229
1994 389.638
1995 413.025
1996 413.025
1997 413.025
1998 413.025
1999 413.025
2000 413.025
,.
I
II
i'
"
,
,I,
FIRE
,
Fire services costs were allocated to Rancho del Rey SPA III based on a methodology developed for
allocation of fire services costs to the updated EastLake I fiscal impact analysis In February
1988. Briefly, an equivalent dwelling unit for fire services purposes was derived based on
projections of city-wide growth of dwelling units, commercial acres and industrial acres. The
SANDAG Series 7 growth rates were applied to the 1987 base number of dwelling units
I,
I
25
I
i
i
!
I
(45,101), commercial acres (786.7) and industrial acres (562.03) to project the future
number of city-wide fire equivalent dwelling units. The cost of providing fire protection
services was kept constant through 1992 and then increased by the cost of one additional engine
company. The cost per equivalent dwelling unit was determined by dividing this annual cost by
the number of EOUs in any particular year. The resulting cost per EOU was then applied to the
number of fire eDUs that were projected to exist in Rancho del Rey SPA III in that particular
year based on the earlier described buildout scenario.
Table 11.15
Fire Services Cost Projections
(In Constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
YAar Cosl
1990 $ 0
1991 8,376
1992 43,943
1993 97,710
1994 125,700
1995 131,445
1996 131,445
1997 131,445
1998 131,445
1999 131,445
2000 131,445
26
LIBRARY OPERATIONS
Library operations costs were projected on the basis of current per capita costs of $20.28. The
following are the projected added library operations costs.
Table 11-16
Library Operations Cost Projections
(In Constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
Year Cost
1990 $ 0
1991 3.651
1992 22,309
1993 54.414
1994 70,619
1995 74.858
1996 74.858
1997 74.858
1998 74,858
1999 74.858
2000 74.858
, .
I
"
27
.
I
,
j
I,
j
I,
CHAPTER III
OPERATING REVENUE ANALYSIS
ONE TIME IMPACT
I
I
,
The City receives one-time revenues associated with the processing of land development
projects. Fees for building, plumbing, electrical, housing and sewer connection permits along
with charges for environmental reviews, plan checks, zoning and engineering fees, etc., have
been established by the City to recover costs incurred for these activities. The one-time
revenues from these sources are expected to offset the City's expenditures resulting in no net
cost to the City.
ON.GOING IMPACT
Figure 111-1 shows the total on-going revenue per year projected through fiscal year 1999-
2000. Table 111-1 shows the revenues projected during the first nine years. The following
paragraphs describe how the revenues. for each source were projected.
856990
771291
685592
599893
514194
428495
3427~6
257097
171398
85699
o
Flgu re 111.1
Operating Revenue
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
FISCAL YEAR
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 11I.1
Summary of Annual Revenue Increments Resulting from Development of
Rancho del Rey SPA III
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
..Year Revenue
1990 $ 9,035
1991 58,765
1992 315.478
1993 685,210
1994 836,397
1995 856,986
1996 849.910
1997 849,910
1998 849.910
1999 849,910
2000 849.910
PROPERTY TAX
,
i
Property taxes for general government purposes are limited to a total of 1 % of the assessed
market value. The taxes collected are apportioned among several different local government
agencies in whose jurisdiction the property lies. The basis for apportionment of taxes has been
established by formula for each tax rate area (TRA) based on the pre-1978 ratio of taxes
within that TRA.
I
I
I'
I'
I',
All of this property has been previously annexed to the City and has therefore been subjected to
the property tax allocation agreement then in place between the City and County of San Diego. As
a consequence. the City of Chula Vista will receive approximately 14.05% of the 1% property
tax collected on all of the property contained within the boundaries of Rancho del Rey SPA III.
This figure represents the projected average distribution from all tax rate areas covering
Rancho del Rey SPA III.
29
"
The property taxes have been projected based on a combination of discussions with
representatives of the Rancho del Rey Partnership and assumptions developed by John McTighe
& Associates. Because the property tax yield to the City is dependent on the assessed value of the
property, a series of computer models was developed which projected assessed value and
property tax based on various assumptions. Table 111-2 shows the projected new residential
market values used to project assessed valuation. Table 11I.3 then shows the secured property
tax revenue from Rancho del Rey SPA III based on the models. The details of the projections and
models are displayed in Appendix D. The discussion which follows Table 111.3 summarizes the
projections and the key assumptions.
. ,
,
,
I
,
Table 111.2
Projected New Residential Market Valuations
(In 1,000s of Constant 1989 dollars)
! 1 1989
I' Market
Value 89.
Product Tvee lin dollarsl i.Q n:.i.l il:ll i2..:..ia ~ ~ IQ1iI
Retirement
Stacked Townhouses $148,930 $0 $4,468 $8,936 $8,936 $8,936 $1,638 $32,914
Cluster Townhomes $149,900 $0 $5,396 $10,793 $10,793 $7,795 $0 $34,777
Patio Homes $191,220 $0 $4,589 $9,179 $956 $0 $0 $14.724
1 3,520 s:t. pads $ 193,450 $0 $0 $ 14,509 $0 $0 $0 $14,509
3,600 s.l pad $171.470 $0 $0 $0 $16,461 $3,258 $0 $19,719
! 1 4.180 s.l. pad $206,500 $0 $0 $0 $19,824 $826 $0 $20,650
5,000 s.l. pad $244,050 $0 $0 $17.572 $31,971 $17.572 $1,464 $68,578
! 1 6,000 s.1. pad $258,100 $0 $0 $6,969 $0 $0 $0 $6,969
Townhomes $158,750 ~ $0 50 515240 515240 59 525 $40 005
i 1 Totals $0 $14,454 $67,956 $104,180 $53,62 $12,628 $252,844
! I
,
30
Table 11I-3
Property Tax Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
Year R9vAnue
1990 $ 8,079
1991 26,731
1992 119.742
1993 263.713
1994 337,848
1995 355,369
1996 355.369
1997 355,369
1998 355,369
1999 355,369
2000 355,369
Three major variables that affect the assessed value projections (and consequently, property
taxes) are rate of buildout, rate of property appreciation and rate of turnover.
Suildout Rate
: 1
I
The assumptions regarding rate of buildout were based on the Rancho del Rey Pannership's
forecasts. The previous Table 1-1 found on page 2 shows the number of residential units by
density per year that were used in the projections. Table 1-2 on page 3 shows the number of
gross acres of non-residential development per year in each category that were assumed to be
developed.
i I
31
i ,
I
Aooreciation
The rate of property appreciation is significant in as much as it affects both the initial assessed
valuation and the reevaluation that is placed on property when it changes ownership. Property
values, particularly housing values, have historically appreciated at a faster rate than the
underlying rate of inflation. Consequently, unless an assumption is made concerning the
difference between the rate of property appreciation and underlying inflation, the property tax
revenue projections may be understated. This is particularly true when the effect of
Proposition 13's provisions relating to the limitation of annual assessed value increases is
taken into consideration. Property upon resale Is going to reflect the then-current market
value and will be subject to reassessment and consequently taxed at the higher value. However,
to be conservative, the total revenues shown here have not included an adjustment in either
annual inflation or appreciation. Hence, this property tax projection is most likely
understated.
Turnover
The rate of turnover would be significant because of its impact on reassessments where
appreciation is greater than 2% annually. Under the present system of property assessment,
annual increases in assessed value are limited to a maximum of 2% unless property changes
ownership. When changes of ownership take place, the assessed value is adjusted to reflect the
actual market value of the property. However, in this analysis no adjustment has been made for
either the 2% annual inflation or for appreciation.
I
I
II
I
For purposes of this analysis, annual turnover rates of 10% for residential property and 5%
for non-residential property have been assumed. In other words, it has been assumed that the
ownership of residential property will change on the average once every ten years and the
ownership of industrial, retail and office property will change on the average once every twenty
years.
,
I
.
32
I
,
I
,
I,
I,
I,
~I i=!=: AND LJ..'>E TAXES
Sales Tax revenues for SPA III are projected based on an estimate of per capita spending. It has
been assumed that fifty percent of the sales tax generated within the City of Chula Vista is
allributed to the fact that the people reside within the City (per capita), while the other fifty
percent is allributed to the location of commercial and industrial businesses within the City.
The City's estimated 1988-89 sales tax revenues total $9,773,690. Fifty percent of this is
$4,886,845 which amounts to $40.63 per capita. This amount was multiplied by the
estimated resident population in each year to arrive at the sales tax projection.
Since no commercial or industrial land uses are Included within the SPA III boundaries, no
allocation of sales tax revenue has been allributed from-those uses. However, the following
describes the methodology which would have been used to attribute sales tax to non-residential
uses had they existed. This discussion is included since other SPAs of Rancho del Rey do in fact
include such uses are therefore credited with additional sales tax revenue in accordance with
this methodology.
While no precise studies exist to verify the amount of retail sales allributed to industrial land
use, a conservative amount of $10 per square foot of industrial space per year has been
assumed. Assuming an average of thirty percent lot coverage for industrial uses, this translates
to taxable sales of $130,680 per year per acre.
I
I
I
I
I
I
The commercial sales tax per acre is estimated by deducting the total allributed to industrial
uses from the other 50010 of the City's total sales tax revenue in the base year. The remainder is
then divided by the estimated number of acres of commercial land use within the City in 1988 to
arrive at an annual commercial per acre sales tax revenue of $5,278.23.
33
I.
I
I
I
Table 11I-4
Sale. & U.e Tax Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
..:wu Revenue
1990 $ 0
1991 7.313
1992 44.689
1993 109.000
1994 141.460
1995 149.951
1996 149.951
1997 149.951
1998 149.951
1999 149.951
2000 149.951
I
I
I
I
I
,
34
FRMCHISE TAXES
This revenue is derived from taxes placed on cable television, sanitary and gas & electric
services provided within the City. The estimated city-wide revenue for 1988-89 from this
source is $1,418,790.
The projections for this revenue source were based on a breakdown of the current charges for
each of the three utilities among residential and non-residential users and then on the average
per dwelling unit and/or developed non-residential uses. The following table shows the
comparison of this revenue source projection.
Tlble 111-5
Frlnchlse Tax Revenue Projection
(In constlnt 1989 $)
Fiscal
Year Revenue
1990 $ 0
1991 1.948
1992 9.612
1993 21.648
1994 28.207
1995 29,874
1996 29.874
1997 29.874
1998 29.874
1999 29.874
I 2000 29.874
I'
I
f'
I
35
J
!
j
(
I
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES
I
I
,
Property transfer tax revenue Is based on a rate of $.55 for each $1.000 of unencumbered real
property value transferred. To be conservative. the projections have been based on 50% of the
projected value of turnover property transactions and 100% of new property transactions. The
resulting projection of revenue is as follows:
I
I
Tlble 11I.6
Property Trlnsfer Tu Revenue Projection
(In constlnt 1989 $)
Fiscal
:wI Revenue
1990 $ 0
1991 7.949
1992 37.773
1993 59.545
1994 34.626
1995 13.536
1996 6.953
1997 6.953
1998 6.953
1999 6.953
2000 6.953
I
I
I
,
!
I
"
"
I
I
UTILITY USERS TAX
/
The City levies taxes on the consumption of natural gas and electricity and on the gross revenue
for telephone billings within the City. The current rates of these taxes are $0.0025 per
kilowatt hour (KWH) of electricity, $0.00919 per therm of gas and 5% of the gross telephone
revenues.
I
II
36
The average electrical consumption per residential unit is estimated by San Diego Gas and
Electric Company to be 425 KWH per month, or 5,100 KWH per year. At $0.0025 per KWH,
this equates to $12.75 in utility users tax per year per dwelling unit for electricity.
1
The average gas consumption per dwelling unit is estimated by SDG&E as 50 therms per month,
or 600 therms per year. At $0.00919 per therm this equates to $5.514 per dwelling unit per
year in utility users tax for natural gas.
Assuming the average residential phone bill is $20.00 per month, the annual utility users tax
for phone services per dwelling unit is projected to be $12.00 per year.
Altogether, the utility users tax revenue was projected using composite annual figures of
$30.26 per dwelling unit. The total projections of revenue from the utility users tax are as
follows:
,I
; I
,
II
, I
I
Table 111.7
Utility Users Tax Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
Year Revenue
1990 $ 0
1991 2,724
1992 13,437
1993 30,264
1994 39,434
1995 41,764
1996 41,764
1997 41.764
1998 41.764
1999 41,764
2000 41.764
I
II
37
BICYCLE UCENSES
Bicycle licenses are calculated on a per capita basis. Using the estimated 1988-89 revenue
from this category of $4,100 divided by the total population of Chula Vista (120,288) giving a
$.03 per capita amount. This figure was then multiplied by the population to yield the following
projections.
Table 111.8
Bicycle License Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
Year Revenue
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
$ 0
6
37
91
119
126
126
126
126
126
126
I'
I
38
ANIMAL UCENSES
Animal licenses are calculated in the same manner as bicycle licenses. The estimated 1988-89
revenue from animal licenses is $46,000 divided by the population of Chula Vista (120,288)
for a $.38 per capila amount. The results of this figure multiplied by Ihe lolal populalion are
as follows.
Table 111-9
Animal Licenses Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
.:wr Revenue
1990 $ 0
1991 69
1992 421
1993 1,026
1994 1,332
1995 1,411
1996 1,411
1997 1,411
1998 1,411
1999 1,411
2000 1,411
I'
I
I
39
1
1\
I
I
I,
I
I
,
OTHER TAXES
This category includes unsecured and delinquent property taxes and the Homeowner Property
Tax Relief revenue from the state. The amounts projected in this category were based on the
current year's percentage that those revenues represent of property tax revenue. The following
table shows the annual revenue.
Table 111-10
Other Taxe. Revenue ProJection
(In constant 1989 $)
I Fiscal
, Year Revenue
\
1990 $ 325
I 1991 1.076
!
\
1992 4,819
, 1993 10.612
I, 1994 13.595
1995 14.300
1996 14.300
1997 14.300
1998 14.300
1999 14,300
2000 14.300
(
I
, .
40
MOTOR VEHICLE IN-UEU
, .
The City estimates $4,168,140 in revenues from the State for Motor Vehicle In-Lieu taxes in
1988-89. The formula used by the State allocates these revenues on a per capita basis.
Therefore. the per capita amount was calculated as $4.168.140 divided by 120.288 - $34.65.
The annual revenue projected is as follows:
, \
I
I
Table 111-11
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
.Yur Revenue
1990 $ 0
1991 6.237
1992 38.116
1993 92.970
1994 120.656
1995 ' 127.898
1996 127.898
1997 127.898
1998 127.898
1999 127.898
2000 127,898
, 1
: I
I
I
I
.,
41
I
I
I
I
I
CIGARETTE TAX
The revenue from cigarette taxes was estimated using the formula of 1.75% of sales tax
revenues plus $1.55 per capita. The projected annual revenues are as follows:
Table 11I.12
Cigarette Tax Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
i.
Fiscal
..:wr Revenue
1990 $ 0
1991 407
1992 2.487
1993 6,066
1994 7.873
1995 8.345
1996 8.345
1997 8.345
1998 8.345
1999 8.345
2000 8,345
I
I
I
42
I
I,
I
,
f
I
I'
.
\
,
I
I
I I
I
[ ,
I
I
I
FINES FORFErrURES AND PENALTIES
The revenue in this category is derived from a combination of fines for ordinance violations and
library fines. Approximately 49% is from ordinance violations and 51% from library fines.
Both of these revenues are expected to increase proportionate to population and have therefore
been projected on the basis of $1.35 per capita. The projections are as follows:
Table 11I.13
Fines, Forfeiture. and Penaltle. Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
Ym
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Revenue
$ 0
243
1,485
3,621
4,699
4,981
4.981
4,981
4,981
4,981
4,981
43
SWIMMING POOL'>
The City estimates revenues totalling $85,000 from fees for use Of municipal swimming pools
in 1988-89. This amounts to approximately $.71 per capita. This revenue is assumed to
increase proportionate to population. The resulting projections are shown below:
Table 111-14
Swimming Pools Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
~ Revenue
i' 1990 $ 0
1991 127
. 1992 777
I 1993 1.896
1994 2.461
I 1995 2.608
1996 2,608
1997 2,608
1998 2,608
1999 2,608
2000 2,608
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I r
I'
44
\"
I
I
I
RECREAllClN PRtY:RAM AND CJTl.lER CHARGES
The charges for the various City-sponsored recreation programs and reservation of park
facilities are estimated to amount to a total of $70,350 in 1988-89, for a per capita amount of
about $.58. The following shows the projections of the estimated revenue from these fees and
charges.
I
i'
i'
II
I
Table 111.15
Recreation Program and Other Fee Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
Year Revenue
1990 $ 0
1991 58
1992 354
1993 864
1994 1,122
1995 1,189
1996 1,189
1997 1,189
1998 1,189
1999 1,189
2000 1,189
45
INVESTMENT EARNINGS
..
I
The City places Its idle funds in interest bearing investments. Generally, as a City's total
revenue increases, the amount of money available for investment also increases. This analysis,
however, has assumed that only the net positive difference between annual revenue and
expenditures will be available to earn interest. A rate of 7.5% has been assumed on this
balance. Therefore, the following projections of interest earnings attributed to Rancho del Rey
SPA III represent 7.5% of the difference between the amount of total revenue and the amount of
total costs in anyone year.
f
I
f
I
(
I
Table 111-16
Investment Earnings Revenue Projection
I
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
Yur Revenue
1990 $ 630
1991 539
1992 2,802
1993 6,693
1994 6,230
1995 5,020
1996 4,526
, 1997 4,526
I
, 1998 4,526
I 1999 4,526
It 2000 4,526
I
I
I
1
46
TRAFFIC SAFETY FIIND
This fund receives its revenue from fines for violations of the Vehicle Code within the City. For
purposes of this analysis it has been assumed that these revenues will increase in proportion to
Increases in population. Therefore, the estimated $385,000 revenue for 1988-89 was
converted to $3.20 per capita and applied to the population assumptions to arrive at the
following projections:
Table 111-17
Traffic Safety Fund Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
Fiscal
Year Revenue
,
! 1990 S 0
1991 576
1992 3.521
1993 8,587
1994 11,145
1996 11,814
I 1997 11,814
1998 11,814
I 1999 11,814
!
, 2000 11,814
I
II
1 \
i
47
I
r
I
I
ST ATE UBRARY ACT FUND
The state provides a foundation program for library funding for all libraries in the state whose
expenditures meet or exceed a fixed per capita amount. The City estimates receiving $136,000
in fiscal year 1988-89 which equates to $1.13 per capita. Assuming the City's library will
continue its eligibility to receive these funds, the following projections of revenue from this
source are projected:
Table 11I.18
. State Library Act Revenue Projection
(In constant 1989 $)
I' Fiscal
I ::!or Revenue
r 1990 $ 0
1991 204
I 1992 1,244
I
I 1993 3,033
1994 3,937
1995 4,173
1996 4,173
1997 4,173
. 1998 4,173
,
I 1999 4,173
I
I 2000 4,173
I
II
II
II
48
"
!
I,
SPECIAL GAS TAX FUND
Gasoline tax is distributed by the State according to a complicated set of formulas that take into
consideration the population of counties compared to the state total, the population of cities to
total county population and the assessed value of cities compared to total assessed value within
the county. Since the number of variables within these formulas make it impossible to project
future gas tax revenue with any certainty, this analysis has assumed that gas tax revenue to
Chula Vista will increase in proportion to population increases.
Table 111-19
Gasoline Tax Revenue Projection
(in constant 1989 $)
, I
I'
Fiscal
:wr Revenue
1990 $ 0
1991 2,511
1992 15,346
1993 37,431
1994 48,577
1995 51,493
1996 51,493
1997 51,493
1998 51,493
1999 51,493
2000 51.493
,
I'
11
II
II
I I '
49
II
OPEN ~ACE MAINTENANCE R.IND
An open space maintenance district will be formed to provide the funding for the costs of
maintaining the dedicated open space areas contained within SPA III. This district will levy an
annual assessment on property owners to cover the costs of maintenance and administration.
The costs of maintenance have not been projected in this analysis since the type and frequency of
that maintenance has not yet been defined. However, this analysis has projected costs for open
space administration based on the City's current experience. Therefore, the revenue shown on
the following table reflects the offset to the costs shown on Table 11-13 for the administration of
the open space maintenance program.
I
I
1'\
I 1
II
II
I
Tlble 111.20
Open SpIce Mllntenlnce District Revenue Projection
(In cons tInt 1989 $)
Fiscal
:wr Revenue
1990 $ 0
1991 0
1992 18,526
1993 27,445
1994 32,162
1995 32,162
1996 32,162
1997 32,162
1998 32,162
1999 32,162
2000 32,162
I
I
50
I
I
APPENDIX A
INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION
i'
I
I
I
I
!
I
(
II
. I
I
I
1\
,
- -
~
- .-..
CIlY OF CHULA VISTA COST AlLOCATKlN
1988.89 Adopted Budget Page 1 01 2
Indirect Indlrecl
Employee Olher Capkal 1988.89 Costs 10 be Direct Cost Grand
Depar1m8ntlAdivlty SeMces Services Outlay TOlal Alocaled Cost Base Anocation TOIaI
--..-.................. ............. ......---. ..-.----- ___n___.. ...__n__. ..........-- .--..----.
Building & Equ;pn.tl
GEIlEAALGOVEANMENT & ID
DEPARTMENTAl
City CoIn:II $125,190 $55,790 $180,980 $0 $125,190 $25.095 $206,075
Boaldl & Corm1I..1ons $5,970 $23,200 $29,170 $0 $5,970 $1,197 $30,367
ComrrAlnIty Pro..lOIIonl $19,130 $19,130 $0 $0 $0 $19,130
ClIy A....., $310,230 $42,950 $353,180 $0 $310,230 $62,187 $415,367
ClIy Cln/EIec:IIclM $l58,nO $48,900 $207,670 $0 $158,770 $31,826 $239,496
M,..4\~l $545,650 $46,750 $6,270 $598,670 ($484,400) $61,250 $12,278 $120,278
~SeMceI $679,570 $291,520 $20,490 $891,580 ($971,090) $0 $0 SO
p..........w.-.-o $457,030 $98,390 $11,310 $566,730 ($555,420) $0 $0 SO
FIn8noWPuR:hIsIng $733,000 $139,600 $15,800 $688,400 ($797,600) $0 $0 $75,000
Insurancl $792,100 $792,100 ($792,100) $0 $0 $0
Non.~1 ($19,770) $222,080 $202,310 ($202,310) $0 $0 $0
> SUB-lOT AI. GeL lJOV'1'. & .......... ..............
. ~-DEPARTMENTAL...._..... $2,995,&40 $1,780,410 $53,870 $4,829,920 ($3,802,920) $661,410 $132.582 $1,105,712
....
PlANNtlO $653,870 $61,270 $5,950 $921,090 $0 $853,870 $171,161 $1,086,301
COMMUNIlY 0EVElClPMENT $574,620 $57,740 $2,300 $634,660 $0 $574,620 $115.184 $747,544
PClUCElANIMAL REGUlATION $9,987,210 $1,471,110 $33,840 $11,492,160 $0 $9,987,210 $2,001,969 $13,460,289
FIRE PROTECTION $4,338,220 $351,680 $22,490 $4,712,390 $0 $4,338,220 $869,611 $5,559,511
BUIlDING & HOUSING
_sntion $105,030 $12,010 $750 $117,790 ($117,040) $0 $0 SO
CormulIc8Itona $113,910 $17,890 $131,800 ($133,994) $0 $0 $0
BuIdklg InIpec:llon $604,300 $42,450 $6,000 $654,750 $11,637 $615,937 $123,467 $781,854
........... ..............
SUB-TOTAl. $823,240 $72,350 $6,750 $904,340 ($133,994) $615,937 $123,467 $781,854
AII'll 26, 1989
-
cnYOFCHULA VISTA COST AlLOCATKJN
1988-89 Adopted Budget Page 2 01 2
Indirect Indirect
EqJIoyee 0Iher Capital 1988-89 Costs to be Direct Cost Grand
Depa""","UAdivily SeMoe. ServIceo Outlay Total Alocated Cost Base Alocation Total
....--.....-....--.. --........... ....------ ........-- ..........
PUBLIC WORKSlENGINEERING
AdmInI.tlllon $221,430 $27,650 $3,600 $252,680 ($249,080) SO SO $0
Oparalion. Admlnotratlon $243,360 $50,480 $5.000 $298,840 ($293,840) SO SO $0
Deolgn & COllIlIUdIon $884,530 $56,250 $7,030 $947,810 $52,641 $937,171 $187,859 $1,181,280
IM1d lleI.~,"'4 $547,370 $16,260 $4,040 $567,670 $32,576 $579,946 $116,252 $712,458
Tralllc E..gIMr'.'lI $342,380 $10,380 $352,760 $20,376 $362,756 $72,716 $445,852
Strwl Malnl8nanoa $632,580 $456,690 $1,050 $1,090,320 $126,743 $759,323 $152,209 $1,368,221
Shal SwaapIng $0 $253,700 $253,700 SO SO SO $253,700
SnoI T_ MaInIoo.... $253,090 $205,120 $458,210 $50,709 $303,799 $60,897 $569,816
TraIlIc epa.doo,. $165,730 $138,010 $301,740 $33,205 $198,935 $39,877 $374,823
Tralllc SlgJSt U. Malnt. $132,&90 $897,090 $1,029,780 $26,586 $t59,276 $31,927 $1,088,293
Seww S,.... Main......... $502,410 $170,840 $5,050 $678,300 $100,662 $603,072 $120,888 $894,800
p..... Stallon Ma_noa $97,970 $26,750 $t24,720 $19,629 $117,599 $23,573 $167,922
Bldg. MaInI. & Repat $301,790 $129,870 $4,290 $435,750 ($491,926) SO SO $0
)> CUIlOdIal MaInl8nanoa $324,760 $134,480 $459,240 ($524,308) $0 $0 $0
. .....--... .......... ..........
N SUB-TOTAl $4,860,090 $2,571,370 $30,060 $7,251,520 ($1,016,235) $4,021,876 $806,198 $7,057,165
PARKS & RECREATION
AdmIrUhItIon $437,070 $54,730 $750 $492,550 ($491,800) $0 $0 $0
Pa'" MaInloI.... $769,900 $485,650 $9,980 $1,265,530 $217,963 $987,863 $198,020 $1,671,534
R_1Ion $743,220 $277,670 $16,000 $1,036,790 $210,410 $953,630 $191,158 $1,422,358
Clpar1 Space AdmInlatrIIIon $40,580 $24,740 $540 $65,860 $11,488 $52,068 $10,437 $87,246
Malntananoa oJ" St. Martna $112,960 $38,280 $22,600 $171 ,730 $31,977 $144,927 $29,051 $2tO,258
SanIor Inlormallon Cent.. $70,6tO $9,230 $79,740 $19,962 $90,472 $t8,135 $117,837
............ .......----
SUB-TOTAl PARKS & REC. $2,174,230 $888,200 $48,770 $3,111,200 $0 $2,228,960 $446,802 $3,509,232
UIlRARY $1,427,830 $725,780 $11,210 $2,164,620 $0 $1,427,630 $286,173 $2,439,683
----...---- .-----.... -----..... ..----..-.- _a_a:=__... _",,_a....... .""._a.."".... ...........
TOTAl GENERAl FUND............. $27,824,750 $7,979,910 $217,240 $38,021,900 ($4,953,148) $24,709,734 $4,953,148 $35,747,192
April 26, 1989
---
ASSUMPTIONs:
1988 Population
Base , of ADT s
Miles of Slr88t
MOOs of S.I..I.
k:s. of paIk land
k;s. of Open SplIce
120,288
,
738,186
250
11.12
274
405
)>
.
W
nFPARnIENTIFUNCTIClI
General Government
P1111'1n1ng
Community Developmen
Police/Anima' Contr
Fire Protection
BuIlding & Hawing
Public Wolka
Street Malnlenanoe
Slr88t 8\. nplng
Street Tree Malntenanoe
Traffic Operallons
T.S.ISt. Lt. Malntenanc
s-r System Main!.
Pump Station Malntenanoe
Englnnering
P8Iks & Recreation
Recreation
P8Ik MaIntenance
Open Space Adminlstralion
Library
CIlY OF CHUlA VISTA COST AU.OCATION
1988.89 Allocalon Faclors
ALlOCATION BASIS
Constant Cost
One TIme
Conllant Cost
Per Caplta
ConIlant Cost
One TIme
50%1M11e of Slr8E
5O'l(, per ADT
Per mile of Street
Per mile of Street
5O%IMi1e of streel &
5O'l(, per ADT
Per mile of Slreel
Per MGD of s-r Flow
Per MGO 01 Sewer Flow
One TIme
Per CapIta
Per Acre of Park Land
Per h:te of Open Space
Per Capita
~AN SEWER CHARGES Per MG of Annual discharge
AMOUNT
$111.90 /Capita
$2,736.44 /Mi. of Slreel
$0.93 IADT
$503.00 /Mi. of Streel
$2,279.26 /Mi. of Streel
$749.65 /Mi. of Slreel
$0.25 IADT
$4,353.17 /Mi. of Street
$80,467.61 /MGD
$15,100.92 /MGD
$11 .82 ICapita
$6,100.49 lAc. of Park Land
$215.42 lAc. of Open Space
$20.28 ICapila
$646.00 IMGlVr.
Source: City of ChuJa Visla 1988-89 Budget; John McTighe & Assocailes' Cost Allocation Model
April 26, 1989
I
I
;
I
!'
r
I
I
APPENDIX B
EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS BY YEAR
II
I
II
I
I
I
!
I
I'
I
I
I
I
, \
l
1\
City of Chula Vista
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Summary of Projected Operating Expenditures Page t 01 2
- - ____ - - - ____ u - u_ - - -- ---- --- - - Fiscal Y ear---- - - - --- - --- - -------
DEPARTMENT/ACTIVITY 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
----..--------.-----.
PUBliC WORKS
Street Maintenance SO $4,627 $13,623 $22,504 $26,479 $27,383
Street Sweeping SO $764 $1,754 $2,600 $2,952 $3,018
Street Tree Mainlenance SO $3,464 $7,947 $11,783 $13,378 $13,676
T.SJSt. U. Maintenance SO $6,616 $15,178 $22,503 $25,551 $26,119
Traftic Operations SO $1,267 $3,732 $6,165 $7,254 $7,502
.-------- --------- --------- --------- -.-..----- ---........--
SUa. TOTAL PUBlIC WORKS SO $16,738 $42,235 $65,555 $75,614 $n,697
OJ
,
... PARKS & RECREATION
Recreation Division SO $2,128 $13,007 $31,725 $41,173 $43,645
Parks Division SO $0 $12,201 $12,201 $12,201 $12,201
Open Space Maintenance SO $0 $18,526 $27,445 $32,162 $32,162
--------.. --------- --------- --------- -..------- ---------
SUB- TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION SO $2,128 $43,734 $71.371 $85,537 $88,008
POlICE AND ANIMAl.. CONTROl SO $20,142 $123,091 $300,229 $389,638 $413,025
FIRE SO $8,376 $43,943 $97,710 $125,700 $131,445
UBRARY OPERATIONS SO $3,651 $22,309 $54,414 $70,619 $74,858
--------- --------- --------- ------=-- --------- -------
TOTAL SO $51,035 $275,311 $589,280 $747,107 $785,Q33
CUMULATIVE TOTAL SO $51,035 $326,347 $915.627 $1.662,734 $2,447,767
April 26, 1989
-
- -- --- ,....- -
City 01 Chula Vista
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Summary 01 ProJected Operating Expenditures
DEPARTMENT/ACTIVITY
u_ u_____ _ _ _ _ -.. - - -- - - - - - -- -. - - Fiscal
1996 1997 1998
Yea r- _..- - - - --.. - -- -- - - _u uu_
1999 2000
PUBLIC WORKS
Street Maintenance
Street Sweeping
Street Tree Maintenance
T.SJSt. U. Maintenance
Trallic Operations
SUB-TOTAL PUBlIC WORKS
$27,383 $27,383 $27,383 $27,383 $27,383
$3,018 $3.018 $3.018 $3,018 $3.018
$13.676 $13;676 $13,676 $13.676 $13,676
$26,119 $26.119 $26.119 $26,119 $26,119
$7.502 $7,502 $7.502 $7,502 $7.502
--------- --------- ----..--..... --------- ---------
$77,697 $77.697 $77,697 $77,697 $77,697
11l
. PARKS & RECREATION
I\)
Recreation Dlvlslon $43.645 $43.645 $43.645 $43.645 $43,645
Parks Division $12,201 $12,201 $12,201 $12.201 $12,201
Open Space Maintenance $32,162 $32.162 $32,162 $32,162 $32,162
--------- --------- ....--......_- --------- .....-------
SUB- TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION $88,008 $88,008 $88,008 $88,008 $88.008
POlICE AND ANIMAl CONTROL $413.025 $413.025 $413.025 $413,025 $413,025
FIRE $131,445 $131.445 $131.445 $131,445 $131.445
LIBRARY OPERATIONS $74,858 $74,858 $74.858 $74,858 $74.858
--------- -==------ --.------ _=_a__=-__ ---------
TOTAL $785,033 $785,033 $785.033 $785,033 $785,033
CUMULATIVE TOTAL $3.232,800 $4,017,832 $4,802,865 $5,587,898 $6,372,931
April 26. 1989
. ,
I
f
I
APPENDIX C
REVENUE PROJECTIONS BY YEAR
I
!
I
I
I
!
!
.1
I
, '
I
i
II
i
I
I
I,
,
I
II
,
I
I
!
.
, City of Chula Vlelll
I Rencho del Rey SPA III
! Fleeal Impact Analyale
,
Summery 01 ProJactld Cny Oparatlng Revenue
Revenue Source
......---..--......- 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
GENERAl. FUND
Property TaXIs $8,079 $26,731 $119,742 $263,713 $337,848 $355,369
Sa les & Use $0 $7,313 $44,689 $109,000 $141,460 $149,951
Franchise Taxa: $0 $1,948 $9,612 $21,648 $28,207 $29,874
Property Transfer $0 $7,949 $37,n3 $59,545 $34,626 $13,536
Utility Users $0 $2,724 $13,437 $30,264 $39,434 $41,764
Business Ucenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Bicycle License $0 $6 $37 $91 $119 $126
Animal Weens&: $0 $69 $421 $1,026 $1,332 $1,411
II Delinquent Taxes $325 $1,076 $4,819 $10,612 $13,595 $14,300
Motor Vehicle In-lieu $0 $6,237 $38,116 $92,970 $120,656 $127,898
i Cigarette Taxes $0 $407 $2,487 $6,066 $7,873 $8,345
Fines, Forfeitures
I & Penanies $0 $243 $1,485 $3,621 $4,699 $4,981
1 Swimming Pool $0 $127 $7n $1,896 $2,461 $2,608
Recreation Programs $0 $58 $354 $864 $1,122 $1,189
I Other Income $0 $47 $289 $705 $915 $970
I Investment Earnings $630 $539 $2,802 $6,693 $6,230 $5,020
,
____a._ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
GENERAl. FUND TOTAl $9,035 $55,474 $276,841 $608,714 $740,576 $757,344
SPECiAl FUNDS
.......------.--....
I SPECIAl GAS TAX FUND $0 $2,511 $ 15,346 $37,431 $48,5n $51,493
TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND $0 $576 $3,521 $8,587 $11,145 $11,814
STATE LIBRARY ACT FUND $0 $204 $1,244 $3,033 $3,937 $4,173
OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $18,526 $27,445 $32,162 $32,162
------... .......... .....-.... .......... .......... .---------
TOTAl SPECiAl FUNDS $0 $3,291 $38,637 $76,496 $95,821 $99,642
I GRAND TOTAl All FUNDS $9,035 $58,765 $315,478 $685,210 $836,397 $856,986
1
CUMULATIVE -OPERATING $9,035 $67,800 $383,278 $1,068,488 $1,1104,885 $2,761,871
.1
I
,I
I
I
I
II
l April 26, 1989 C-l
I
Revenue Source
GENERAL FUND
Property Taxes
Sales & Use
Franchise Taxe,
Property Transfer
Uti lily Users.
Business Weenses
Bicycle Weense
Animal Weense,
Delinquent Taxes
Motor Vehicle In-lieu
Cigarette Taxes
Fines, Forfeitures
& Penatties
Swimming Pool
Recreation Programs
Other Income
Investment Earnings
GENERAL FUND TOTAl
SPECIAL FUNDS
.....................
SPECiAl GAS TAX FUND
TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
STATE UBRARY ACT FUND
OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE
TOTAL SPECiAl FUNDS
GRAND TOTAl AU. FUNDS
Ii
11
I
I
CUMULATIVE -OPERATING
April 26, 1989
City of Chula Vlalll
Rancho de, Rey SPA I'
Flacel Impec1 Anatyala
Summary 01 ProJec1ec1 City Operating Revenue
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
$355,369 $355,369 $355,369 $355,369 $355,369
$149,951 $149,951 $149,951 $149,951 $149,951
$29,874 $29,874 $29,874 $29,874 $29,874
$6,953 $6,953 $6,953 $6,953 $6,953
$41,764 $41,764 $41,764 $41,764 $41,764
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$126 $126 $126 $126 $126
$1,411 $1,411 $1,411 $1,411 $1,411
$14,300 $14,300 $14,300 $14,300 $14,300
$127,898 $127,898 $127,898 $127,898 $127,898
$8,345 $8,345 $8,345 $8,345 $8,345
$4,981 $4,981 $4,981 $4,981 $4,981
$2,608 $2,608 $2,608 $2,608 $2,608
$1,189 $1,189 $1,189 $1,189 $1,189
$970 $970 $970 $970 $970
$4,526 $4,526 $4,526 $4,526 $4,526
.......-.. ...-..... .-....... .......... ..........
$750,267 $750,267 $750,267 $750,267 $750,267
$51,493 $51,493 $51,493 $51,493 $51,493
$11,814 $11,814 $11,814 $11,814 $11,814
$4,173 $4,173 $4,173 $4,173 $4,173
$32,162 $32,162 $32,162 $32,162 $32,162
.......... .......... .-....... .......... ..........
$99,642 $99,642 $99,642 $99,642 $99,642
$849,910 $849,910 $849,910 $849,910 $849,910
$3,611,780 $4,461,690 $5,311,600 $6,161,509 $7,011,419
C-2
,I
i
r
I
,
I
I
I
,
APPENDIX D
PROPERTY TAX PROJECTIONS
i
,
I
i
I
,I
i
I
:
I
,
,
: l
I
d
,
- - -
Rencho dol Roy SPA III
Residenb81 Asaeuect Valuelionl
Allwnptionl:
_ AIlIw_1Ion RaIo: 0.00%
_T_RoIO: 10.00%
I. _A.V.""Acre: 11,727.20
yEAR....... IIl80 111I1 Illl12 1993 Il1!M 1995 1996 1997 1!1ll1 1999 2000
__IlV_~
,_lloIIOrI 0 1.,.5UIlO 17,1151.210 1~.lao.370 53.626,130 12,627,530 0 0 0 0 0
IrfJP 1 t'r~d.... V... 0 1.,_,_ 17,1158,210 1~,lao,370 53,626,130 12,627,530 0 0 0 0 0
CumlAlIvo Humbot 01
DwoIfog UnI11 0 110 ... 1,000 1,303 1,_ 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,_ 1,_
Humbot 01_ 0 0 II .. 100 130 138 138 138 138 138
A_V_",,_
UnlI 0 118'- 186,_ 116,lIIIO lM,356 183,220 183,220 183,220 183,220 183,220 183,220
""'dll'W ArftIi
-""y- 0.00 lUI 83.113 IUI ...53 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
_lIndV_ .~,0:13 .,2.0,033 3.11I2.113 2,71U22 1,0211,561 111,1711 0 0 0 0 0
...._lInd 0 -2n ,_ '1.2065.l181 .1,186,1138 -867,705 -111,8711 0 0 0 0 0
R-,,_ 4.240,033 3,11I2,113 2,711,522 1,02ll,llM 161,1711 0 0 0 0 0 0
- ~- AdJ. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
__V_ .~,0:13 3,11I2,113 2,711,522 I,02II,lIM 111,1711 0 0 0 0 0 0
o CUm._V_ 0 0 1.,.83,_ 82,_,7110 1 M,lIIIO,1 so 2.0,211,2110 252,M3,I20 2lI2,M3,I20 252,M3,120 252,M3,I20 252.M3,120
, L_T_V_ 0 0 -1,"5,_ -1,118,736 .1',658,01' -23,11I8,322 -25,2M,312 .25.2M.382 -25,2M,382 -25,2M,382 .25.2M,382
- AdJ.~V_ 0 0 13,008,222 7.~3,os. 117,1131,1.. 211,2.11,11I8 227,5511,.38 227,5511,438 227,5511,.38 227,5511,.38 227,5511,.38
1nIl_ Adtuo- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
__V_ 0 ,....53_ 17_,210 1~,lao,370 53,821,130 12,827,530 0 0 0 0 0
_T_V_ 0 0 1,00065,_ 1,188,738 11,8511,011 23,11I8,322 25,2M,382 25,28.,382 25,28.,382 25,2M,382 25,2M,382
_~V_ 0 1.,_,_ 11.401,780 llUIIO,lSO 2.0,211,2110 252,M3,I20 252,M3,I20 252,1~.120 252,M3,120 2112,M3,I20 252,M3,I20
T....V_ .~,033 11,.'5,8113 11I,121,312 117,1111,7.. 2.0,371,1111 252,M3,I20 252,M3,120 252,M3,I20 252.M3,120 252,M3,820 252,M3,820
April 26, 111811
-
-
-
-..-
-
-
Rancho del Rey SPA III
Non-Residential Assessed VahJatlon
Assumpdons
Appreciation Rala:
Turnover Rale:
1988 A.V/k.
0.00%
5.00%
$18;727.20
yEAR....... 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 TOIal
ComIlU1lly Fadldes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Public Par1t 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00
Open Sf*>> 88.00 41.40 21.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 149.30
Major Clrculadon 1.13 5.99 6.00 3.09 0.58 0.00 0.00 16.79
AmI" TOIal 89.13 47.39 27.90 3.09 0.58 0.00 0.00 168.09
C CullLlla1lve mes 89.13 136.52 164,42 187.51 168.09 168.09 168.09
,
N
April 26, 1989
- -
-904 Roy SPA III
Non-R_onM._Hd V."'1ion
Anlrnplionl:
A,.j>tc'*"' Ra..: 0._
T__: 6._
Il11t _A.V.porAcre: "'.727.20
yEAR....... 1_ 111111 IIlll2 1993 19114 11195 1996 1997 1119I 11199 2000
_UndV_ 3,210,713 1,501,261 102,11I7 18.967 11.004 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.00. _Und -1,702,404 -105,212 -533.000 -51.913 -11.004 0 0 0 0 0 0
R........ _ 1,501,26t1 102,11I7 H,967 11,004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_in_AlII. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--y- 1,5OI,26t1 102"'7 H,967 11,004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cum._V_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'--iT_V_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AlII._V- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
InIIIIkIn AdIU IlneM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
__V_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_T_V_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_~V_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T"'_ 1,5OI,26t1 102,11I7 H"'7 11,004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
.
W
April 26. 111I1
- ~ --- .+--- - -, ...
-.. dol R." SPA .,
C11r "'-or T.. Pn>jo<:.....
O.ooor. Aw_1Ion RoI
E.Io"",, City T.. AI..: 0.1405417
II1llO 11111 ,_ 'l1l:I ,_ IIl1S IIl1l6 1997 1008 1M 2OllO
--- (in 11.000) \
- .. .... ".2<0.0 $11,415.7 SI5, 1211.3 "",&19.1 $240.378.2 '252.143.' '252.143.' $252.143.' '252.143.1 $252.143.' $252.143.'
~RlliJ ,11M $1.501.3 _.0 $70.0 "'.0 SO.O SO.O SO.O SO.O '11.0 $0.0 $0.0
r....__ '5.74U $11.011.7 SI5, 1111.3 "'7.630.7 '2<0.378.2 '252.143.' '252.143.' '252.143.1 $252.143.1 $252.143.' $252.143.'
SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
1-.._
_ (in $1.000) SO.o SO.O $0.0 SO.O SO.O SO.O SO.O SO.O SO.O $0.0 SO.O
CIIJ "'-" r.. $1,071 $2ll.731 $111.742 '263.713 $337._ $355,311 $355._ $355.36ll $355.368 $355,_ $355,_
- .. Ad
--- SO ,14.45UIII "7."'.210 1104.1111.370 '53,1211.130 "2.127.530 SO SO SO SO SO
_T_V_ SO SO ".445,. ... III. 731 ,....Y.Oll $23.l1li.322 $25.214.312 $25.214.312 125,214.312 325.214.312 $25.214.312
~RJ I' J All
__V_ SO SO SO SO SO SO SO $0 SO SO SO
_T_V_ SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO $0 $0 $0
--
C - .. AIlI SO "4.453._ "7."'.210 $104.1111.370 '53.'28.130 112.127.530 SO SO $0 $0 $0
.
. .....- ," ... SO $0 SO SO SO SO $0 SO SO $0 SO
____U.n_.
ToIII SO "4.453.5111 "7.'111.210 "04.'111.370 '53.126.130 112.127.530 SO $0 $0 $0 SO
T...... V...
- ...... SO SO 11._3!11 ".111.731 ....1111.011 '23.l1li.322 $25.214.312 125.284.312 $25.214.312 325.284.312 $25.214.312
~""'T'~ .... $0 $0 SO SO SO SO SO $0 SO SO $0
uu..._u.
T.... SO SO ".445.3!11 ... 166. 731 "1.6Y.Oll '23.1166.322 $25.214.312 '25.284.3'2 '25.214.312 '25.214.312 '25.214.312
_ ... "'-" T.... .T..
- SO "4.453._ '''.178._ "0'.213.73' $62.155.131 124,"0,181 "2.642.1.' "2.642.1" $12.'42,1" $12....2.1., .,2....2. un
......R..IJ1,1II SO SO SO SO SO SO SO $0 SO SO $0
0...0...__.
ToIII SO "4.453._ ....171._ "01.263.73' $62.155.631 '24,610.'91 "2.642.111 "2.642.191 "2.'42.111 "2.642.181 "2.'42.18'
April 26. 191'
APPENDIX E
PERSONS CONTACTED
I.
I'
I
.
,
1
11
I'
I
II
Person
Christopher, Lyman
Gray, Bud
. Kniep, Jay
Lane, Rosemary
Lee, Ken
Lippitt, John
Mollinedo, Manuel A.
Reid, Douglas
Stokes, Shauna
.
Winters, William J.
I'
I'
I
,
I
II
APPENDIX E. ~ CQo.lTACTED
Agency/Position
- . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
City 01 Chula Vista, Finance Director
City 01 Chula Vista, Planning Consultant
Cinti and Associates, Associate
City 01 Chula Vista, Library Director
City 01 Chula Vista, Planner
City 01 Chula Vista, City Engineer
City 01 Chula Vista, Director 01 Parks and Recreation
City 01 Chula Vista, Environmental Review Coordinator
City 01 Chula Vista, Parks and Recreation Department
City 01 Chula Vista, Director 01 Public Salety
E-1
APPENDIX F
.
REFERENCES
.
,
,
II
I
,
APPENDIX F - REFERENCES
Burchell. Robert W. and David Ustokln; THE FISCAL IMPACT HANDBOOK; The Center lor
Urban Policy Research. New Brunswick; 1978.
Chula Vista. City of; 1988-89 PROPOSED BUDGET.
Chula Vista. City 01; .MASTER FEE SCHEDULE.; November 9. 1982.
Chula Vista. City 01; MUNICIPAL CODE.
San Diego County Assessor; .1988-89 SECURED PROPERTY ASSESSED VALUATIONS.-
San Diego County Auditor and Controller; .1988-89 PROPORTIONATE INCREASE BY FUND..
I
!
,
I 1
I
II
,I
F -1
ITEM NUMBER
g
ll~p()R.r
RESOLUTION NUMBER
ORDINANCE NUMBER
ITEM NUMBER REFERENCED ABOVE HAS BEEN
CONTINUED TO
SEE AGENDA PACKET FOR THIS ITEM
ON 7-~.3 -<11
<6 ---I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 7/23/91
SUBMITTED BY:
Report on endangered listing status of the California Gnatcatcher and
current regional and sub-regional efforts to prepare a habitat conservation
~ofp-Kf~~."
City Manager..JGt ~ ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No..1)
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
Planning Department staff have been monitoring both state and federal government consideration
of petitions to list the California Gnatcatcher as an endangered species, which would prevent any
further loss of Gnatcatcher habitat until a comprehensive Habitat Conservation Plan is adopted
by the City and adjacent jurisdictions.
Staff has also been monitoring efforts by the County of San Diego, the Clean Water Program
of the Metropolitan Sewer Service Area, the Alliance for Habitat Preservation (a coalition of
developers), and SANDAG to begin preparation of regional Coastal Sage Scrub conservation
plan. Coastal Sage Scrub is a type of habitat which supports the California Gnatcatcher and
several other threatened species. Such plans would not attempt to preserve every existing acre
of Coastal Sage Scrub, but would propose a system of natural habitat areas which form an
interconnected and viable open space system.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Authorize the City Manager to send the attached letter to the California Fish and Game
Commission requesting that they coordinate a decision on listing the California
Gnatcatcher as an endangered species with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2.
Direct staff to prepare a work program for a habitat conservation program (RCP) for
areas within the city containing sensitive biological habitat areas, including coastal sage
scrub habitat, and investigate options for cooperation between City of Chula Vista habitat
preservation efforts and larger regional habitat preservation efforts within San Diego
County.
.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
~
i-I
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 7/23/91
DISCUSSION:
California Fish and Game Commission Au~ust 1 Hearinl! on the Listinl! of the California
Gnatcatcher
Over the past several months, petitions have been fIled with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and California Department of Fish and Game requesting listing of the California Gnatcatcher as
an endangered species. On August 1, 1991, the California Fish and Game Commission will
consider listing the California Gnatcatcher as a "Candidate Species" for endangered status, which
will mean that a "taking," or loss of habitat where gnatcatchers occur, will not be allowed. In
addition, coastal sage scrub habitat which is currently unoccupied by California Gnatcatchers,
but could reasonably provide a living environment for the bird, must also be preserved. This
could affect a number of approved and proposed projects in Chula Vista, including Rancho del
Rey SPA ill, Sunbow II, Rancho San Miguel, and Otay Ranch.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is following a different schedule for consideration of the
California Gnatcatcher, and will make a final decision on listing the species as federally
endangered at a later date, as late as September of 1992.
The draft letter which is attached to this report requests the California Fish and Game
Commission to coordinate the potential listing of the California Gnatcatcher as a candidate
endangered species, so that a concurrent action on listing can be taken with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. State and federal regulations on endangered species differ somewhat, and a
concurrent decision will remove overlap and confusion which could be caused by the State taking
action on listing prior to the Federal Government.
Habitat Conservation Plan
.
If the California Gnatcatcher is to be listed as endangered by either the state or the federal
government, "taking" of the species will not be allowed until a habitat conservation plan (RCP),
subject to standards set forth in the Federal Endangered Species Act, is completed and adopted
by the relevant local agency or agencies and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
It is probable that, even if the California Gnatcatcher is not listed as endangered, local
jurisdictions will need to commit to preparing an HCP as a condition imposed by the State and
Federal regulatory agencies in order to avoid listing.
Therefore, it is appropriate for the city to begin preparations for work on an HCP effort. Staff
would propose that the habitat conservation planning studies be considered as the first phase of
an overall Greenbelt Master Plan, which would implement the greenbelt concept shown on the
Chula Vista General Plan. Ifauthorized, staff would return to the Council with a proposed work
program for this effort, along with a cost estimate and timetable. .
~
e -:t
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 7/23/91
A question remains as to whether the City should pursue a separate HCP, or consider a joint
effort with the County of San Diego, the Clean Water Program of the Metropolitan Sewage
System, SANDAG, or the Alliance for Habitat Pre~rvation (a grouping of developers which has
proposed a regional study program and preservation plan for coastal sage scrub). A brief
discussion of these efforts follows:
1. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
On June 12, 1991, the Board of Supervisors authorized the County Planning Department
to proceed with establishment of a cooperative open space and habitat management plan
with three large property ownerships in Rancho San Diego and Jamul, immediately east
of the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence/Planning Area. This plan, which will be written
to federal HCP standards, will map all sensitive habitat lands in the area, amend existing
County plans, policies, and ordinances as necessary, set mitigation policies, establish an
area habitat acquisition plan, identify long term funding mechanisms, and identify the
ongoing management framework for the preserve area. The Nature Conservancy, a
private non-profit conservation group, has tentatively agreed to act as manager of the
natural preserve area created as part of this plan. It should be noted that the area
encompassed by this plan includes currently unincorporated areas which are within the
Chula Vista Sphere of Influence/Planning Area in the vicinity of Mt. San Miguel.
In addition, the County Planning Department is preparing a proposal pursuant to Board
of Supervisors direction which would create a regional open space and habitat
management program. This program would take the elements listed above for the South
County and apply them to the entire County unincorporated area, creating a regional
hierarchy for subregional programs such as the already approved South County program
discussed above. This program will be heard by the Board of Supervisors at their
meeting of July 31, 1991.
2. SAN DIEGO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM -- METROPOLITAN SEWAGE
SYSTEM
As a component of the implementation of the Clean Water Program, the City of San
Diego is preparing a Multiple Species Conservation Program for the area of the County
served by the Metropolitan Sewage System. This effort is intended to provide a plan for
preservation of habitat to mitigate both direct impacts (construction of facilities) and
secondary impacts (growth inducing impacts) of the expansion of the Metropolitan
Sewage System. Staff for the City of San Diego is administering the program. They
have completed a work progrilm and hired a consultant to implement this program. The.
timetable for the program estimates 30 months to completion.
1..3
.4J.\~
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 7/23/91
The region studied by the Multiple Species Conservation Program includes all areas
which currently connect to the Metropolitan Sewage System, and additional unsewered
lands to the east. The work program provides for a mapping effort which will map
existing and planned land uses, ownership and public lands, and location of sensitive
species and their habitat. Sensitive habitat lands which are publicly-owned will become
the .comerstones. for a comprehensive system of natural preserves and interconnecting
corridors which will be presented as the ultimate goal of this plan. Finally, the program
will include an implementation strategy, which will discuss alternative acquisition
techniques such as public land purchase, mitigation banking for offsite impacts, easement
dedications and exactions, and whether condemnation powers will be necessary.
It should be noted that the entire City of Chula Vista Planning Area is within the
boundaries of the Clean Water Program's Multiple Species Conservation Planning Area.
3. SANDAG COORDINATING GROUP
SANDAG has formed a coordinating group in order to discuss habitat planning efforts
within the region, and develop coordinated strategies for dealing with these issues.
SANDAG also has an ongoing regional habitat mapping program for the sensitive habitat
within the County. However, SANDAG has not proposed to serve as the preparing
agency for a habitat conservation program at this time -- the coordinating group's
function is to exchange ideas and information between different jurisdictions and their
proposed programs.
4. ALLIANCE FOR HABITAT PRESERVATION
The Alliance for Habitat Preservation is a grouping of large-scale developers in San
Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties which has developed a proposal for dealing with
the potential listing of the California Gnatcatcher as a candidate endangered species by
the California Fish and Game Commission. The proposal involves setting up a scientific
advisory panel, which would formulate a regional framework for a multi-species habitat
conservation plan, prepare guidelines and proposed boundaries for subregional habitat
conservation plans, and oversee the development of subregional plans. The Alliance has
already prepared studies on the location of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat in San Diego
County and on the minimum habitat area necessary for individual California
Gnatcatchers. The Alliance will present its plan to the California Fish and Game
Commission at their August I meeting as an alternative to candidate listing of the
California Gnatcatcher. Members of the Alliance include the McMillin and Baldwin
Companies, both major landowners in Chula Vista.
~
<6--+
Page S, Item
Meeting Date 7/23/91
Also, the City of Chula Vista is currently participating in two inteIjurisdictional efforts which
include habitat preservation plan components, 1) the Olay Ranch project in conjunction with San
Diego County, and 2) the Olay River Valley Regional Park Program with San Diego County and
San Diego City. These efforts will need to be coordinated with the work program for the city's
HCP.
Staff will further review the merits of these regional and inteIjurisdictional programs, and bring
forward recommendations on the best course to chart among these varying programs and
possibilities.
FlSCAL IMPACT: Costs of preparing the HCP work program will be minor. Costs associated
with the HCP will be discussed in the work program to be presented to the Council.
Al13bq>..h
~~~
~~
July 23, 1991
Everett M. McCracken, Jr.
Chairman, California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. McCracken:
The City of Chula Vista understands that the California Fish and Game Commission will
consider the listing of the California Gnatcatcher as a candidate state endangered species at its
meeting of August 1, 1991.
The City of Chula Vista requests that the Commission defer action on the listing of the
California Gnatcatcher. The United States Department of Fish and Wildlife is also considering
a petition to list the California Gnatcatcher as a federal endangered species. In order to
eliminate jurisdictional overlap and confusion, the State and Federal governments should
consider making a concurrent decision on the California Gnatcatcher listing. The U.S.
Department of Fish and Wildlife is still reviewing information preparatory to making such a
decision.
In response to the decline in Coastal Sage Scrub which is the habitat of the California
Gnatcatcher, the City of Chula Vista has developed several conservation and planning objectives,
including designation of a continuous 26-mile greenbelt in its recently updated City General
Plan. The preservation of a viable natural habitat area, including coastal sage scrub, is an
integral part of this greenbelt plan. Other habitat preservation efforts in which the City is
participating include a resource management plan for the 22,000 acre Otay Ranch property, and
an interjurisdictional effort to preserve and plan for a regional park facility along an eleven mile
stretch of the Otay River. The City's intent is to prepare a comprehensive habitat conservation
plan (HCP), in conjunction with adjacent jurisdictions, which would meet the standards for such
a document if the California Gnatcatcher or other coastal sage scrub species are listed as a
federal endangered species. The City's plan will be closely linked with regional habitat
conservation efforts, most notably the South County Open Space and Habitat Management Plan
being prepared by San Diego County, and the Multiple Species Conservation Program initiated
by the Clean Water Program of the San Diego Metropolitan Sewage System.
~
~,~
Everett M. McCracken, Jr.
-2-
July 23, 1991
The City would prefer that the California Gnatcatcher not be listed at this time in order to
provide for more flexibility in balancing the needs of habitat preservation with other worthy city
aims. However, our plans to adopt a habitat conservation plan in conjunction with adjacent
jurisdictions and regional programs will proceed whether or not the California Gnatcatcher is
a listed species.
Sincerely,
(LU......h)
~-~
t4-4-
r~J"
..?:~ ..
-
FOR COUNCIL INFORMATION
The BaJdwla CompaDY
Or1J#miI1IIh/p fIIlNlldu., $UIa 1956
.1uly 16, H91
Hr. Bob Leiter
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vi.ta, CA 91910
Elear Bob,
On August 1, 1991, the California 'ish and Game Commission will
~onsider a petition .eeking endangered or threatened status for the
California Onateatcher. We believe that there is a need for
addi tional study prior to taking this action. The listing wi 11
impact existing and future governmental improvement programs as
well as private development plan.. We believe additional .tudy can
be undertaken without endangering the species while permitUng
ongoing efforts at a multi-species protection plan to proceed.
Please consider the following information in preparation of any
remarks you may make to the commission prior to the listing.
1) S~ecies Viability:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considered a petition for
emergency listing of the Gnatoatcher in early January, 1991.
Emergency action was not taken. They will be reviewing the
listing petition in a more considered manner over the course
of the next year, because they did not believe the species was
in immediate danger.
2)
Multi S~eciBs Plan:
.
Hany local and regional efforts are underway to provide for
g~atcatohers and other species through preservation of
significant areas of habitat. Listing of the Gnatcatehu will
derail these efforts. The listing will ~efoous attention on
solving the immediate problems that .uch action will cause;
such as the halting of water reclamation plants, water
sy.tems, road construction and other public projects necessary
to the well being of cities and the County. This issue will
mandate a diversion of both, manpower and fiscal resources
from all other efforts. The continuing pursuit of . multi
.pecies preservation plan promises to protect the Gnatcatoher
and many other animals in a more comprehensive manner than a
piecemeal, fragmented effort.
~
1197' EI CamIllo Real . Bulle 200 . SaIl Dieso. CA 92130 . (619) 259-2900
~,~
. JlL 16 '91 15:38 BALDWIN CO. 619 259 024200000000
P.l
I
."
-----
3) ~XDer~ Revie~l
Reoently, the under.ecretary of the Cal1fornia Resources
Agency, Michael Mantell, appointed a panel of Conservation
Biologists to review all available data on gnatcatchers, their
habitat, and to develop criteria for preparing sub-regional
conservation plans. These experts possess the credentials and
experience necessary to review the technical data available
and provide proper recommendations. These experts were
selected from lists prepared by the National a.source Defense
council arid The Nature Conservancy. This unbiased panel
should be given ample time to provide considered opinion.
Their appointment alone. indicates the state believes that
there is a need for additional evaluation and a broad. multi-
species approach to conservation of natural resources. The
panel will review the scientific'. data available about
gnat catchers , their life history needs, and the extent of
their habitat. They will also review data on habitat
conversions and proposed open space systems. This will allow
the development of cri teda for establishing sub-regional
preservation programs. To the extent this committe. offers
a review of all elements of the Gnatoatcher issue, we support
this step prior to any emergency listing. This panel of
experts should be able to thoroughly review the scientific
data at hand. or undertake any further study required, in
developing criteria that will preserve many species (not just
gnatcatchers) without the severe economic disruption
experienced in Northern California when the Spotted Owl was
listed. (In addition, our concerns as outlined herein would
also be included within the proposed solution. and could
therefore assist in providing immediate governmental support
and both private and public funding sources).
The effect of a Gnatcatcher listing upon the City and County's
economy is potentially significant. We support a
scientifically researched and cooperatively determined
solution which can be implemented over a reasonable period
without placing the candidate species at risk. ' With the
appropriate blue ribbon panel being available, we urge you to
write to the Commission to defer a decision on the endangered
or threatened status for the Gnatcatcher until the scientific
panel has had a reasonable opportunity to study the issue and
propose a ooordinated and comprehensive solution.
:
i1G01,.
I red M. Arbuokle
tice President
~''i
~
TInS PAGE BLANK
~/O
July 3D, 1991
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss, City Manag~
Sid W. Morris, Assistan~ity Manager ~\
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager ~~ ~
SUBJECT: AB 1013 - Peace Bill, regarding Desalination Plant and Repowering at
SDG&E's Chula Vista Site
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
,
,
Under Council Comments (Malcolm), on the July 3D, 1991 agenda is an item
regarding support for AB 1013.
Previously, on June II, 1991, Council took a neutral position on the bill
pending more information about the proposal and its impacts, including the new
repowering technology, and becoming a more active participant with all the
parties involved. While there has been some discussion with SDG&E
representatives and the County Water Authority, there is still not a great
deal of written information available on the proposal and its effects.
Should Council wish to take a more proactive role on the bill, we would
suggest a conceptual approval of the bill subject to the following conditions:
1. That the repowering result is a significant improvement in air quality
emissions from the power plant.
2. That SDG&E and the County Water Authority be subject to all standard
environmental and normal coastal development permit processes. This is
important because of the limited information available regarding the
desalination/repowering technology and its visual/environmental impact on
the Bayfront. Current desalination technology could require development
of up to 30 acres of the SDG&E plant site for processing.
3. That the environmental quality of San Diego Bay be maintained.
4. That the power plant repowering is linked to the construction of the
desalination plant and would not proceed independently.
5. That, if practical, the water from any proposed desalination plant be used
in the South Bay.
6. That Chula Vista be made a party in interest and invited to be an ongoing
participant.in discussions between SDG~h~ Water Authority.
7. Tha+~~i:t~ ~the tax revenues from the desalination
F'~~ould accrue to the City of Chula Vista.
8. That additional information as to the repowering proposal, technology and
impacts be forthcoming as well as the desalination proposal.
Notwithstanding the above, staff will continue to monitor and oppose any
action related to the AFC for the demonstration project for the Chula Vista
Plant and the NOr proceedings pending before the Energy Commission for the
combined cycle power plant in Chula Vista.
GK:mab
abl013