The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994/07/26 Item 18 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item I 'i Meeting Date 7/26/94 PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF ISSUE PAPER ADDRESSING RANGE OF LAND USES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING OF 68 AC. IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER V ALL~~;1 Director of Planning //T__ S Community Development DirectorL. ' REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.lO On February IS, 1994, the City Council directed staff to prepare a draft General Plan amendment which would address a range of alternate land uses that could be considered for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) on the 68 acre Lower Sweetwater Valley "Special Study Area," located at the southwest quadrant of SR-54 and I-80S (see locator). To be included in the range of alternatives would be current development proposals including a Water Demineralization Facility, a Senior Care Facility, a Recreation/Fun Center Sports Complex and Veteran's Horne Facility. Council also requested that staff include an open space alternative and information on potential funding sources for acquisition and maintenance, including an assessment district and Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees. In response to this direction, staff has prepared the attached General Plan Amendment "issue paper," (Attachment A) which describes several General Plan Amendment alternatives, and analyzes the other issues identified by the City Council. Council directed staff to present the draft General Plan amendment to various boards and commissions for comments, as well as the neighborhood, prior to returning to them for further direction. ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: RECOMMENDATION: That Council: I) accept the Lower Sweetwater V alley General Plan Amendment Issue Paper, and direct staff to coordinate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report analyzing the five alternatives contained therein, subject to any additions, deletions or changes to the alternatives requested by Council; 2) direct staff to continue to work with area residents and the City's consulting engineer to refine the open space assessment district concept described in the attached feasibility study. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The draft General Plan Amendment Issue Paper for the GP A was presented to the Resource Conservation, Planning, Parks & Recreation and Housing Advisory Commissions as well as the Ad Hoc Veterans Advisory Committee. A synopsis of their comments are included in Attachment B to this report. I~/ Page 2, Item !% Meeting Date 7/26/94 DISCUSSION: Background On December 14, 1993, Council directed staff to conduct a neighborhood meeting for the purpose of discussing the proposed process and to introduce the development proposals for the Lower Sweetwater Valley. On January 27, 1994, a Town Meeting was held at Rosebank Elementary School which was attended by approximately 80 people. On February 15, 1994, as stated previously, the Council directed staff to prepare a draft General Plan Amendment which would address a full range of alternatives including those land uses being proposed as well as an open space alternative as requested by neighborhood residents. Subsequently, a petition was submitted to Council, signed by over 100 residents, which requested that the City look at the retention of the existing open space in the Lower Sweetwater Valley (see Appendix E of the Issue Paper). On June 29, 1994, staff presented the draft General Plan Amendment Issue Paper to residents at the Rosebank Elementary School. Copies of the draft Issue Paper were distributed to approximately 45 attendees and a number of questions were asked and responded to by staff. At that time the residents were asked to review the document and respond with any comments in writing or attend the City Council meeting scheduled for July 26 (see Attachment C for correspondence). Issue Paper Contents The General Plan Amendment Issue Paper discusses the history of zoning, General Plan, and annexation actions affecting the project site, as well as a summary of environmental constraints currently affecting the project site (i.e., Geology, Drainage, Biology, Noise, Aesthetics, Access and Emergency Services). A range of five land use alternatives is described, a preliminary traffic analysis is presented, and open space acquisition methods are discussed. In addition, recommended General Plan Amendment and zoning actions are described for each of the five alternatives. Statistical modifications have been made to pages 26,28, and 29, and additional appendices have been added to the Issue Paper from the draft you received previously. The following is a summary of the Issue Paper conclusions: Environmental Constraints Geology - Geologic features of the site would require special grading and foundation criteria but would not preclude any of the proposed alternatives. Drainage - Army Corps of Engineers documentation indicates that the flood gates in the Sweetwater flood control channel have been conservatively designed to eliminate excessive ponding from the project site in periods of heavy runoff. With completion of the flood channel the site physically has been removed from the 100 year flood plain, however, federal flood insurance maps (FEMA) have yet not been modified to reflect this. Drainage facilities would be required to convey runoff across the property to the flood channel with any of the development alternatives. 1tl-,,2. Page 3, Item 1$ Meeting Date 7/26/94 Biology - Although there is some wetland area that would either have to be designed around or mitigated, it is not significant in size nor is the site considered to have any significant habitat on it that would make any of the proposed alternatives infeasible. Aesthetics - Any of the five alternatives ultimately selected should be looked at comprehensively for potential strategic landscaping to enhance the site's high visibility. Access - Vehicular access is limited to an access road connecting to North Second Avenue, and with appropriate improvements at this intersection (traffic signal for Alternatives 4 & 5) it does not appear that a safety issue will occur with anyone of the five alternatives. Emergency Services - The Fire Department has indicated that access to the project site, solely from North Second A venue will not create a problem. However, the need to provide adequate water to the site to achieve appropriate fire flow requirements may result in significant costs. The Police Department has indicated that a single point of access to the site is acceptable with anyone of the proposed alternatives. Enviromnental constraints on the project site do not appear to be a deterrent to implementation of any of the proposed land use alternatives. Land Use Alternatives The following is a description of five alternative land use scenarios discussed in the Issue Paper and the rationale for each: Alternative 1 - This alternative includes existing land uses for Parcels A and B (Child Carel Adult Counseling and KOA campground, respectively) and open space on Parcels C and D. A proposed water demineralization facility which is under consideration by the Sweetwater Authority is proposed to be located on Parcel E. Consideration of this alternative is the result of a request by the adjacent neighborhood residents to consider open space for the vacant land area. Alternative 2 - The only difference between Alternative 2 and I is that the 5.59 acre, Parcel E, is proposed as open space. This alternative is the least intensive and would result in the maximum preservation of open space. Alternative 3 - This alternative again proposes the same existing land uses for Parcels A & B; however, a public park is proposed for Parcel C, open space for Parcel D, and the demineralization plant for Parcel E. This alternative was developed in response to Council's request to evaluate the possibility of funding acquisition of a portion of the undeveloped area through use.of park acquisition funds. Alternative 4 - This alternative involves existing land uses on Parcels A & B, the demineralization plant on Parcel E, and the Veteran's Home proposal with an adjacent public park on Parcels C & D. The City Council's proposal to locate a Veteran's Home on Parcel D is still under active consideration, and for this reason this proposal is being considered along with others. Although negotiations are occurring that may result in the location of the Veteran's Home at another site, this alternative should continue to be considered until a final siting decision on the Veteran's Home facility is made. I~:J Page 4, Item J~ Meeting Date 7/26/94 Alternative 5 - Existing land uses will remain on Parcels A and B; however, a proposal for development of a Senior Care Facility and a Family Recreation/Fun Center in conjunction with a Senior Care Facility is reflected on Parcels C and D, respectively. Again, the demineralization plant is proposed on Parcel E. See the following Table for a composite listing of all the proposed alternatives: I PROPOSED LAND USE ALTERNAtIYlSS I ALT A Parcern l'arcelC V~r~AITl Parcel E 1 Child Care, Adult KOA Open Space Open Space Proposed Counseling or Campgrounds Water Apartments Demin. Plant 2 Child Care. Adult KOA Open Space Open Space Open Space Counseling or Campgrounds Apartments 3 Child Care, Adult KOA Park Open Space Proposed Counseling or Campgrounds Water Apartments Demin. Plant 4 Child Care, Adult KOA Park Proposed Proposed Counseling or Campgrounds Veteran's Water Apartments Home Demin. Plant 5 Child Care, Adult KOA Proposed Proposed Proposed Counseling or Campgrounds Senior Care Family Water Apartments Center Recreation I Demin. Plant Fun Center Traffic Analysis A preliminary traffic analysis was performed by staff on the five alternatives to determine if anyone of them would result in a reduction of traffic thresholds beyond the acceptable Level of Service (LOS) C (see Appendix H in the Issue Paper). The findings of this preliminary analysis indicate that none of the alternatives proposed would result in impacts below LOS C on any of the City streets. However, it is recommended in the study that a traffic signal be installed for alternatives 4 and 5, the more intensive of the five alternatives. Open Space / Park Acquisition Open space acquisition issues are discussed, including the potential of an assessment district for the acquisition and maintenance of a part or all of the existing vacant land on the project site. The City contracted with BSI Engineering, a consulting firm, to perform a Preliminary Assessment District Feasibility Study. This study examines and identifies a potential benefit area for spreading assessment costs, then applies estimated costs, based on a recent land appraisal (see Appendix F of Issue Paper) It: 9 Page 5, Item / '" Meeting Date 7/26/94 performed for the vacant parcels as well as cost estimates for maintenance of the open space areas. The study determined if costs were spread equally across the proposed benefit area that total assessments could amount to $92 per year, per single family unit (EDU), over 25 years, for acquisition and maintenance of just the 14.25 acre City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency parcel, or as much as $228 per year, per EDU, for all 38 acres of vacant land as depicted in the following table (see also Appendix G in the Issue Paper). PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Acquisition Maintenance Total Cost Costs* Costs Per Year Per EDD Per Year D 14.25 Ac. $744,000+ $15 ,500 $92 + C,D & E 38 Ac. $ I ,998,000 + $25 ,000 $228 + * - Acquisition costs estimated to be paid off in 25 years, assuming 7 % interest. The potential acquisition of park land is discussed in the Issue Paper. The present levels of park land deficiency (1.22 acres per 1,000 residents) in western Chula Vista is addressed in the paper. Greenbelt In addition to Open Space/Park Acquisition issues, the Issue Paper also addresses the need to integrate planning on the Lower Sweetwater Valley site into the Chula Vista Greenbelt concept, presently designated in the General Plan as a circumferential open space system extending through the Sweetwater Valley. Trail access opportunities are discussed as well as visual relationships of the property site to the Greenbelt. General Plan Amendment/Zoning Depending on the land use alternative which is finally selected, staff has identified two basic alternatives for applying General Plan and zoning designations to properties within the study area, with the exception of Parcel A (which is currently developed with child care / adult counseling land uses). General Plan! Zoning Alternative A - The General Plan Amendment necessary to implement Land Use Alternatives I through 3 would involve applying an "Open Space" designation. Zoning for the entire area with these three alternatives would be "A" (Agriculture). General Plan! Zoning Alternative B - In order to implement Alternatives 4 and 5 staff is recommending that Parcels B, C, D, and E be given a General Plan designation of "Mixed Use." Under this alternative, staff would also recommend that the City Council consider the creation of a new zone entitled "MU" (Mixed Use) which would require the adoption of Specific Plan in order to implement. This modification /~f' Page 6, Item L$ Meeting Date 7/26/94 to the zoning ordinance would be to avoid confusion of applying underlying zoning designations which would not accurately reflect specific land uses on the site. The Specific Plan could also tailor zoning standards to this site to assure that aesthetic and buffering issues are addressed adequately. The property containing the Child Carel Adult Counseling land uses (Parcel A) is located on the hill over looking the valley, and is physically separated from the remainder of the study area. This property is currently zoned R-3 (Residential Multi-family) and staff is recommending that the General Plan be amended on each of the five alternatives to Residential Medium-High (11-18 du/ac). ADDITIONAL ISSUES Public Notification Prior to the public forum held on June 29, staff prepared and sent notices to property owners a within a minimum of 1,000 feet of the Lower Sweetwater Valley project site. The notice included the dates, times and locations for subsequent advisory commission meetings, as well as a tentative date for a return to the City Council (see Attachment F for noticing area map). Not known at the time of the original public notice issuance was the assessment district benefit area boundary, therefore, notices were not sent to the full extent of the draft benefit area boundary. As discussed earlier, the draft assessment district boundary is preliminary and subject to change, as is the methodology and appraisal information contained therein. It would be staff's intent to provide notice of future meetings regarding this study to all areas included in any proposed assessment district boundary. Public I Commissioners Input Correspondence received by the date of this writing included the following issues (see Attachment D for letters): Issue - Disagreement with the assessment study on the methodology of an equal versus "tiered" assessment approach. Concerns that the entire neighborhood be asked to protect property values of those overlooking the site by subsidizing through assessments. Response - The consulting firm of BSI Engineering indicated that it was their experience that the even- weighted assessment method would best suit the proposed district. The study is viewed as a preliminary analysis and staff recommends that if Council directs, additional analysis could be conducted of the "tiered" approach prior to any final action. Issue - No opportunity for all property owners within proposed assessment district to comment on proposed district. Response - The proposed assessment district benefit area is subject to additional analysis prior to any final decisions. As noted earlier, notification of those property owners affected would occur at that time. /~t Page 7, Item d Meeting Date 7/26/94 Issue - City should not make a profit on the sale of the Redevelopment Agency-owned parcel. Response - The City's Redevelopment Agency purchased 14.25 acres from the County of San Diego with Low and Moderate Income Funds for $165,000. However, if the Agency were to sell this property it must be sold at fair market value, which has been estimated at $625,000 (appraisal amount). If the City decides to move forward with an assessment district, one or more additional appraisals of the property would be conducted. Issue - If the open space considered for acquisition is part of the Chula Vista Greenbelt, then shouldn't a City-wide assessment be considered? Response - The Chula Vista Greenbelt concept is being implemented primarily through the acquisition of property and trail easements in conjunction with development of adjoining property. The City has not established any Citywide funding program for Greenbelt implementation at this time. Additional issues expressed by the Resource Conservation Commission and the Planning Commission and are reflected below: Issue (RCC) - Two additional alternatives should be considered: a) Designate the KOA as a public park, so that if the current owner ever decides to sell that the City would have first option as a park, and b) An additional alternative which combines the Veteran's Home with the Senior Care Facility. Response - Both General Plan Amendment Alternatives could be structured to permit a public park to occur on Parcel B (KOA) if Council directs. The Senior Care Facility is linked to the Family Recreation/Fun Center proposal, however, a response would have to be provided by the owner of the IPG property (Parcel C), for this alternative to proceed. Issue (RCC) - The City should make every effort to zone the unzoned portion of the study area. Response - It is the intent of the City to rezone this property in conjunction with final adoption of a General Plan Amendment. In addition, several comments were made by the Planning Commission, Housing Advisory Commission, and Veteran's Ad Hoc Committee, as shown in the Synopsis, which staff feels have been responded to in the report or under previous comments. No additional responses are provided here; however, staff will be prepared to provide additional comments as requested by Council at the meeting. Conclusions As indicated previously, there are currently three distinct proposed land uses being actively considered by the City Council for the Redevelopment Agency-owned property within the Lower Sweetwater Valley Study Area: I) Veteran's Home; 2) Family Recreation/Fun Center; and 3) open space. The five land use alternatives described in the issue paper are reflections of these various proposals, and should continue to be evaluated until the Council decides on the appropriate disposition of the Agency-owned parcel. Therefore, staff recommends that Council: I) direct staff to coordinate the preparation of an EIR /~-7 Page 8, Item 1$ Meeting Date 7/26/94 analyzing all five alternatives, subject to any additions, deletions or changes to the alternatives requested by Council, and 2) direct staff to continue to work with area residents and the City's consulting engineer to refine the open space assessment district concept described in the attached feasibility study (see Appendix G of the Issue Paper). FISCAL IMPACT: The project applicants for the Recreation/Fun Center and the Senior Care Housing project will be requested to provide funding for costs associated with preparation and processing of the GPA, EIR and subsequent discretionary permits. However, the City would be responsible for the portion of those costs associated with consideration of properties for which project proposals are not currently under consideration. Staff will return to Council with further information regarding the breakdown of costs prior to issuance of a Request for Proposals for the Environmental Impact Report. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A. B. C. D. E. F. Issue Paper j Synopsis of Commission/Co Minutes from Commissio Comments received~cs'- Public Input L~ Public Notice Area Map !/ Comments lttee Meetings blic forum held on June 29, 1994 (W:\HOME\PLANNING\DUANE\LOWSAI13,CC) I~r PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of San Diego: I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the STAR-NEWS, CHULA VISTA, a newspaper of general circulation, published TWICE-WEEKLY in the City of Chula Vista, and the South Bay Judicial District, County of San Diego, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the date of April 23, 1951, Case Number 164327; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy ( set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: JULY 16TH all in the year 1994 I certify ( or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and co rrec!. Dated at CHULA VISTA ~ f. California this 16TH , 7 day of J U L Y ,1994 !i .". ~ Signature ?: " , ~ " This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp . Proof of Publication of: ~OT~~~~PUBL~~~~~~__ _ - - ~~~~-------------- NOTice OF PUBLIC HEARING BYTHE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL C~lA VISTA, CALIFORNIA THA /ICE IS HEREBY GIVEN CITY THE CHULA VISTA bile he ~UNCIL wlll hold a pu- lowlng~ ng to canslder the for. usePur:'88 or reviewing land ternaUvea to COnsider ~i"8ndm8nt to CIIY's General eM:: ,,& appropriate zone Vall g s to Lower Sweetwater 8Y area. City" ,you wish to Challenge the s action on thl. matte I I~urt. you may be limited '1/ ra~ ...ng only thoae 18IIUQ SOmeone .'ae ral ;{,:U or bile hearing d8.= In 8 ~j~ ~O[fC8, or In written ca"Q$pon C., ~ delivered to the Clty- erks Office at or 10 pUblIc hearln pr r to the WI~t'~E ~~~5~Y ~~:':]~ COUNCil on Tueada 26, 1994 a! 6;00 pm Yi J&:: CoUncil Chambers PUbllcn.. vlcea SundIn' r- :ci~,:::,~t WhPch ll~~ a,fy~: a n~ to be heard may C ~ED:JUIY 13,1994 V04165 7/16194 I ?-9j;8-18 PUBUC HEARlNG o-IECK UST PUBUC HEARlNG DATE: 1/21.-1'14- '"",CT~'lJ'~~' .~;:,.~ '~~'-~';':~...J J.. _, _ r..L.- ~___ ct.-..._ .k.~'r""- ~...:'O::.~ OV'.. SENT TO ST~ NEWS FOR PUBLICATION n BY FAX / ; BY HAND _; BY MAIL PUBLICATION DATE .., Ilc.,(~'t MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS - NO, MAILED PER GC ~54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F, San Diego, 92122 LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK ,II ~ {'1-4 COPIES TO: Administration (4) ........ Planning V' Originating Department Engineering -" Others City Clerk's Office (2) v ,fNhc.{ POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 7/93 -55- / ~,- / / NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California for the purpose of reviewing land use alternatives to be considered for an amendment to the City's general plan and appropriate zone changes to the Lower Sweetwater Valley area. (See map on back of this notice.) The City has been undertaking a special study of the subject area, including examining alternative long range land uses. City Council will hold a public hearing to present information regarding the alternative land use plans for the study area and to obtain input from the residents of the area. Any person desiring to provide input regarding this matter may appear at the hearing or provide written correspondence prior to or at the hearing. SAID PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the City Council at the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA on July 26, 1994, at 6:00 p.m. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the ADA, requests individuals who require special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service to request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Sylvia Simmons, Secretary for information or your request at (6191 691-5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf ITDD) 16191585-5647. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired. [ss/d isk#5/b :\swtwtrph] /6//J-- ,... -S-: 0- ~~ -. ....... - l ".J-~ \ - - ---= .,..... .... ~_-... --... ... ..~' .. .. R3 . . o. TP CCP I.~U~I:~~~C 1m. CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT (!) APPLICANT: PIlOJeCT Dl!aClllPTION: Jfr//J WWE;R SWEETW ATEB ADDllns: DBAEI-GENERAL P~ SCALl!: FILe NUM"": ~ NORTH NO SCALE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold a public hearing to consider the following: Purpose of reviewing land use alternatives to consider amendment to City's General Plan & appropriate zone changes to Lower Sweetwater Valley area. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing. SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, July 26, 1994, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. DATED: July 13, 1994 / ;f /;C! ~u~ 2~~~ ...-...;:- ....,;:- ~:1E~~ CllY OF CHULA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TELEFAX COVER LETIER Telecopier No. (619) 585-5612 DATE: (, I r~/'tY ~~ TO: Star News Lel(al / FAX NO: (619) 426-6346 FROM:~ u...J~ D~~ SUBJECI: (?.....~ \ \. u: 'I Q'( cst;.:...- \ TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover): 2 PUBUCATION DATE: 7 I'l. I c; 'I / ' If all pages are not received, please call Lorna @ (619)691-5041. /S// /5/ 276 FOURTH AVE'CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5041 T~tar-News Direct Payments to: P.O. Box 1207, Chula Vista, CA 91912 (619) 427-3000 I INVOICE & STATEMENT 17721 I .. \.--.... -~-'~". ~ Mail Address: 835 Third Ave., Chula Vista, CA 91911 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 276 FOURTH AVE. CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 Date: Acct. No. July 16, 19q4 ~ RE: AMENDMENT TO CITY'S GENERAL PA~ PLEASERETURNONECOPYOFSTATEMENTWITHYOURAEMITTANCE INCHES COPIES UNIT PRICE CHARGES BALANCE DESCRIPTION CV 04165 7/16 3.25 8.56 27.82 ~li''-/ ~)./! -7 ~/~C./ . ,/ ,,/' ,,--<Ji-- ,~..>- ;c ,/"';? :~ v (.I CJ~~'a.-< , !<'J (frA /~ r) /......v'ft//-Ji ~ / .'~:..v / ?"- l 27.82 FORM SO - 14 /3";- J!, CHULA VISTA STAR-NEWS tc NATIONAL CITY STAR-NEWS tc IMPERIAL BEACH STAR-NEWS __'_.~'___.'_ ._,.c____~____~'_'_.._~_ ~\~ ATTACHMENT A J7~ It ~ .. -- f--:: . - ,--.. ...... L '\ " . . A .. R3 -. -. ..... - , ....i-~ \ - - , i I . ...~ . I!" -R1._... - ..-- ... --- -... - - ~..... ~-- ... -'1" .. -:- :; . -ts~' 'rY ""lDT . ! i CBULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT C) NORTH APPUCAIlT: ADD Ill": 'CALI: NO SCALE PILI .UMIIJl: PIIO.IICT DUCII.TIO.: 18-/q LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ISSUE PAPER Prepared by the City of Chula Vista Planning Department July 20. 1994 /g-:;'O / /8 -v , . Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Project Location 1 .3.0 Review of Earlier Actions 2 3.1 General Plan 2 3.2 Annexation I Zoning 3 3.3 Prior Project Proposals 4 3.4 Public Input 5 4.0 Analysis 6 4.1 Environmental Constraints 6 4.2 Land Use Compatibility 12 4.3 Summary and Analysis of Proposed Land Use Alternatives 14 4.4 Potential Traffic Impacts 25 4.5 Open Space Acquisition 28 4.6 Park Land Thresholds 30 5.0 General Plan Amendment I Zoning 32 6.0 Conclusions 33 Appendices 35 -i- I<J~~~ I' , Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 LIST OF EXHIBITS FIGURES Vicinity Map Project location land Ownership Existing Drainage Chula Vista Greenbelt land Use Alternative 1 Land Use Alternative 2 land Use Alternative 3 land Use Alternative 4 land Use Alternative 5 Existing General Plan Designations Existing Zoning Designations Assessment Study Area Proposed General Plan I Zoning Alternative A Proposed General Plan I Zoning Alternative B TABLES lower Sweetwater Valley Property Details land Use Alternative 1 land Use Alternative 2 land Use Alternative 3 land Use Alternative 4 land Use Alternative 5 Proposed land Use Alternatives Historic Traffic Counts for North Second Avenue Preliminary Assessment District Open Space Acquisition and Maintenance Costs -ii- ~ I'b'j. 3 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 APPENDICES A. Senior Care Facility Description B. Family Recreation / Fun Center Description C. Veteran's Home Description D. Demineralization Plant Description E. Neighborhood Petition (Presented to City Council on 4/19/94) F. Appraisal Report (lPG, Redevelopment Agency & Mross properties) G. Open Space Assessment District Feasibility Study H. Preliminary Traffic Impact Study ;:iii- f~ -'- 4 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this issue paper is to respond to direction from the City of Ch'Jla Vista City Council to examine the opportunities and constraints affecting a 67.82 acre area known as the Lower Sweetwater Va!ley Special Study Area ("project area") and identify potential land uses that could be permitted by an amendment to the General Plan. A range of potential land uses will be examined in this paper along with potential General Plan designations and zoning necessary for implementation. This paper will address neighborhood concerns, current General Plan policies that may impact the subject property, and then be presented to the City Council for authorization to prepare the appropriate environmental review documents (CEQA) and process the requisite General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The project area consists of 67.82 acres, located at the southwest quadrant of SR54 freeway and Interstate 805 (See Fig. 1). The property is divided into 5 separately-owned major parcels (See Table 1 l, of which 4 parcels are located within the Sweetwater Valley and one parcel is located on a bluff overlooking the other parcels and fronting directly on North Second Avenue. Located to the south of the project area is a single family neighborhood with homes lining the southerly boundary of 3 of the subject parcels (see Fig. 1, parcels A, B & C). To the west of the project area is also a single family residential neighborhood, across Second Avenue, with the exception of a 77-unit condominium project located at 110 North Second Avenue. :\lOWSW .IP 1 .tk3' ,z~jl.~ ;' VICINITY MAP -----..; Jlj ,==r- ~ '~'I~: " .~ -... ... - ;..:.. ,I.; I ,'v- ~ - ....... l~ . wi. ........ .... ~T'" y:;% - I ~ ~". .. -..;~..~ ~, . -j ~ ; I" .~~ ~T"; ~ ~ ~f:f := . . ~ I . ~~~ .... (-. .~..... ~ . \-- '" __t_ ~ II 111I1I1,i rr i .......' i -I / ~ . ---. :- ". /- 1 ~ ;.. .----J ..-i ~ 1::.' l(~l ~- .-1--.--- -~;....... ) fTT =' ~ I( ~,,='. "',e.'~ '""'/". r--. I .. -,..:~, ..'.,~~.I.. I"T. =- ;,.;.r ;;"/;" ~ '" ~,LL.L. II ni mill 1.1:]= .,. ;,:~-,"".; "~.II m c - '''U -\ ;. , . ,.0- . I - I-{; II W 1~;B1 1"= m t= ~._.' ~.: .- ".7 E --0::1= . - ;:=: - - :::::::: I- '--..I ~D... = .. ... T. ti., ~, " . = ... ,\: m3 ~ ~"CT LOCATION " \\ ::IJ .\ ( "" .lo. ~d I .lJ n ~~ - ~ ;;;:;;... <::: -- f::-'; 'WI] ~;:: ~ !i .....m f:: ~ ~ 1--- ~~ ~ .. ::J '<.... .. ~+- 11. I'"' :. 1::::3 Ii " '" ~ "~ ~ !~ . ~ ~. ".~I I 1\ J~ ...... . bH:: ... Boti fl. '::.':~ ; ~ I f L- 1111,..', ;~I !. - ~ .E3I~ ....ll Ll:-if= . ::t... ~I r- IIIII'I'M- I~~ .. :.!'" ....... Lower SWeetwater Valley -/=) -tf'". I <J - ~ G 'IG. I PROJECT LOCATION LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY "SPECIAL STUDY AREA" DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT . , .i ~ . -..", ...... .-. Lower SWntwater Valley /7f -~7 -FrS ./~ .... 2 / LAND OWNERSHIP A - REICHBART . B _ KAMPGROUNDS OF AMERICA (KOA) C _ INVESTMENT PROPERTIES GROUP, LTD. (IPG) o _ CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY E - MROSS I( --. .i . . ...; .....1 Lower SWntwater Vallery , ~ - 2 8' ~ 11> $I- FIG. S Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 Table 1. lower Sweetwater. Valley Property Oetails ... .. . .. . Parcel Owner Size Zoning .. ...... Land Use A Reichbart 5.59 Ac. R-3 Child Care I Adult Counseling B Kampgrounds of 24 Ac. A-B Campground America (KOA) C IPG Limited 18.24 Ac. R-1 (6.25 ac.) Vacant A (1.64 ac.) Unzoned (10.35 ac.) D City of Chula Vista 14.25 Ac. R-1 (5.0.6 ac.) Vacant Redevelopment Unzoned (9.19 ac.) Agency E Mross Trust 5.74 Ac. R-I (3.42 ac.) Vacant Unzoned (2.32 ac.) 3.0 REVIEW OF EARLIER ACTIONS AFFECTING THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY PROPERTY 3.1 General Plan The entire project area is designated as "Open Space I Special Study Area" on the City's General Plan Land Use Diagram updated in July, 1989. Prior to adoption of the Special Study Area designation in 1989, the property was designated as "Open Space" on the Chula Vista General Plan. :U-OWSW.lP .'_ g - _'2...., kf)~ 2 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 In the text of the General Plan the Lower Sweetwater Valley property is recognized as potentially a portion of, or a visual element adjacent to, the Chula Vista Greenbelt. The Chula Vista Greenbelt concept was adopted by the City Council in 1989 as a continuous 28-mile open space link extending from the Bayfront, up the Otay River and Salt Creek and the westerly edges of the Upper and Lower Otay Lakes to the Sweetwater Valley, then extending down the Sweetwater Valley to link up with the north/south Bay frontage. This Greenbelt is envisioned to contain trails for, at a minimum, hiking and bicycling, and is also intended to provided a further link to park facilities throughout the interior of the City. The Greenbelt will be discussed in more detail later in this paper. 3.2 Annexation I Zoning Approximately 88 acres of property, which included the 67.82 Lower Sweetwater Valley property, was annexed to the City of Chula Vista in 1985. This annexation of previously unincorporated property was approved largely as a result of the City of Chula Vista being considered the appropriate jurisdiction to provide services to the area and the physical separation of the property from other incorporated (National City) and unincorporated areas (County). Additional property included in the annexation at that time included the residential neighborhood located west of North Second Avenue. A portion of the area currently owned and operated by the KOA campground was prezoned A (Agriculturel by the City of Chula Vista in 1978. The remaining portion of the Lower Sweetwater Vailey that was subject to annexation, is located within the flood plain of the Sweetwater River. and was not prezoned and remains unzoned today. This area was to be zoned when a final General Plan land use designation is determined for the Lower Sweetwater Valley property. In addition, :\LOWSW.IP , ~ - .3{) -Pr--g- ~ 3 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 approximately 14.73 acres, consisting of the lower half of parcels A, Band C (see Fig. 1), is currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential), this area having been zoned with the neighborhood located to the south. 3.3 Prior Project Proposals Prior to annexation of the property into the City of Chula Vista, the County of San Diego had acquired the vacant property within the flood plain of the river for purposes of including this area within the large Sweetwater Regional Park. However, due to the fragmented physical relationship of the property to the core of the Regional Park, caused by the presence of two major freeways, and a need for the County to liquidate non-contiguous parcels to the Regional Park, the County, in 1989, sold the property to individual owners, including a portion to the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency for purposes of providing affordable housing. In 1990, the City of Chula Vista proposed to provide a site for the relocation of displaced mobile homes on 14.25 acres within the project area (parcel D). A draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was distributed for comment which examined the environmental impacts which could potentially result from the proposed Mobile Home Relocation Park. The draft EIR was never finalized and the proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning necessary to accommodate the mobile home park never occurred and the project was dropped. Also in 1990, the property owner of 18.24 acres (parcel C), located east of the KOA campgrounds and west of the City of Chula Vista parcel, proposed a single family residential development project. This proposal was also subsequently discontinued prior to issuance of a Draft EIR and public hearings. :\LOWSW .IP - ..3/ Jr€t" 1<6 e:#f 4 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 In March 1993, the City of Chula Vista made a commitment to the Veterans AdministrAtion to pursue locating a proposed Veterans Home on the 14.25 acres owned by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency within the Lower Sweetwater Valley. 3.4 Public Input In 1990, with the distribution of the Mobile Home Park Draft EIR, the City received a significant number of responses regarding the adequacy of the analysis contained in that draft EIR as well as a petition containing approximately 600 names of residents from the surrounding neighborhoods objecting strongly to the Mobile Home Relocation' project. In response to the public's concerns regarding potential impacts of the proposed Mobile Home Relocation Park the project was dropped and the Draft EIR was never finalized. In December, 1993, City staff, as directed by the City Council, held a public forum at Rosebank Elementary School and provided notice to property owners surrounding the Lower Sweetwater Valley to enable the public to examine a number of development proposals that the City had received for properties located within the vacant flood plain portion of the Lower Sweetwater Valley. A significant amount of discussion occurred at the forum, attended by approximately 60 residents, including a significant interest in preserving the vacant land area within the valley as open space. At a City Council meeting in February. 1994, representatives of the adjacent neighborhood again expressed their concerns to the Council and their desire for open space within the vacant Lower Sweetwater Valley property. Subsequent to this meeting, a petition was submitted signed by over 100 residents. which :ILOWSW.lP 5 ~1<l-3~ Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 outlined their desires, including the following (see also copy of petition in Appendix E): 1. That existing vacant land be designated as natural open space, 2. That the unzoned property be zoned agricultural, and 3. That studies be prepared for the following assessment districts: a. Acquisition of the 14 acre City of Chula Vista property (parcel D) by the neighborhood, b. Acquisition of 38 acres of property (parcels C, D & E) by the neighborhood. Representatives of the adjacent neighborhood also asked the City to examine alternative funding sources for acquisition of the vacant properties. 4.0 ANALYSIS 4.1 Environmental Constraints The following is a synopsis of existing constraints affecting the project area. Each individual land use scenario or alternative will have specific environmental impacts associated with it which will be briefly addressed in this paper. A complete environmental analysis (EIR) will be conducted addressing each of the viable land :\I.0WSW.lP -Pr--n , " 18 - 3-9 6 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 use alternatives prior to a public hearing process on subsequent General Plan Amendment and Zoni:1g actions. 4.1.1 Geology Thirty-eight acres of vacant, undeveloped land is located on flat, low-lying floodplain deposits of the Sweetwater River. These deposits are overlain, in part, by recently deposited alluvium carried by streams descending to the Sweetwater River from several small valleys along the project area's southern boundary. Additionally, floodplain and alluvial deposits are locally overlain by artificial fill, mostly undocumented off-site soils with scattered debris. Several notable earthquake faults are located in the project site vicinity, and are considered active or potentially active. However, no fault traces have been mapped on the project site. The nearest fault traces are identified as the Sweetwater Fault (0.75 miles east). the La Nacion Fault (2 miles east) and the Rose Canyon Fault (3 miles east). A relatively long duration of strong motion generated by an earthquake can cause various types of ground failures, including liquefaction. During an extended period of ground shaking the ground can be altered from a solid to a liquid state, thus potentially causing damage to engineered structures. Development of structures on the low-lying portion of the project site would have to be properly engineered to avoid potential impacts from earth shaking. :\LOWSW.IP M~34 (8/--fI 7 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 4.1.2 Drainage The low-lying portion of the project site is located on historical floodplain deposits of the Sweetwater River. The Sweetwater Drainage Basin is about 230 square miles and has two reservoirs upstream of the project site. The project site land surface elevations range from 20 to 30 feet above mean sea level. A portion of the site is also technically within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100-year flood impact zone. Changes that have occurred as a result of the construction of the adjacent flood channel have resulted in improved drainage conditions on the project site. The FEMA designations have not yet been removed from the project site; however, according to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, drains constructed to handle runoff from the project site into the flood channel were designed conservatively so that no designated on-site ponding areas would be required (see Fig. 4). Appropriate drainage facilities to convey runoff across the property would be required for any development of the property. It appears that all of the proposed land uses, with proper grading and appropriate drainage facilities, could be feasibly developed. 4.1.3 Biology A wetland area presently exists along the northerly edge of the low-lying portion of the project site (see Fig. 4). This swale is the principal biological resource on the project site and any proposed development of the project site would have to preserve this area or mitigate for any loss of wetland and/or habitat. Additionally, the vacant land area is made up of annual grassland, which serves as a foraging area for many birds that perch in the large eucalyptus trees at the western edge of the project site. :ll.OWSW.IP ~::-% 1<6 - -3 j J ~ (1) 8 /' EXISIING DRAINAGE ---~ Drainage gates Natural drainage Low-lylng wetland area .. v ~ Toe of slope . .il .. . . --. ~ ...... . .~ Lower SWfttWater Valley 3k ~11l- ! [) - -1-1 'IG. 4 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 4.1.4 Noise The project site is heavily impacted by two major sources of noise, SR54 to the north, and Interstate 805 to the east. There are no other significant noise sources that would impact the project site itself. In 1989, a noise survey was conducted on the project site to determine the average noise levels during peak traffic hour periods on 1-805 which were selected to represent areas which receive the greatest noise exposure from the highways. The noise levels along the east boundary of the project site registered an average of 68 dBA, 3 decibels above the City of Chula Vista's minimum acceptable level of 65 dBA for residential areas. These noise levels were expected to increase incrementally as traffic increases on SR54 and 1-805. Any residential development of the project site would require an acoustical analysis and proposed mitigation measures would have to be analyzed for feasibility and aesthetic impacts. The potential for noise impacts from a development proposal would have to be analyzed for its impact on adjacent single family neighborhoods, as well as the existing KOA campground. This analysis would need to examine noise sources, hours of operation, topography and consider existing ambient noise levels. 4.1.5 Aesthetics The existing visual character of the project site can be characterized as an open, low-lying, grassy field area surrounded on all sides by urban development and man- made structures. The site is recessed from surrounding lands so the visual impression from nearly all off-site vantage points is one of "looking down on the project area." The project area is gently sloping within the Sweetwater Valley at :\LOWSW .IP 9 --1+--& '~JJ Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 elevation 20 ft., with the exception of the elevated land mass situated along the westerly edge of the property, which rises dpproximately 100 ft. above the valley floor. The property is visible from several offsite vantage points. Motorists traveling on North Second Avenue can view the valley floor as they travel just south of the existing child care/adult counseling land use located at the top of the hill. This view of the site is obvious but brief. Residents of approximately 1 5 homes and the child care/adult counseling land uses along North Second Ave. also view the site. Additionally, the site can be seen from several homes which border the project area to the south. Many residents living at the end of Las Flores Drive, Minot Avenue, Corte Maria, and Vista Way have views of the site from their backyards. These homes all sit above elevated slopes, some with excellent vantage points. The site is als6 visible from the pedestrian and equestrian path which follows the Sweetwater River flood control channel to the north of the site, and highly visible from both SR-54 and 1-805. The Lower Sweetwater Valley property is one of the first areas that a traveler sees when approaching Chula Vista from the north on 1- 805. Any development proposal or even retention of this area as open space should include a long-term proposal for strategic landscaping which would enhance the appearance of this highly visible area. 4.1.6 Access Approximately 38 acres (see Fig. 3, parcels C, D & E) located within the low-lying area of the project area and east of the KOA campgrounds are at this time land- ,ILOWSW .IP 10 ~ (6.'~g Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 locked. However, the owner of Parcel C (IPG) has obtained a 60 ft. wide easement across the KOA campgrounds to Edgemere Avenue/North Second Avenue. This 60 ft. wide access easement can only provide access to the easterly two parcels (parcels D & E) if access is granted across the IPG parcel. An equestrian/pedestrian trail and maintenance road atop the Sweetwater flood control channel along the northern edge of the properties also provide very limited access. Located to the south of the project site are two streets which could provide physical access to the area. These are Las Flores Drive and First Avenue. First Avenue would require extension to the project site. However, input received from these neighborhoods in the past and through preliminary meetings preceding this issue paper have indicated that residents are adamantly opposed to any vehicular access to the property from the south through established neighborhoods, citing potential security, noise and traffic impacts as their primary concerns. Pedestrian access to the project site could be provided from Edgemere Avenue/North Second Avenue, the flood channel trail, Las Flores Avenue and First Avenue. Some residents have indicated a desire to have neighborhood pedestrian accessibility to the flood channel trail by traversing the project site. However, concerns have also been expressed regarding unwanted intrusion into the neighborhood which could occur through the promotion of a formal pedestrian access in these areas. 4.1.7 Emergency Services The Police Department has indicated that although vehicular access to the low- lying portion of the project site is limited to that from Edgemere Avenue, the Department feels that access to neighborhood areas south of the project site on :\LOWSW.lP 11 -ft--~ 1~:J1 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 Las Flores Avenu'e, Minot Avenue, First Avenue, Corte Maria Avenue and Vista Way is adequate to provide emergency service to the project site and surrounding area. The Fire Department has indicated that any development of properties within the low-lying properties would require appropriate fire flow provisions. This would require the extension of adequate water resources to accommodate minimum pressure standards. The design of access roadways into the property would require appropriate widths and turnaround areas. Emergency Medical staff would need access to within 1 50 ft. of activity areas on the property. Proposed structures may require sprinkler systems. The Fire Department has indicated that a second vehicular access road into the project site will not be necessary to provide emergency access. 4.2 land Use Compatibility Site development of the Lower Sweetwater Valley is governed by the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code). The site is currently designated "Open Space / Special Study Area" in the City's General Plan, as shown on Fig. 11. Current zoning on the site is shown in Fig. 12. Site zoning includes 21.86 acres of unzoned land, 14.73 acres of Single Family Residential (R-1) zone, 20.82 acres of Agricultural (AI zone, and 5.59 acres of Multiple Family (R-31 zone. The portion of the site which is presently zoned R-1 could accommodate an estimated 91 homes with 7,000 sq. ft. lots. The portion zoned R-3 could provide a maximum of 180 multiple family units, by zoning ordinance standards, however, existing development on the site contains child care and adult counseling facilities. :\LOWSW.IP 17> ~ .IAIJ M' 12 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 General Plan land use designations for surrounding areas include "Freeway" to the north and east, "Low-Medium Density Residential" to the south and west, and a small pocket of "Medium-High Density Residential" to the west of North Second Avenue. Zoning classifications for surrounding properties are Floodway (F-1) to the north, Single Family Residential (R-1) to the south, freeway to the east, and Single Family Residential (R-1) and Apartment Residential (R-3-P-20) to the west. Land uses permitted under the "Open Space" category include open space, limited recreation uses, rural residential, and agricultural uses. The KOA campgrounds were permitted through an active Conditional Use Permit. The Special Study overlay was applied with the intention that the site would be redesignated pending the City's decision on a Lower Sweetwater Valley general plan amendment request in 1989. However, the general plan amendment proposal was dropped. Therefore, the land use designation of "Open Space" has served as a holding or protective designation until a general plan amendment is adopted. Site development must also comply with project-specific thresholds contained in the City's Growth Management Ordinance. Under this ordinance, project-level conformance review by City staff is required for each of the following issue areas: fire and emergency medical services; police services; traffic; drainage facilities; sewer facilities; and water facilities. 4.2.1 Chula Vista Greenbelt The project site could be incorporated into the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt concept (See Fig. 5). Section 7.3 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan states that, "The Chula Vista Greenbelt is the backbone of an open space and park system that extend throughout the city." The 28-mile greenbelt concept is :\LOWSW.IP 13 ~ 1'6 ~ .1-.'1/ " CHULA VISIA GREENBELI PROJECT SITE ~ ..: " '. .;.... .~ 6 Lower SWfttWater Vallery A a ,f[-~" ~, fiG. . Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 intended to utilize. existing developed and undeveloped open space and potential new open space linkages from the Bayfront, extending up the Otay and Sweetwater River Valleys, and linking with the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. The conceptual greenbelt extends east/west through the Sweetwater River Valley. The following General Plan text discusses the Greenbelt concept in the reach between 1-805 and the Bayfront: "The Sweetwater Valley Regional Park ends in the vicinity of 1-805 and Plaza Bonita Road. The Greenbelt extends under the freeway south of the interchange with Route 54 and along the southerly edge of the Route 54 to the vicinity of 5th Avenue extended. The Greenbelt then follows the alignment of the Sweetwater River prior to the freeway construction along a natural open space area north of C and Sea vale Streets and under Broadway, the railroad and trolley tracks and 1-5 to the bay. " The greenbelt concept could provide a multi-purpose trail along the Sweetwater flood channel and provide access from the Lower Sweetwater Valley project area to the trail system as well as to the Rosebank neighborhood to the south. In addition to open space opportunities. the Lower Sweetwater Valley area also presents opportunities for potential development. Development of this area would have to be sensitive to environmental issues and be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. 4.3 Summary and Analysis of Proposed land Use Alternatives Various land uses have been proposed for the vacant parcels within the project area. The following is a brief analysis of these proposals combined with compatible land uses. Following further direction from the City Council, a :\LOW&W.IP 14 ~ Ir;-~ Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 complete environmental analysis will be conducted on selected alternatives and formal hearings to amend the General Plan will be held. For purposes of this analysis existing land uses and zoning are assumed for parcels A and B. Uses consist of Child Care and Adult Counseling with R-3 zoning that would permit Multiple Family Residential (max. 180 units') on parcel A, and Campgrounds and Agricultural zoning on parcel B. This assumption is consistent for each alternative (see Table 7 for composite listing of all Alternatives). 4.3.1 Land Use Alternative 1 (See Fig. 6) Parcel A - Existing Child Care, Adult Counseling or Multiple Family Residential. Parcel B - Existing KOA Campground. Parcels C and D - These parcels are proposed to remain as vacant open space and be maintained as an open space district. Parcel E - This parcel is proposed, by the Sweetwater Authority, to contain a water demineralization plant which would extract brackish ground water from the adjoining river aquifer and through a reverse osmosis process provide potable water which would then be piped into Sweetwater Authority's available supply (see Appendix for more details). , Parcel A consists of 5.59 acres, however, as a result of significant slope areas on the property, redevelopment of this site would likely result in fewer units. :ILOWSW.lP ~-It9 15 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 Table 2. . .. ....... LAND USE AL TERNATIVE1 ..... ..... Parcel Land Use ... i Acres ........ Owner ... .... A Child Care, Adult Counseling or 5.59 Ac. Reichbart Multiple Family Residential B KOA Campgrounds 24 Ac. KOA Campgrounds of America C Open Space 18.24 Ac. IPG Ltd. D Open Space 14.25 Ac. Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency E Proposed Demineralization Plant 5.74 Ac. Mross Trust :ILOWSW.lP J+ ;le 1'6'~ 16 " LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 1 Parcel A. Child Care I Adult Counseling or Multl-Famlly Residential Parcel B. KOA Campgrounds Parcel C. Open Space Parcel D. Open Space Parcel E. Demineralization Plant .. ........... Lower SWfttWater Vall", ~ltf .- - . . .. ... . ..0' ......1 "G. 6 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 4.3.2 Land Use Alternative 2 (See Fig. 7) Parcel A - Existing Child Care, Adult Counseling or Multiple Family Residential. Parcel B - Existing KOA Campground. Parcels C, D and E - These parcels are proposed to remain as vacant open space and be maintained as an open space district. However, strategic landscaping could be planted and maintained by the open space district which would enhance the visibility of the site from adjoining thoroughfares. Table 3. LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2 .... i ... Parcel Land Use Acres ... Owner ... A Child Care, Adult Counseling or 5.59 Ac. Reichbart Multiple Family Residential B KOA Campgrounds 24 Ac. KOA Campgrounds of America C Open Space 18.24 Ac. IPG Ltd. 0 Open Space 14.25 Ac. Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency E Open Space 5.74 Ac. Mross Trust :\LOWSW .IP 17 ~ J<;f- ~ '47 /' LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2 Parcel A. Child Care I Adult Counseling or Multl.famlly Residential Parcel B. KOA Campgrounds Parcel C. Open Space Parcel D. Open Space Parcel E. Open Space . . .i .' . . ...~ ....... . .~ o .. Lower SWntwater Valley / l!. ~t ~ ).{; FIG. ., Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 4.3.3 Land Use Alternative 3 (See Fig. 8) Parcel A - Existing Child Care, Adult Counseling or Multiple Family Residential. Parcel B - Existing KOA Campground. Parcel C - This parcel consists of 18.24 acres and would be developed as public park and be maintained by the City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Department. Development of a park at this location could serve as a staging area . for the Chula Vista Greenbelt trail system which likely will run eastlwest on the levy of the Sweetwater flood channel. In addition, development of this parcel as a park could serve to reduce the deficiency of park acreage west of 1-805 and provide accessible park land for residents of the Rosebank neighborhood, which currently lacks neighborhood or nearby community-level park facilities. Parcel D - This parcel would be retained as natural open space which could augment the proposed park on Parcel C, provide additional visual open space as part of the Greenbelt and act as a buffer between proposed land uses on Parcel E. Parcel E - This parcel is proposed to contain a water demineralization plant as described in Alternative 1 above. :\LOWSW.IP 18 ~ Iy>. ~'lf Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 Table 4. . . LAND USE AL TERNA TIVE 3 . ... Lanc:JUse ... Parcel Acres Owner A Child Care, Adult Counseling or 5.59 Ac. Reichbart Multiple Family Residential B KOA Campgrounds 24 Ac. KOA Campgrounds of America C Proposed Park 18.24 Ac. IPG Ltd. D Open Space 14.25 Ac. Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency E Proposed Demineralization Plant 5.74 Ac. Mross Trust - :\LOWSW .IP 19 ~ ((.5~ " LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 3 Parcel A. Child Care I Adult Counseling or lIultl~amlly Residential Parcel B . KOA Campgrounds Parcel C. Park Parcel D. Open Space Parcel E. Demineralization Plant _ --. .. .. 11 . .... ......- .... Lower SWfttwater Valley A.#:'9. S"I I ~ . '3A; flO. . Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 4.3.4 Land Use Alternative 4 (See Fig. 9) Parcel A - Existing Child Care, Adult Counseling or Multiple Family Residential. Parcel B - Existing KOA Campground. Parcel C - This parcel would consist of a public park, as described in Alternative 3 above. The City Council, in prior discussions regarding the locating of a Veteran's Home within the Lower Sweetwater Valley site, indicated a desire to have park facilities adjacent to the Veteran's Home. Parcel D - This parcel would contain a 400-bed Veteran's Home. This Home would require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and would be enhanced by the public park located immediately to the west, and would be consistent with commitments that the City Council has made to find a location for the Veteran's facility within the city. Parcel E - This parcel would contain a water demineralization plant as described above in Alternative 1 above. :ILOWSW.lP 1<[ ,..5 1. ~ 20 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 Table 5. . ..... LAND USE AL TERNA TIVE 4 ............ .... ...... Parcel Land Use i Acres i Owner A Child Care, Adult Counseling or 5.59 Ac. Reichbart Multiple Family Residential B KOA Campgrounds 24 Ac. KOA Campgrounds of America C Proposed Park 18.24 Ac. IPG Ltd. D Proposed Veteran's Home 14.25 Ac. Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency E Proposed Demineralization Plant 5.74 Ac. Mross Trust :\LOWSW .IP 21 -14-- 3 I J 'if .$~ " LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 4 Parcel A. Child Care , Adult Counseling or Multl.famlly Residential Parcel B. KOA Campgrounds Parcel C - Park Parcel D - Veteran's Home Parcel E - Demineralization Plant - -,wE. Lower SWntwater Valley, g. .Pf .-Pt. .3-?-- .- - . . .i . . ..., ...... flO. 9 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 4.3.5 land Use Alternative 5 (See Fig. 10) Parcel A - Existing Child Care, Adult Counseling or Multiple Family Residential. Parcel B - Existing KOA Campground. Parcel C - This parcel would contain a 400-accommodation multi-level care housing facility for seniors. This facility would be self-contained and would be situated on only 10.24 acres of the 18.24 acre IPG parcel. This project would consist of 1 50 units of independent senior apartments, 200 assisted living accommodations, and a 50-bed skilled nursing facility. Parcel D - This parcel would contain a 22.25 acre (this includes 8 acres from Parcel C) Family Recreation and Fun Center proposed by Pacific Malibu Development Corporation and Warner Properties. The Family Recreation consisting of lighted softball and soccer field, concession facilities and restrooms. The Fun Center would consist of 2 lighted miniature golf courses, a giant water slide, water bumper boats, go-kart raceway, batting cage, kiddie land area, an arcade and videolcomputer learning center. A total of 280 parking spaces are proposed for both the Family Recreation and Fun Centers. The total number of parking spaces were proposed by the developer to provide for parking needs. Parcel E - This parcel would contain a water demineralization plant as described above in Alternative 1 above. :\LOWSW.IP 22 __.pr:-~ 5'~ r6~% Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 Table 6. LAND USE AL TERNA TIVE 5 .. .. . . Parcel .. Land Use .... Acres owner A Child Care, Adult Counseling or 5.59 Ac. Reichbart Multiple Family Residential B KOA Campgrounds 24 Ac. KOA Campgrounds of America C Proposed Senior Care Facility 10.24 Ac. IPG Ltd. D Proposed Family Recreation I Fun 22.25 Ac. Chula Vista Center Redevelopment Agency E Proposed Demineralization Plant 5.74 Ac. Mross Trust ~ :ILOWSW.lP 23 rf>r; .~b 1<J--31 ... LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 5 Parcel A - Child Care I Adult Counseling or Multl..famlly Residential Parcel B. KOA Campgrounds Parcel C. Senior Care Facility Parcel D. Family Recreation I Fun Center Parcel E - Demineralization Plant -- . . .j, . . . ...~ . ... ~. . .1 o --- -- .. Lower SWeetwater Valley . -A:'~7 Ir;-~ RO. '0 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 * Table 7. . PROPOSED LAND USE ALTERNATIVES . ... ... ALT Parcel A Parcel 8 ...... ....... Parcel D <Parcel E Parcel C 1 Child Care, KOA Open Space Open Proposed Adult Campgrounds Space Water Counseling Demin. or Plant Apartments 2 Child Care, KOA Open Space Open Open Space Adult Campgrounds Space Counseling or Apartments 3 Child Care, KOA Park Open Proposed Adult Campgrounds Space Water Counseling Demin. or Plant Apartments 4 Child Care, KOA Park Proposed Proposed Adult Campgrounds Veteran's Water Counseling Home Demin. or Plant Apartments 5 Child Care, KOA Proposed Proposed Proposed Adult Campgrounds Senior Care Family Water Counseling Center Recreation Demin. or / Fun Plant Apartments Center :\LOWSW .IP -A-~ ! '1- #15 24 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 4.4 Potential Traffic Impacts Alternative 5 is assumed to be the most intense urban land use alternative and therefore was the subject of analysis with regard to potential traffic impacts. The City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Division has prepared a preliminary traffic analysis examining potential traffic movements and trip generation from each of the land uses proposed in this alternative. Second Avenue extends from the south, transitions into North Second Avenue adjacent to the KOA Campground entrance, then becomes Edgemere Avenue as the road continues across the Sweetwater flood channel until intersecting with 30th Street in National City. The traffic analysis assumes a single point of entry on North Second Avenue at the KOA Campgrounds entrance. A total of 7,360 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) were counted in 1993 on North Second Avenue, presently a two lane residential street with a curb to curb width of 40 ft..:t.. The Chula Vista General Plan identifies North Second Avenue as a Class II Collector roadway, which at ultimate buildout would require widening to 52 ft. curb to curb, and would provide a design capacity of 12,000 ADT at Level of Service (LOS) C. :\LOWSW.lP 25 ~<..~ S-1 /Z.~ Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 An additional 3,073 ADT is estimated to be generated' by the new land uses in Alternative 5, of which an estimated 1,383 ADT (45%) will impact North Second Avenue south of the project. This will result in a cumulative total of 8,761 ADT on North Second Avenue, south of the project. when added to current traffic counts. When the estimated project traffic is included with cumulative General Plan buildout forecasts, a total of 11,600 ADT is expected on North Second Avenue. As stated previously, an ADT total of 12,000 is the design capacity of Level of Service (LOS) C. Traffic counts experienced in 1990, the last year counts were taken before the completion of SR-54, totalled 11,660 ADT on North Second Avenue (see Table 7). An additional 1,363 ADT is estimated to be generated by the land uses in Alternative 4, of which an estimated 546 ADT (40%) will impact North Second Avenue south of the project. This will result in a cumulative total of 7,906 ADT on North Second Avenue, south of the project, with a General Plan build out forecast of 10,700 ADT, also under the LOS C standard of 12,000 ADT. However, the roadway width between the KOA Campground entrance and C Street is considered to be below the General Plan standard at 40 ft...1=.. Although a 52 ft. curb to curb roadway width is the General Plan standard for a Class II Collector, restriping for 15 ft. wide travel lanes, a continuous 10ft. wide left turn lane, and no parking would achieve acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better). , Traffic generation assumptions: . Family Recreetion/Fun Center would fill 75 % of the 280 parking spaces at 2 hour intervals, 10 hours per day. Add 10% for deliveries and other. The 400-bed Senior Care Center would generate 2 trips per unit per day. The Demineralization Plant would generate approximately 10 trips per day. The 400-bed Veteran's Home would generated approximately 1,200 trips per day. The 18.24 ac. Public Park would generate approximately 900 trips per day. t:.6 10 .'1:5 ~ 26 . . . . :\LOWSW.lP Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 Table 8. . HISTORIC TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR NORTH SECOND AVENUE YEAR ... .... < AVERAGEDAILY.TRIPS (ADTI 1987 6,320 ADT 1988 10,680 ADT 1989 11,950 ADT 1990 11,660 ADT 1991* 4,830 ADT 1992 5,660 ADT 1993 7,360 ADT * _ SR-54 Freeway completed and opened this year. The proposed intersection of North Second Avenue and the entrance to the KOA Campground and the other Lower Sweetwater Valley parcels will require a curb to curb width of 44 ft. for a distance of 300 ft. from the intersection. This width will provide one 10ft. left turn lane and two 17ft. lanes (in/outl. The access road could then be reduced to 34 ft. in width. Sight distance at this intersection is not considered to be a safety problem with the installation of a traffic signal. The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that Alternative 5 land uses will warrant a traffic signal at this intersection. Alternative 4 land uses do not meet warrants for a signal, however, to ensure proper safety a traffic signal may be required. Other roadway segments, assumed to be impacted by project-related traffic, are not expected to be significantly impacted by any of the five alternatives. :\LOWSW.lP 27 -Pr---7qt r 115 -;rr Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 4.5 Open Space Acquisition One major concern expressed by residents adjacent to the project site has been a request to retain the vacant land area within the Lower Sweetwater Valley as undeveloped open space. Some residents have previously expressed a need to provide park facilities within their neighborhood area, citing the lack of facilities, however, the strong neighborhood desire expressed has been that no development occur on the site and that the property be maintained as natural open space. 4.5.1 Assessment District At a public forum held earlier this year, and at a City Council meeting where the Lower Sweetwater Valley issues were discussed, the concept of neighborhood acquisition of vacant land for open space was introduced. The Council directed staff to examine the potential of the surrounding neighborhoods acquiring and maintaining the vacant Lower Sweetwater Valley property as natural open space in perpetuity. Therefore, staff has retained the engineering consultant firm of BSI to conduct a feasibility study which would identify an assumed benefit area, apply a fair weighting to properties within the benefit area then determine a unit cost for acquisition and maintenance. Preliminary results of this study assumed a potential benefit area roughly from SR-54 to E Street and 1-805 to Fourth Avenue (see Fig. 13). The benefit area contains 861 equivalent dwelling units (EOU's). A preliminary appraisal of the 14.25 acre Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency property (parcel 0) resulted in an appraised value and acquisition cost of $ 744,OOO.::!:... If applied to the 861 EOU's within the benefit area, this property would cost approximately $864 per EOU. This would also translate into approximately $74 per year for a period of 25 years through the application of an assessment bond (@7%). This cost figure is based on preliminary data which will :\LOWSW.lP 28 ~-6'L If{~f{? Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 be further refined before being presented to the City Council for direction along with this issue paper. The total appraised value and acquisition cost for the two vacant lots which abut the Agency parcel, totalling 38 acres, would be $1,998,000i. Assuming the same benefit area, this total would translate into a cost of approximately $200 per EDU per year for 25 years. If the property is acquired for open space purposes it must receive ongoing, long- term maintenance. Cost estimates, prepared by the City's Open Space Coordinator, for limited maintenance (e.g., Code #4-level maintenance) amounts to $15,500 per year for the 14.25 acre Agency parcel (parcel D), and $25,000 per year for 38 acres (parcels C, 0 and E). The maintenance costs combined with the acquisition costs for the 14.25 acre parcel is estimated at approximately $92 per EDU, per year. The maintenance costs combined with the acquisition costs for the 38 acres is estimated at approximately $228 per EDU, per year. Table 9. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Parcells) Parcel( s) Acquisition Maintenance Total Cost Size Costs * Costs Per Year Per EDU Per Year 0 14.25 Ac. $744,000 + $15,500 $92+ C,D & E 38 Ac. $1,998,000+ $25,000 $228 + * - Acquisition costs estimated to be paid off in 25 years. assuming 7% interest. :\LOWSW .IP ~ 18'- Ji.€ -/J-41 29 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 4.5.2 Other Available Funding Sources Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees - The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code does not permit the use of Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees for the acquisition of permanent natural open space. These funds are collected from new residential development and must be used for the acquisition of park land and construction of active park facilities. These funds may be pooled for the construction of Community-level or Neighborhood-level park facilities, based on park master planning. State and Local Grants - The Planning Department has made a number of contacts to determine if other funding sources, either local or state-wide, are available for potential acquisition of natural open space or park land. Contacts have been made with the Wildlife Conservation Office, the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (Acquisition Section), and the State Coastal Conservancy. These agencies have indicated that with the failure at the polls of the proposed California Parks and Wildlife (CALPAW) funding proposition in the last election, an opportunity for a local source of funding for open space land acquisition was lost. Other active funding programs either target habitat lands supporting endangered or threatened species or significant wetlands. Most funding sources have been depleted or are targeting these sensitive areas. In Los Angeles County, voters approved a bond program in the past which supplied funding for open space acquisition. No such program is currently available in San Diego County. 4.6 Park land Thresholds Land Use Alternatives 3 and 4 identify park uses for a single parcel (parcel C) combined with a Veteran's Home or with natural open space. The provision of ,ILOWSW .IP 30 ri)-;-Jf'-h Lf I f? - J..f1 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 park facilities within the Lower Sweetwater Valley could provide accessible park facilities to the Rosebank neighborhood which currently do not exist, as well as provide a facility linked to the 28-mile Chula Vista Greenbelt. Each year the City analyzes various thresholds as part of the City's Growth Management Policies. The Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) recently completed their annual analysis of park thresholds for the City. The GMOC has reported that the western portion of the City (west of 1-805) is still below the park threshold of 3 acres per 1 ,000 residents. The current inventory of park land in western Chula Vista is 1.22 acres per 1,000 residents. Eucalyptus Park, a 17.83 acre community park, is located approximately 112 mile from the project site, and serves the community north of F Street. Recognizing the need to provide additional park land to serve residents west of 1- 805, the City Council has set aside funds in its Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for the purpose of acquiring said park acreage. The source of these funds is the Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees which are charged to new development. However, it should be recognized that the collection of PAD fees has declined n recent years, due to a slowdown in development activity, and the construction of "turnkey" parks in lieu of payment of fees in many new residential projects in eastern Chula Vista. In addition, there is a great deal of competition for the limited PAD funds that are available. Nonetheless, the City could consider the use of this fund to purchase one or more of the vacant parcels of land in the Lower Sweetwater Valley then develop it as park land in the future. Along with this option, adjacent property owners could dedicate large slope areas facing the valley to the City and, under an assessment district, these slopes would receive consistent maintenance and act as a buffer from the park areas in perpetuity. :\LOWSW.IP -P.~~6$ I '{ -I.r/f 31 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 5.0 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT I ZONING The 67.82 acre project site is currently designated "Open Space I Special Study Area" in the City's General Plan, as shown on Fig. 11. The following are alternative General Plan designations which would be necessary to implement the proposed land use alternatives. 5.1 General Plan Amendment I Zoning Alternative A If the property retained the "Open Space" designation currently depicted on the General Plan Land Use Diagram this would be consistent with proposed land uses depicted in Land Use Alternative 1, 2 and 3. However, it is recommended that parcel A be designated as "Medium-High Residential (11-18 du/ac}". Zoning to implement the "Open Space" General Plan designation is recommended as "Agriculture" (A) for parcels C, D and E. This alternative would require rezoning of the southerly portion of each property from R-1 to A and the application of the A zone for all currently "Unzoned" parcels. Existing zoning would be retained for parcels A (R-3) and B (A). 5.2 General Plan Amendment Alternative B The proposed land uses in Alternatives 4 and 5 are varied and somewhat unique. If either of these two alternatives are selected, it is recommended that a "Mixed Use" General Plan land use designation be applied, and that a Specific Plan be adopted for parcels S, C, D, and E. The Specific Plan would be tailored to provide specific design guidelines affecting each of the parcels. Chapter 19.07 of Title 19 in the Chula Vista Municipal Code authorizes the preparation of a specific plan as :\LOWSW.lP 1%- t1 -IJ-tf1-tt 32 Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 follows: wSpecific plans may be implemented through the adoption of standard zoning ordinances, the planned community zone, as provided in this title, or by plan effectuation standards incorporated within the text of an individual specific plan. The method of implementing an individuai specific plan shall be established and expressed by its adopting resolution or ordinance...At the discretion of the City Council, whenever a specific plan is adopted without intent to implement it through standard zoning designations, it shall be considered to supersede all underlying zoning designations... W In other words, the Specific Plan that would be developed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley project area, would contain specific zoning and land use regulations, and would supersede the underlying zoning standards on the property. The Specific Plan zoning and land use regulations would address issues of access, landscaping, development phasing, setbacks, etc. It is also recommended that all of the parcels subject to the "Mixed Use" designation and Specific Plan (parcels B,C,D & E) be zoned "Mixed Use" (MUI as an underlying zone classification. This "MU" zone is recommended to be added to the City's Zoning Ordinance (Title 1 9, of the Municipal Codel, concurrent with the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the Lower Sweetwater Valley project area. The "MU" zone designation will require the adoption of a Specific Plan prior to any development. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this issue paper is to examine a range of land use alternatives, implement the current General Plan "Special Study Areaw designation for the Lower Sweetwater Valley property adopted in July, 1989, and ultimately lead to the preparation of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and, potentially, a Zoning Text Amendment. :ILOWSW.lP 33 ~bl Ig~P Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 This issue paper will be presented to the public and various City Boards and Commissions for input before being presented to the City Council for further direction. Prior to the public hearing process required for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, a Draft Environmer:tallmpact Report (DEIR) will be prepared which will present a complete analysis of the potential environmental impacts for the proposed range of alternatives. This issue paper concludes that of the five alternative land use scenarios examined herein that none of them appear to be infeasible from a land use or environmental standpoint. It is recommended that the potential environmental impacts of all five of the land use alternatives discussed in this issue paper be fully and equally analyzed in a Draft EIR and that no preference or weight be given to any of them in the analysis. :ILOWSW.lP It ~ 6Z f4-4b 34 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS OSp. - RLM - RMH - Open Space - "Special Study Area" Residential Low Medium (3-6 du/ac) Residential Medium High (11-18 du/ac) .0 1 ..... ...._J .." ". Lower SWfttwater Valley -It~~if11 I ~ :6"~ .... II " .AISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS F1 - A - R1 - R3 - R3P20 - IL - UNZ - ~IIIE. FLOODWA Y AGRICULTURE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (20 du/ac) LIMITED INDUSTRIAL UNZONED . :..:1 . ....., .... LOWer SWfttwater Vallery RO. 12 {t.-# 10 ;..~ - ~ ASSESSMENT STUDY AREA --.... --... ~""""""lfTIfl1 CD i~t:\;".~:?':~" .... ~ Lower SWntwater Vallery --/+-=--ct17! Ig- ~ .... I. ~ENERAL PLAN I ZONING ALTERNATIVE A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: "RMH" - Residential Medium.High (11-18 dulae) "Open Space" ZONING: R3 - Multiple Family Zone A - Agricultural Zone , . -... ... .f ... . . .... ..--., . -. Lower SWntwater Valley J Z ~ . -{F-sf~ 1l '10. 14 . GENERAL PLAN I ZONING ALTERNATIVE B GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: "RMH" - Residential Medium-High (11-18 du/ae) "Mixed Use" (Implemented by Specifie Plan) ZONING: R3 - Multiple Family Zone MU - Mixed Use Zone .., .. :..4" . ....-, Lower SWeetwater Valley -f1.5/~ I D- .PC .... '5 APPENDIX A SENIOR CARE CENTER (Investment Properties Group, Ltd.) . 1 0 acre site . 400-accommodation multi-level care senior housing project as follows: _ 150 units of independent senior apartments (75 studios, 75 one-bedroom units) _ 200 assisted living accommodations (100 accommodations for cognitively impaired, 100 accommodations for physically impaired) - 50-bed skilled nursing facility . Residents in the senior apartments have the option of purchasing the following services: - Three meals per day - Housekeeping services - Transportation services . Residents in the assisted living area would receive the following services: - Three meals per day _ Housekeeping services Socialization program _ Aid with daily living services (bathing, dressing, grooming, and medication monitoring) 1~/14/lg/ 75 I /' \, ' Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper July 20, 1994 APPENDICES / I :ILOW5W.IP 1Lf IX -.71 r: - :; .;... 35 APPENDIX B FAMilY RECREATION CENTER / FAMilY FUN CENTER (Pacific Malibu De,velopment Corp, / Warner Properties) . 22.25 Acre Site Family Recreation Center Amenities: . 3 Regulation (ASA & USSSA) Lighted, Fenced Softball Fields (300 ft. foul lines, above ground dugouts, skinned DG infields) . Scoreboards . Common Concession Facility, Drinking Fountains, Restrooms, Public Areas (walkways, grass and shage trees, picnic and playground areas) . Bleachered Seating . 1 Regulatian, Lighted, Fenced, Equipped Soccer Field . 1 Regulation, Equipped Soccer Field . Shared, Lighted Parking lot for 280 vehicles Family Fun Center Amenities: . 2 Lighted Miniature Golf Courses, around water . 1 Giant Water Slide Area . 1 Water Bumper Boats Facility . 1 Go-Kart Raceway Facility . 1 Batting Cage Facility . 1 Kiddie land Area . 1 Covered/Enclosed Arcade/Food and Video/Computer Learning Center Facility . Restroom and Changing Facilities . Shared, Lighted Parking Lot for 280 vehicles -fl. 5116 tq-~ r -. f ) APPENDIX C VETERAN'S HOME (Veterans Administration) . 14.25 Acre Site . 400-bed facility - 200-bed Residential Care Unit - 120-bed Intermediate Nursing Care Unit - 60-bed Skilled Nursing Care Unit - licensed Residential Care Unit (as ancillary function with no separate bed allotment) -14..S..s 77 /g-kJ APPENDIX D WATER DEMINERALIZATION PlANT (Sweetwater Authority) . 5.74 Acre Site . 5.0 Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) Demineralization Plant producing 4.0 MGD of product water by reverse osmosis and blending. Ultimate expansion to 10 MGD of product is anticipated. . Facilities would occupy approximately 3 acres of site. . Product to be pumped to existing Sweetwater Authority storage and distribution system via a 12 or 16-inch pipeline. . -ft-~ 75f 1<6 - -6-t APPENDIX E RECEIVED '94 IW! 30 AS:06 CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY CLER~; ~ OFfICE . To, The Hayor & CouncIl Hembers, City of Cnula Vista, 276 4th Ave.,' Chula Vista, CA '31910. REF: Sweetwater Dear Hayo & Council Hembers, We have formed a comml tee representing neighbors surrounding the Lower Sweetwater Valley rea. We would like to present area to the Mayor & City the above mentioned Please put us on the agenda for meeting and confirm. 94, City Council Enclosed please find the propo als and petl Ions. (W--O ~.~ Sincerely Yours, Hohlnder (Ho) Goomar, H.D Chairman, Lower Sweetwat 5 Las Flores Drive, Chul Telephone: 427-4525 , Valley Open Space Committee, Vista, CA 91910-1960. . Wil'iTEN CO,,\~uNtCAn~~s . /n J/j9,/71 it~~1~ l'l-~ To. The Mayor and Council ~embers. City of Chu1a Vista. 1. We. the residents surrounding Lower Sweetwater Valley area. propose that the exlstlpg vacant land be designated as natural open space. The petitions supporting this proposal are provided with this letter. 2. We propose that the city council zone the unzoned area as agricultural. You recall that this area was agricultural to start with before It was annexed from the County of San Diego. We urge the Council to correct this mistaKe made by the previous Council. (The preceding zoning information was provided by Duane Bazzel. City employee.) 3. We suggest that the Council asK the staff to perform studies for the following possible assessment districts: A. The one assessment district covering the 14 acres City owned property If assumed by the neighborhood. B. The second assessment district Is for the entire 38 acres of eXisting open space If assumed by the neghborlng community. 4. Please listen to the voice of the community. It Is loud and clear. We also urge you to taKe fair financial responsibility for these proposals. 5. We have formed a committee whose ~embers will directly Interface with the Council to facilitate communications or negotiations. Submitted by. ~6~~ Hohlnder (Mo) GQomar. HD, Chairman. Lower Sweetwater Valley Open Space Committee. 5. Las Flores Drive. Chu1a Vista. CA 91910-1960. Telephone: 427-4525 A-58 !~$~ WE. THE FOLLOWING . WISH THE THE EXISTING VACANT ~OWER SWEETWATER SPECIAL STUDY AREA TO REMAIN AS NATURAL OPEN SPACE. NAME (BLOCK ~ETTERS) Jo5~ 7ole~E5 f(eSI/ 7O.etf~5 Df1ah; Peaaft?:.::h ~ ~ 1~,10~ f, ~ r(VI.",-k ~k~f-rui il:!. JO/W>O AJ $?}~ Offk,IP' - &$-I-v~f7~ - Sy'PI/J ~D <f~~kf'/'V OWl A ~ pA{,AC-l c) IO~ . ~/~ "j,.~,o ~ 7e!!P!!~ ADDRESS SIGNATURE ~ ~C).rgf~i1~ ~~ ~f)~ 1d:lL~ ~g, n-:~ - ----- -.. . .. WE. TKE FO~~OWING , WISK TKE TKE EXISTING VACANT LOWER SWEETWATER SPECIA~ STUDY AREA TO REMAIN AS NATURA~ OPEN SPACE. lAKE (BLOCK LETTERS) ~A4. N-r~ )a.J'\..A. I< .JDhns~n (J.U- ~ ~J;?fl.lt; f1t(5EIJ ~-6~~/ "'1 . J ""c.A4dU,'c.IL /IrIS'''' Ie"" .,i?EE JA'I-flNI ~;c'i'P f. DMiI :. ~\J~ D..c..~~ CI" pN~ SU>,^^' Co\ltlE R 01& <<:1121 j O<Jtl.1J~{ ~ U ~ ~ ~ OoJ/'W.>-I ~~ ~ L-Uc,eV'(J RAy h\ D 1\/1> L U CEllO ~~7P /W~tW !/~~~ ~f)?~.J~~,fEM ADDRESS -P;b~ 11-16'$ I'j 'Uc. ~ 1<1~ . : vJ-K ~-- (J//.r;.L{ , b CD mey'1/ . ~~ 4"" 0/,..) F"F WE, THE FOl.l.OWING ,WISH THE THE EXISTING VACANT LOWER SWEETWATER SPECIAl.. STUDY AREA TO REMAIN AS NATURAl. OPEN SPACE. NAKE CBl.OCK LETTERS) ~IJ 1<1/,1,9 P (FtJ_A. Of:?, ?,4TtJIlD F/~Plf)""./4 fcJL./Q c. fl7l.3()tt'#~ ctlicio.. R. ,ft&e IJcA .uPE VAt..lA-OOL\ 0 ~tJrJlf-. f1J!H~ ;k~:;r 01\ M" f...IfL ~.~~~ ~ ~ . . '--.~i 1"l1\lJAAl~ ~ "RIIJ"'~ (I. (> 'E:J~I r; oJ ,g Jet q HO U E,P,6S/1j- rJ ?e.t1Q. 3hou~ Q~"Qn -i HYl~~ P:calfj~' Jd))( {'J;trI ~~ 9hJttl. {dJ.,l1 J ~ Idx/Q J...f/ofl.)q I'c/ tk r /J.).p1:ro: t. ~a.. ~odrL. ADDRESS .%3- -Ii- &./ 18-$. 1 . SIGNATURE /lJr. - . t:.o./ ~~~ -- ~1."t"'leCo- y~ ~W- nr;~ ~~ JVt~t~~ ~ :. -_ . ~~~~-..,'\. ~~--C- ~t~ ~;tlL ~ ~ WE, THE FOLLOWING.', WISH THE THE EXISTING VACANT LOWER SWEETWATER SPECIAL STUDY AREA TO REMAIN AS NATURAL OPEN SPACE. RAKE (BLOCK LETTERS) f"\e Ge~M^1t HCl\Ac.e:. 6tlrYC-Z ~^'l:::. Pe-e:Sf\PA\ \ ];A a:. tItt /;~.,94J I!.r::.N([~ C ({P A NN If MAk:/LAo t:'~ ~R J f.I~J.lL-He ~t~L f.~'W!.t: ~OCJfD I · Iii t? J Ci lV:WI C ''''V- Rn ..... '<-c. .~.A) I'" 0..J FAr L 1-;~'CHXji'\JD )2, p/'i'p~"'~- . ::Hfi'.~ ~\~...) ~"Tr'''', StuJu:c i.. :l 0"-'" t.,""t>. St!"'~d~C."" ADDRESS ~tE vA LfN,'^ E ~e...... (A.:.7 e.... % l ,~A f,.A.H,.,., T w.< .... ',)':"I.i~rt. .1l,(JTllllo Flif'e'&/JOR J"'.J.,\~ ~Q.\<...:\\o f:LIIlI~ ~rr.llo .... J..cd IC/o. rll4.~/e! J5'"f1f J/~"/ /ft-fJ, SIGNATURE .\ C .~ WE, THE FOLLOWING . WISH THE THE EXISTING VACANT LOWER SWEETWATER SPECIAL STUDY AREA TO REMAIN AS NATURAL OPEN SPACE. RAKE (BLOCK LETTERS) ::la:~(le.. E"lk..inft,t1 ~l\~AEL- I~C~~Q.O 'ftfCbLO I-LO'/O ~ "(tWIIIE E L~ '/0 ~ 'f/AJ:lI'd Qt9r'r. J '7)6h n ? A-f2.lLB N~Gjr~ . E~ ((\..j-(1)- L-'1rck" ~ I -p;ft. E:' .1<.€f.~L Wi) {~fel\*" %oJl.~ ~c lle.2. JGQk~A. ~CMk.~ 1%a. ~V'e...L/ ~\1A~ Lev ADDRESS SIQNATURE .- - ~~ ~~ q~' . -I4~,3 u . I g/.:- ~... '~.''^''~ .- WI<: .' ../.e,~c 1(", G'> 2.3 ../! . ...... ~~~'I _~c-J:t) _ ~~ M..o -~ ./3., ,1 '>, R I ..R, ,'r1S,1,1 {, 2..,~ v' WE, THE FOLLOWING , WISH THE THE EXISTING VACANT LOWER SWEETWATER SPECIAL STUDY AREA TO REMAIN AS NATURAL OPEN SPACE. NAME (BLOCK LETTERS) NAI\CISc. Mr1RIUlt ~c'r-ILc JtJJJA L f dl..~;tft.Nor.- G,,6V~ S~U.41'1 l;C-CMA~ ~M;I\ (?k~r:.])).1JPO R~ f'm:L A !:..IZE ~()}J D ADDRESS SIGNATURE -n", "{"~ot,:h1~r'&... 't. 'ft.# ~/J , 'u, -:?l~ Hi<.. ...~"' /.lAc ('lIe Jl-."~u. G~y It),, ,q, ~,b /'!t.s,w I C~ r,(~~ f~/~CII;J L.L~c /JrBIG;.f/1L ~jVOlle. 7;f L ~ ~r S' ,f t,M1 J2fJ l.- i-01~\..\.A SMITH V~~\,~ ..JMA,~@~ ~e. TZl/~,) ? ::1 rh 1M. {/e,..du C.C.:I Vi. 6\f~ ~\'- 'vf~ M A?;:K~ oS r:J If"'..r S ;.kP ILlY ~JD IJ y t! ~b ,( P '.. 10 .,._.. . ',0 .. .. ~--C-'-~- tJ~/7lf /g-fft - . APPENDIX F APPRAISAL REPORT THREE VACANT PARCELS LOCATED AT swa OF 1-805 & HIGHWAY 54 CHULA VISTA. CAUFORNIA APPRAISED FOR City of Chula Vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 DATE OF VALUATION May 11, 1994 - DATE OF REPORT May 20, 1994 APPRAISED BY . I Anderson & Brabant, Inc. 353 West Ninth Avenue kondido, California 92025 . File No. 94-078 , . ..NDIUON a ~"MNT. INC. 0,( -/fr# I~'~ ANDERSON 8 BRABANT. INC. lItlt4L l[5T...."1t ",_""'.1:"5 AND CONSULTANTS 353 w. NINTH AVENUE ESCONDIDO, CALlFOR.NIA 92025 TELEPHONE (61~) '.......1..15 ,....X (ell~) 7""I.lo.-~ May 20, 1994 .! Mr. Juan P. Arroyo Housing Coordinator CitY of Chula Vista CommunitY Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91 91 0 Dear Mr. Arroyo: .. .... As requested, we have appraised the three vacant parcels of land located at the southwest quadrant of Interstate 805 and Highway 54, Chula Vista, California. The appraised properties are identified as 18.24 acres owned by IPG. 14.25 acres owned by the CitY of Chula Vista. and 5.74 acres owned by Mross. The purpose of this appraisal was to estimate the market value of the subject properties' fee simple interest. ~ After an examination of the appraised properties and relevant market data, we have formed the following opinions of fee simple market value of the subject properties as of May 11, 1994. IPG Parcel 118.24 acres) ....................... $795.000 City of Chula Vista Parcel 114.25 acres) ............ $620,000 f-. Mross Parcel 15.74 acres) ...................... $250.000 ., '- This appraisal is subject to certain assumptions and limiting conditions as set forth in the following report. The report includes a description of the subject properties and discussions of the data and analyses which support our conclusions of value. l' ! . Respectfully submitted. .~ ANDERSON & BRABANT, INC. .. g~~ Certified General Real Estate Appraiser State Certification No. AG002747 , ~}KZf Gilbert F. Kunkel. MAl Certified General Real Estate Appraiser State Certification No. AG002101 I ,; ... I g:- ?Jib -f}# 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I ASSUMPTIONS AND I..IMITING CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATE .............................................. 4 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY ........................................ 5 PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 INTENDED USE ....................................................... 6 SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 1 OWNERSHIP ......................................................... 8 NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS ....................................... 12 PLAT MAP .......................................................... 14 LAND DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 , , ASSESSMENT DATA ................................................... .19 SALES HISTORY ...................................................... 19 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ................................................ 20 METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 22 ':; i:I .,1 III SALES COMPARISON APPROACH .......................................... 24 ADDENDA Comparable land Sales Data Sheets Appraisers' State Certification Qualifications of the Appraiser ~ , A-1t1 /~, ~~ ANDER.SON & BkABANT. INC. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This l\ppraisal is subject to the following essumptions and limiting conditions: 1 . It is assumed that information furnished to us by our client including maps, cost estimates, and legal descriptions are substantially correct. . 2. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character, nor do we render an opinion as to title, which is assumed to be held in fee simple interest as of the date of valuation unless otherwise specified. 3. It is assumed that the property is readily marketable, free of all liens and encumbrances except any specifically discussed herein, and under responsible ownership and management. 4. Photographs, plat and maps furnished in this appraisal are to assist the reader in visualizing the property. No survey of the property has been made, and no responsibility has been assumed in this matter. 5. It is assumed that there are no legitimate environmental or ecological reasons that would prevent orderly development of the land to its highest and best use under economically feasible conditions. '" 6. We have assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property such as hazardous or toxic wastes and/or other subsoil conditions which would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors. 7. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. .S. Disclosure of the contents of this appraisal report is governed by the by-laws and regulations of the Appraisal Institute. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially reference to the Appraisal Institute or the MAl designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media, or any other public means of communication without prior written consent and approval of Anderson &. Brabant, Inc. a 9. The submission of this report constitutes completion of the services authorized. It is submitted on the condition that the client will provide the appraiser customary compensation relating to any subsequent required depositions, conferences, additional preparation or testimony. I. ,... ~ , ... \ '""'\ "-" 2 ANDE~f;l: IR2T. INC. 7 - 1i:9 fj: l ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS (Continuedl I 10. The valuation estimate is of surface rights only and the mineral rights. if any. have been disregarded. 12. No warranty is made as to the seismic stability of the subject property. j I ~ ;:: ~ < " ~ , 3 q I A.NDER-lei ~T. INC. -/J.IJI) APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATE We do hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, ... 1 . The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions. 3. We have no present or prospective future interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. Our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predeterrnined value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event, or that the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. 5. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation. . 6. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 7. We have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 8. We have appraised a similar property type on other occasions or we have acquired the necessary skills to competently appraise the property prior to the completion of the appraisal. No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this report. j(U~fJL- ~J~ David Joh auss State Certification No. AGOO2747 Mav 20. 1994 Date 9. As of the date of this report, I, Gilbert F. Kunkel, have completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. I ~!f:Ltr.M State Certification No. AGOO2101 Mav 20: 1994 Date , , 4 ANDlkSON . BRABANT. INC. ={) _ /'jJ 1'iI- i..s.. INTRODUCTION IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY The subject of this appraisal report is three vacant parcels of land located at the southwest Quadrant of Interstate 805 and Highway 54 Chula Vista, California. The appraised properties are identified as 18.24 acres owned by lPG, 14.25 acres owned by the City of Chula Vista, and 5.74 acres owned by Mross. Legal descriptions for the subject properties were not provided. However, they can be identified as the following Assessor's Parcel Nos. (APNI: The IPG parcel includes APN's 563-330-48 and 49; the City of Chula Vista parcel includes APN's 563-350-13 and 566-131-01; and the Mross parcel includes APN's 563-350-12 and 566-132-55. ~ PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal was to estimate the market value of the fee simple interest in the subject properties as of May 11, 1994. As used in this report, Market Value is defined as follows: "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: " 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well-informed or well-advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; . 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; I 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and , . , 5 ti2.. ANDEI.SON . ..."tANT, INC. cp. 'lJ-- I 'J - ~ . r. ., ~ 5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale." INTENDED USE This appraisal is intended to be used by the client in connection with a possible open space assessment district. SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL This appraisal report is intended to be an "appraisal assignment" as defined in the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute; that is, it is our intent that the appraisal service be performed in such a manner that the results of the analyses, opinions. or conclusions be that J of a disinterested third party. It is our intent that all appropriate data deemed pertinent to the solution of the appraisal problem be collected, confirmed, and reported in conformitY with the Standards of 1 , Professional Practice and Regulation 10, which contains the Code of Professional Ethics of the Appraisal Institute. The scope of this appraisal required collecting primary and secondary data relative to the subject property. The depth of the analysis was intended to be appropriate in relation to the significance of the appraisal problem. These data have been analyzed and confirmed leading to the , value conclusions set forth in this report. A physical inspection of the subject properties and ... .., inspections of the comparables were made. The valuation process involved the utilization of all techniques and procedures considered appropriate to the assignment. The first step in the analysis was to conduct a preliminary survey of the subject , properties and surrounding area in order to more accurately define the appraisal problem and identify I the methods and techniques necessary to accomplish the objective of this appraisal report. Interviews , were held with citY officials to determine the zoning of the subject and surrounding neighborhood .. , 6 AND(kSL~ ;.1Nhc -t:) j, ~ . " including any proposed changes in the general plan which might affect the use of the subject properties. The . general area was inspected for the purpose of identifying those specific neighborhood boundaries within which comparable properties would most likely be located. The intent of this inspection was also to identify physical conditions, neighborhood development trends, and other factors which affect real property value. We have examined the general economy of the region and city to determine trends in population, housing. employment. financing. and market which influence the real estate environment. The subject properties were inspected to ascertain their physical features .~~ such as improvements. topography. access. drainage. street improvements, utilities. and other ..i significant features. The primary valuation technique utilized to estimate the market value of the subject i . properties was the Sales Comparison Approach. Sales involving unimproved land were assembled from identified competitive market areas. These data were then analyzed on the basis of their overall degree 1 of comparability to the appraised properties. The data were confirmed with principals. their representatives. or agents. Sources of data included the County Recorder's office, various market data ~ services, published reports. and personal contacts. Relevant market factors were weighted and their influence on the subject was considered in the approach to value. The data generated from these ~ investigations were then analyzed for the purpose of estimating the current market value of the " , appraised properties. The final step entailed the organization and drafting of the appraisal report. .,; '! However, this appraisal report is limited by the fact that it excludes regional, city, and trends ~ descriptions. We were provided with zoning and general plan booklets for the city of Chula Vista. . We were also furnished with some costs to construct a road from 2nd Avenue to the subject parcels. I Also provided for review were two 1990 draft Environmental Impact Reports IEIR). One was for a ~ ~ proposed 79-home development on the IPG parcel and the other was for the Chula Vista Relocation , " 7 I ANDERSON It .IlAIANT. INC. /)- 1f- I rg- . Mobile Home Park on the Chula Vista parcel. A current proposal for development of a portion of the parcels as a family fun center/recreation facility was also supplied. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The estate appraised is the fee simple interest, subject to covenants. conditions. and restrictions of record. if any. 1 > , , OWNERSHIP Title to the subject properties are vested in lPG/South Bay Ltd. as to the 18.24 acre parcel. the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency as to the 14.25 acre parcel. and the Living Tnast of Mr. 4 and Mrs. Mross as to the 5.74 acre parcel. , j 1 ! , ; , i ~ l , J .. .. ] I " ii , sCJh ANDE~!O~.~~~1; INC. rt-;' r ' r. .. , !!IlL.... 'Y.Ni'....-". ..r-~ .. .-""', -\ . ~ ....\-: t ]I~~t ,"I~ ~1 ." . ~~ t"'" t '0:"[ Neighborhood Map ;. \. r :",~u::;.:: i ~b . oi.4'......l..-... ~, .,.' l:.IIl~' ..- ~ l;::~, , "'{'\~. :~"d,.e. ~,,~'c; , . .."'~ l~r.""\ . (~_~ ~~!\""~\...-'l~~~~. ,,~.' tk.... ...;.~.. 'V..~,'fY::: ~~:~ ~ ..O!! ..\~ 'i~~\\...:' ~~. .~J..:.1~~ ..... ~~~ ~ - "--\",\.--~ ... \.=.... ~oa, ~ I...., ~ .... 'li.t1..-J.:'S ~ ...... l( I rL ~~."~ ~\\ \':; . ~ ~... -:;-_<1.i. L~' ~... ""b :'lii\, ..' u.~ ! ~\ ~ '"!', ~_ ,~~. -. -. .' -1.. .. . ~; ( . '\ ~' " ~'F~t ,,' ~ .......r. \1n-..\ - ~ f"~ ..... . ~\' ~..,..~i · '\\. l'l. &, ,,:.. ._, ~: . , , '. ",".l~ .~.~ . _ 'Kr" '.,,;: ~~ ~€~. "';!lil' ~ -w,,~ · , ,~', j" ..("~~""{:, I I,~\ .! ~ OIJAA "i::Ji~ r. _: \l~--" -- "~ .., I II ,~\. I'/"~ .-- ,.A'\- ~\: '~ , ~ &...~. \. ~, J S'I. - ~ ~ \ \ ,.... t ' .. ...... I ~ ' )$' .....>- ;\ I\. j. . _ ' ..L':::"!"u Ri r 'lo. _, ~:\'. \ \'; SI7 ~ ',,"" . \~~ ..-.. -~. ~~ ... ~, .. . 0:::- \\ . . .JIi. \ ~~ '- .' ~ .J-' , .' ...-:-"{- "";-L:\" -- #. I -- ..~ \, \, ......,,'!.."'""'--\ :3,V I \' '-.( :f( I / ~ ~~ ........ ~ < . -~\~ I.. 11 . !" L,.....H~. ~, I ...~ ,''''\...0D.: ' t~ \~ ~--:..,-I':' I>' i ~ ~ .. ~ " " ~'\'rtil~';' , _.__.L_ -Q;\~ .~- - ,.~, ..~=_. ~~ ..:~~ ~~ p- 1 '_ ~ ~t, ._ ~ P\~ ~&1 ~ .;,f'l:Y~ .-..L= -. Sl..::.~ \,,;.. . . t"'" ~ ,. c;;; -...:t<P: ~ .~ ~~'~~ ~ ~ '_ ! -: .l-'C.d"l;' '..K r-11'\.J.~\] ~ . ~.~. - "'='" -~ ~ II A ..~ ~. "'1"'':''). _" tl'l" t:--': :1 t.s: CHUu;; V1S~ ~- ~~.P.i, _x _ .. _: ~ i l...... " I--\';;;;;t"..).~~~~ · '\. .... ~..n'.., -----[)-.--- ~r,-.- .~~~ ;. ' !.~=, 1~ ...,. I: .1.... ,",sr. :\ r... cC~'~"'.... r,c;;; 1=1 ." \\ '''~, .......... , 1........ - ., "- i"\"" \\ "''''. ~ .. :. ,,:~~":;; ~~ .<!!! """t.Wi '.1-.._ ~ ~:..^." . " ,,--:,\~ W~ ~.~ -}' i .~'''T .. 1 !~ ~~:r ~ ~ I .~ '. ..' 1.\ ~ ,YoLo ~... .. ~ ,-,-1 h';:~".J ~._\ ' .\. ~,~ o~.:;\~.; :.__ ;...V; . -Ii f / ~ -- 'I\\~l. ~! '- p....... 0;; ""':'l.' -?~~ I \\~ ~t?r. ~\ ~ ~~.l \ ~~~ I.J .- .. ......,,;:;,1 ' ... .' ___ . .IOL " ~ i""": ......... I...' 11\ ,c:..e., !~ ........ ........... \, '!!II .~!.t,,8 "~v' ~ 1- I ...... rt W ~~. ~-=- --- ' --,- ~.;' "::i .. L... I . \jl ! ~ ~,.. :'\i , ~J..!..":' j., ~ "ft. Ir"~ i ~\ L - ,,\.- . :~~ i. ~-;. ~~.!. \\-~~.:- ~ 1 ; -~... )./ ,~ -.-,..1 ~ ~ _1\' \, 'i' ~"r-.~ .'......:t?'... . ~ ~ ~" "I: -"'::: ".. ~-~ ! - '."\. ~ r~.::.l~~~ ~ . / -dint- j ; __.:. iit;9 ~~hJ~';"~1L~ ~:t?...~.1' .. ANDER.SO,," tI BR.ABANT.INC. -f}-'ryb Ig~ ~17 \ "J - m .. D" " .' I n il n D n ~ n o A . ] J !1 . j iJ l NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION The subject property is located in the northwest portion of the city of Chula Vista, I Specifically, the subject is located at the southwest quadrant of Interstate 805 and Highway 54; however, no direct access is provided from these routes, The properties can be accessed via a 60 foot wide unimproved road easement located at 2nd Avenue, just south of the Highway 54 underpass. Technically, the City of Chula Vista parcel and the Mross parcel are landlocked, but this will most likely be their access route. I I , With the exception of the KOA campground facility located directly adjacent to the west of the subject parcels, the surrounding uses to the south and west are predominantly single '1 family developments. There is a multi-family development across the street from the KOA entrance at 2nd Avenue and, located between the KOA facility and 2nd Avenue, there is an old structure that is used for child care and an alcohol-related drug rehabilitation facility. The surrounding homes are average or better quality and range in age from 5 to 50 years and older. Most of these homes are ; elevated about 50 to 100 feet above the subject parcels as the subject is a low-lying parcel adjacent to the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel to the north. However, some of the newest homes ~ .~ developed in the area, which are located adjacent and to the southwest, are near the grade of the appraised property. According to Duane Bazzel, a Chula Vista principal planner, the subject parcels , j are located within the floodplain, as currently depicted on flood maps; however, flood channel Improvements have improved flood conditions on the subject. The two freeways are also significantly elevated above the subject parcels. Single-family development extends south of the subject beyond E Street. Just beyond the single-family development to the west of the subject, is an industrial park and mobile home park. The Industrial park is adjacent to the freeway. Retail developments can be found on 4th Avenue, near the Highway 54 offramps. To the east of the subject and located at the southeast quadrant of Interstate 805 and Highway 54 is the Plaza Bonita regiorial shopping center anchored by JC Penny's, , ) 10 ANDERsoJ1Bt-~BAJ~ -1"/:/1/1 Montgomery Ward, and Robinsons-May. Located at the northwest Quadrant of the freeways are additional neighborhood retail projects anchored by Long's drugstore, Circuit City, and a theater. Plaza Bonita and the neighborhood centers are within the National City planning sphere. Chula Vista is an established residential, commercial, and industrial community. It benefits from its location that is convenient to major freeway routes and labor pools. The anticipated future of this city as an enjoyable place to live and work is good. }, " .. ~ ,. ,.- r~ c.. r: ~ I [ , r ~ 11 ANDEkSON . I..ABANT. INC. r; '1"/ -r -,' 0 I~-~ SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS ~:; ~fn .~~~~1~~~~;' . '~'..- '. '. --. "--l' , .. .... .~:-~-::v;;l..~.~-,<. ~:.. ...~}-:-~q~?;~r~~;? ::~.~;:~-~~~~.,' -\. ':a"-r.'o:i.I._~'" !~.....-.:._,I-...- ._~",\..,.~_...I"'# ~~ .....,.:-~~~~_.,,:t.Ifr.:;1ll... ~,-.~~..i~- .,..." ,'. :...,.~ ...,.... .....- "_" '-' :.. ."...~~r..~ -.~_?_..~.L- I~,.~J J . ..... ,_ . ,.-.J' ";',_"=-:: ___'-~_ .,..."t':~""'~~_."",:.'-"I!"'''__~;!,,~;~~1.... ----.:.._~.-.. - :''t.o''';.#-._.~~..........,...'f;l:o.r',=,"l(''::'.~<_ _.". '~:~~~~~:~~:i'~~~~'~~~;:~~74'~~~~~~_,"- ~ ; ~:'.: _::~;-~~~ ~~~~'_~""')~ ._-::.-~~.,,:,,~~~~.~~\~~.- ::::1-: i:..--;.~;:..;;::-:~-.-~-;..,-..."t" -'- '_~'~---.'~"';" ----':." .j, .....;'"~"r'-;.~c-.:.r-.........::.. _H, __..... ~~~"'9_-'''''~.I.,,"r.-,:,:_::-..~~......,~;'\... _~_;:.-:-:-~ - :. _ ";_"_ _.. . . ......~~~;""...do.\--t-.....Jo~~ ..-}l---"...... .-~. '......... .-".." -.s..-.-....'!)~':--- :.:.~~~.;-:;<t:... .~~::>-~~._- ~)t._~~~---:"?:. --.; ~;...,.;o.:::~.:;-~~~....~._"..:--~.- -._......~~ V~:~~'-;;i""\:~.:;. ..~:-..,;. '.)o...~...~.:.~~tt.t~~;.<)~~ .....~~~~..;.~.::~. ~... .._~_..+"""'.....-~ .-:"-'~..... .:~'I.i - -'. \".~=-f'~r~,....---_~~:-::~ _.~~-:";~;.M;~"'a::.:~..~~,::....., :!..'O)t;I... This photograph was taken from a point to the north of the subject, The view is to the southwest with the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel in the foreground. the adjacent KOA facility can be seen on the right. and there are homes located at the southerly boundary of the subject, This photograph was taken from the same point as the previous photograph, but the view is to the southeast. The flood channel is in the foreground. Interstate 805 can be seen on the left. and homes are located at the southerly boundary of the subject. ~ , 12 ANDER.SON II BR.ABANT. INC. ~q 12~ ~ SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS .;" . .:..;i,,':,;.~",-, This photograph was taken at a point on the IPG parcel near the adjacent low-lying homes located on Las Flores Drive. The view is to the east across the subject parcels. - ... This photograph was taken from the same point as the previous photograph, but the view is to the north across the IPG parcel. The KOA facility can be seen on the left and the freeways are in the background. , 13 ANOER.SON " BRABANT. INC /0 ,I 1l-:!tJ /9; - ~ l .. , . .. ~ C I U D D n o o ~ n I J o IPG u U : I ~ . . . .. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ____ raROSS ] SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LAND DESCRIPTION ~ Size end Shaoe The IPG parcel consists of 18.24 gross acres and is irregular in shape; the Chula Vista parcel consists of 14.25 gross acres and is nearly rectangular in shape; and the Mross parcel consists of 5.74 gross acres and is nearly triangular in shape. The property boundaries are outlined on the map on the facing page. Toooaraohv/Drainaae The topography of the subject properties is mostly level but does includes some ascending steep slopes. They are located in a low-lying area adjacent to the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel to the north. This low-lying area which includes the adjacent KOA property (not a part of the subject property) is surrounded by ascending slopes to the south and west. Nearly all of the IPG property is level with the exceptions of a small portion (approximately 0.50 acres) of the panhandle . i ; that ascends steeply to 2nd A venue and a small hill located at the southwest comer. Almost all of the Chula Vista parcel is level with the exception of a small steep ascending portion located at the southeast comer. Most of the Mross parcel is level, but about 1.5 acres of the southerly portion ;: ascends steeply. , Drainage is toward the Sweetwater River flood channel to the north. The channel right- of-way is approximately 400 feet wide and includes concrete sides and a natural bottom. There are also paths on both sides of the channel. '; , 15 /1\ '.1,. ANDER-SON i akAtANT. INC. . ~ rb-~ J Flood Hazard According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 065021 0001 D, i dated April 5, 1988, the subject parcels are located in Zone A. Zone A includes area of 100-year flood. According to Duane Bazzel the subject parcels are located within the floodplain, but because of flood channel improvements potential flood hazards have been reduced. However, both 1990 draft EIR's state that the parcels are located outside of the floodplain. Flood maps have not been updated since the completion of the adjacent channel improvements. In discussions with the Army Corp of Engineers, we learned that the channel was constructed to contain a 20D-year to 500-year flood. The 10D-year flood level within the adjacent channel improvement is approximately 18.5 feet above sea level (ASL). The depth of the channel is approximately 20 feet, with the bottom at 6 feet ASL and the top at 26 feet ASL. According to a topographical map, the subject property's low-lying areas are at elevations of 22 to 27 feet ASL. Any water flow across the subject property from the surrounding hills will feed into the channel via flap gates which are located at an elevation of approximately 11 to 12 feet ASL. In times of water flow , in the channel at or above the level of the flap gates, the flap gates will restrict flow from the subject to the channel when the pressure of the water passing the flap gates is greater than the pressure of the water flowing from the subject property. Based on this information, it may be necessary to utilize a pumping system to move the water off the subject or to develop an on or offsite holding pond. A detailed local drainage study will need to be completed prior to any development to determine proper mitigating improvements, if any. Seismic Hazard The subject is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the property is located in an area prone to seismic events, a condition that it shares with other properties located in the general Southern California area. , 16 loll Ig'~ ANDERSON & iRA8ANT. INC. Toxic Hazard An inspection of the subject properties revealed that there is a dumpster operation I located on the IPG parcel and some old vehicles. Reportedly, IPG leases the area to Tony &. Son Dumpster Service for a nominal fee. We recommend that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment be conducted to determine if any hazardous materials are present onsite. i2i!l No soils report was provided to the appraisers for the subject project. However, we were informed by Duane Bazzel that there is some liquefaction potential associated with the parcels. Both 1990 draft EIR's confirm that there are liquefaction issues to be considered upon development of the property. Without further studies providing information to the contrary, we have made the assumption that there are no soil conditions present which would preclude development of the property to its ultimate highest and best use, nor conditions which would produce extraordinary development costs. . . .~ The draft EIR's indicate that there are some wetlands located on the parcels. The IPG parcel is affected by less than 0.50 acres of wetlands and the Chula Vista site is affected by approximately 1.25 acres of wetlands. Utilities All public utilities to include water. sewer, gas, and electricity ere available to the subject parcels as the surrounding ereas are developed. Sewer currently extends in a north-south direction through the Chula Vista parcel near the IPG boundary. , 17 ANDERSON & BRABANT. INC /()r:; IJ-:fY I ~ - E% 1 , Street Imorovements/Access/Exoosure The properties can be accessed via a 60 foot wide unimproved road easement located , at 2nd Avenue, just south of the Highway 54 underpass and at the entrance to the KOA facility. Technically. the City of Chula Vista parcel and the Mross parcel are landlocked, but this will most likely be their access route. As previously stated, the parcels are bounded by Interstate 805 to the east and Highway 54 to the north. These routes are elevated above the parcels and do not provide access, but the parcels do have some exposure to passing traffic. The panhandle portion of the IPG parcel does extend to 2nd Avenue, but the area Includes very steep topography and is about 60 feet wide. The IPG parcel is adjacent to the cul-de-sac opening at Las Flores Drive, but no legal access exists. Easements/Encumbrances A title report has not been provided. We have assumed that there are no unknown . . 1 easements/encumbrimces which might impair future development potential of the subject properties. Land Use The approximate northerly half of the subject parcels is currently unzoned, while the approximate southerly half is zoned R1 - single family residential. The panhandle portion of the IPG parcel is zoned Agricultural. The General Plan indicates that the parcels are designated Open Space, but they are within a designated Special Study area. Special Study areas are subject to additional future planning and studies to identify plan amendments necessary to best accomplish the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Duane Bazzel has provided us with a number of land use options for the subject property. The various options include open space, park land, a veteran's home, a demineralization , 18 ANDI~SON & rt,.~A!Qf tJ ~ . r- I - l plant, a senior care facility, a family recreation/fun center, residential, and public/quasi-public uses. All of these uses, except open space, would require a General Plan amendment and a zoning " i\; l! designation. Further, the parcels are in raw phYSical condition and would require the development of Infrastructure to include roadway access and utilities to the sites. ASSESSMENT DATA ASSESSED VALUES .IMPROVEMEIlTS IPG 563-330-48 5742 845 so 5742 845 57 505.78 IPG 563-330-49 51 475 079 so 51 475 079 514 904.34 CHULA VISTA 563-350-13 NIA NIA NIA NIA CHULA VISTA 566-131-01 NIA NIA NIA NIA MIlOSS 563-350-12 519 849 50 519 849 5200.54 MOSS 566-132-55 521,182 so 521,182 5214.02 , ~ The subject's tax rate areas are 1000 and 1136 and tax rate is 1.01041 percent. The Chula Vista parcels are not assessed as they are owned publicly. SALES HISTORY .' ~ There have been no transfers of the subject properties in the three years prior to the date of this appraisal. According to public records, the IPG parcel was purchased in December 1989 for $2.090,000. Reportedly, the City of Chula Vista parcel was purchased from the County about five years ago for .165,000. , 19 ANDERSON & aR.A8ANT. INC. fr- Fb I~- 10'f1 l , ! VALUATION HIGHEST AND BEST USE J!i. i Highest and Best Use is an important concept in real estate valuation as it represents the premise upon which value is based. As used in this report, Highest and Best Use is defined on page 275 of the tenth edition (19921 of the Aooraisal of Real Estate as follows: "The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported. financially feasible, and that results in the highest value." The principle of highest and best use incorporates the concepts of most probable use and most profitable use. It must be a use that is legally and physically possible as well as one that is financially feasible and maximally productive. j As previously stated, the Chula Vista and Mross parcels are currently landlocked. This 1 situation could be remedied through acquisition of access rights across the existing 60 foot wide easement for the IPG property at 2nd Avenue. Topographically, the subject property and the adjacent I i KOA facility are somewhat separated from the surrounding neighborhood as they are located in a low- lying area bounded by freeways and the flood channel, to the north and east, and steep ascending slopes to the south and west. The parcels are in raw phvsical condition and would require the development of infrastructure to include roadway access and utilities to the. sites and necessary ;: ,> drainage facilities. As indicated, portions of the subject parcels are zoned R1 and portions are unzoned. The panhandle portion of the IPG parcel is zoned Agricultural. The General Plan indicates that the parcels are designated Open Space. but they are within a designated Special Study area. Special Study araas are subject to additional future planning to identify plan amendments necessary to best accomplish the goals and objectives of the General Plan. The R 1 designation allows single-family residential developments with minimum Ionizes of 5.000 to 15.000 square feet. It also permits mobile home and daycare developments. Conditional , 20 /1-/D$ ANDEIlSON & BRABANT. INC Q -If./ uses include recreational centers, golf courses, RV storage, public and quasi-public uses, schools, campgrounds, churches, hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, and nursing homes. Vari!)Us uses have been proposed for the subject parcels in the past and reportedly these include a single-family subdivision, a relocation mobile home park. a veterans home, a senior care facility. a demineralization facility, open space. a park, and a family fun center/recreation facility. None of these uses have been approved due in part to the lack of General Plan and zoning designations. On the other hand, these uses are reasonable given surrounding development and the physical characteristics of the subject properties. I ) Due to the nature of the subject parcels within a special study zone and with large unzoned portions, we surveyed the surrounding neighborhood for additional compatible uses and other pertinent information. With the exception of the KOA facility and the daycare/drug rehab facility, the subject is bounded by residential developments to the south and west. Just beyond the single-family J development to the west of the subject, is an industrial park and mobile home park. The industrial park is adjacent to the freeway. Retail developments can be found on 4th Avenue, near the Highway 54 .. offramps. Freeways are to the north and east and the Sweetwater River Rood Control Channel is i' L_ adjacent to the north. Access is limited as there is not a freeway offramp at this point and 2nd ! i ~ . Avenue is only a 2-lane collector street. The closest freeway offramp is about one-half mile to the west at 4th Avenue and Highway 54. The site can be seen from the adjacent freeways. There are !' .. large retail developments at the northwest and southeast quadrants of the freeways, but they have superior access. [ Based on the surrounding uses and those which have been proposed, there appears to . wide range of possible uses from recreational to residential to public. Commercial or Industrial uses L I would likely be the least compatible with the neighborhood and are very speculative due to access. Some form or combination of residential or recreational uses would likely be the most compatible with the neighborhood as the KOA facility is adjacent to the west and there are many homes surrounding. l' ; '"' All of these uses must deal with the political influence of surrounding propertY owners as well as the , 21 c. ANDER.SON . IkAIANT. INC. -11. st !>f- /O~ 1 discretionary approval process mandated by the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. These developments may impact other neighborhood factors such as circulation routes, traffic, and schools. i Additignally, development of the sites would include confronting the Issues of access, slopes, wetlands, liquefaction, drainage, and noise. The conclusion to be drawn from this discussion is that there Is a wide range of possibilities for these parcels, but all are speculative. The more intense commercial uses would appear to be more speculative than the less intense residential or recreational possibilities due to the adjacent developments. It is our opinion that a prospective purchaser would view these parcels as speculative property. The timing and ultimate development is uncertain as these properties will require a careful planning process and the coordination and energy to acquire entitlements. There appears to be a wide rarlge of hurdles to overcome prior to development. Further, it is our opinion that the planning and ultimate development of the property would include combining the sites into a development plan which could include any or a combination of the uses previously discussed. Therefore, the highest and best use of the property is assemblage for sale to a I speculator who would procure entitlements for a compatible use that Is consistent with both the physical setting of the land and its legal constraints. This would allow infrastructure cost economies and result in the highest present land value. METHODOLOGY The following sections in this report include descriptions and analyses of the data and reasoning used in the valuation process. Only the Sales Comparison Approach was applied in the valuation of the subject land. This approach to value relies on thil concept that a prudent purchaser would pay no more to buy a property than it would cost to acquire a comparable substitute. Sales of aimilar properties are compared directly to the subject to arrive at an indicated value. , 22 I '6 - I/O. A.NDERSON & 1It..A.8ANT. INC. 411 .. ~ i iI I D D I D , n - J n il R d J , ,..1 Li - , - '" E. ,; , ___.. h-". __.... ___ --: _.~ ..._----, '. J ~"'. .' ~~~( Comparable Land Sales ,\'rl;,.h~ 1 .. z . " "- -- ...--.. , , l . , SALES COMPARISON APPROACH In estimating the value of the subject parcels, a search was conducted for recent sales of properties with "highest and best use similar to that of the subject property. Sales considered included properties which did not have immediate development potential and for which the ultimate use, development timing, and value was considered speculative. Due to the unique characteristics of the subject property and the lack of investors in this market for speculative land, there was a limited supply of comparable land sales. However, it was possible to locate sales which were useful in the valuation of the subject land. Following is a summary of the land comparables considered in this report. The map facing the summary shows the location of the comparable properties in relation to the subject property. Data sheets on each land comparable can be found in the Addenda of this report. ... Comoarable Data Summary ~P. SALE CASH EOUIV. LANIl SIZE NO. LOCATlllII/APN DATE SALE PRICE USE INTENDED USE (ACRES) SISF .------------------ ..----......--.. ....-............--- ..--........- 1 EIO E. BETER BLVD. D7/9Z . S933,000 115000 HOLD FOR 23.05 SO.93 SAN TSIDRO COIlM . FUTURE DEV. 666-13D-04 thru D9 2 NIS OCEANSIDE BLVD D3/93 " ,000,000 PDl HOLD FOR 39.50 SO.5B a VIA RANCHO,OCNSDE FUTURE DEV. 162-082-13,14 3 MATHAR DR, SIO 09/93 Sl,DOO,DOO OS,RP, HOLD FOR 95.82 SO.24 KGVY 7B, CARLSBAD CT FUTURE DEV. 167-040'24,3D ~~ 4 SIIQ LA COSTA AVE & 12/92 S3,200,000 RIl,OS HOLD FOR 136.46 SO.54 EL CAMINO REAL,EKC. FUTURE DEV. 216'11D-21 216'122-1B,19,25,26 n 5 EIS BUS. PI.DR. EIO LISTING 12,100,000 RLI 39.63 Sl.22 .. SCOTT ST., VISTA 219-011-05,06,07,08 I . ACTUAL SALE PRICE IS S923,DOD. '1' .., , 24 I ..., ANDER-SON It IkAIANT.INC. , r {J. :17 19 --f&S , We are to provide estimates of value for each of the three separate parcels. In the Highest and Best Use section of this report we concluded that the three parcels should be incorporated into one development plan. We have valued the three parcels as one larger parcel and considered that the same unit value for each individual parcel applies. Effectively, we have valued the property as a total 38.23 acre parcel and allocated the unit value to each separate parcel. All of the data included in the summary are considered to be speculative properties and comparable to the subject in this regard. The following is a brief discussion and analysis of the comparables. Comparable No. 1 is a 23.05 gross acre site located east of East Beyer Boulevard in the community of San Ysidro. It sold in July 1992 for $923,000. However, the transaction's financing included a two year, $85,000 note at 17 percent interest only payments. We applied an upward adjustment of $10,000 to account for the above market financing terms to indicate a sale price '" of approximately $0.93 per square foot. The site is zoned for residential and commercial use and the r i I. topography is rolling. The site was landlocked at time of purchase, but the buyer was confident that an access easement to East Beyer Boulevard could be obtained and access was secured after the close L of escrow at no additional cost. It was also indicated that this property is influenced by a land slide . 1 area, but it was not a major concern as the area has not experienced any land slides in sometime. The buyer's intent is to hold for future speculative development. The purchase was based on pure L [ speculation, but according to the buyer's agent. potential speculative uses for the sale property range from residential, to a theme park development. to land for extension of the" trolley, to speculation on potential uses derived from the NAFTA issue. This comparable is considered to be most similar to the subject due to its wide range of speculative development possibilities and was also landlocked. L I However, it has rolling topography and is located in an inferior neighborhood with less surrounding development and exposure. Overall, this sale is considered to be similar to slightly inferior to the subject and indicates a unit value of slightly greater than $0.93 per square foot for the appraised r L property . , 25 ANOlkSON . akA.ANT. INC. -)((~ 1~ / )' . Comparable No.2 is a 64.94 acre site with 39.50 acres of net usable land. It is located on the north side of Oceanside Boulevard at Via Rancho, Oceanside. It sold in March 1993 for approximately $0.58 per net square foot. This site is part of a master-planned development where the city has designated the land for industrial purposes. The buyer owns approximately 323 acres of physically undeveloped land adjacent to this site and this sale property is located between Oceanside Boulevard and the 323 acres. Although the land was purchased for assemblage, the buyer indicated that the price paid was reflective of market. During the escrow period, the buyer prepared a map for future development of this sale property. The property is in a physically raw condition and the , , topography is rolling and elevated above Oceanside Boulevard. This sale was considered to be less speculative than the subject because the buyer prepared a map during escrow for future industrial development of the property. However, the potential ultimate use as industrial is considered to be very J risky in this highly oversupplied industrial-lot market. Overall, this property is considered to be inferior and would indicate a unit value of greater than $0.58 per square foot for the subject. '! Comparable No.3 is a 95.82 gross acre site located south of Highway 78 at Haymar Drive, Carlsbad. It sold in September 1993 for approximately $0.24 per square foot. The buyer owns the adjacent property, but this sale property was not purchased for assemblage. This sale property was purchased from the RTC via a sealed bid process. The list price at that time was $2,400,000 and the marketing time was approximately four months. The accepted price of $1,000,000 was the highest bid and there were reportedly several other offers included in the bid process. According to brokers involved in the sale, it reflected a market price. Prior to this sale, the property was in escrow for $2,250,000. Due to the buyer's inability to secura financing, the property fell out of escrow. The property consists of approximately 59.19 acres zoned as Open Space, 20.68 acres zoned as ., Residential/Professional, and 15.95 acres zoned as CommercialfTourist. The property is in a physically I raw condition and, in general, the open space portion of the property is below grade and closest to ... Highway 78 with Buena Creek extending through this area. The remaining portion of the property has ... , 26 IIlJ ANDERSON a IlASANT. INC. J) _.9s rg- to 7 . sloping to rolling topography and is elevated above Highway 78. The buyers intent is to hold for future speculative development. This parcel is similar to the subject due to its freeway exposure and the potential for a variety of uses. However, even though the potential uses, exclusive of the wetlands, appear to be more intense than what may be realized on the subject, there are nearly 60 acres, or 62 . percent of the 95.82 acre site, of potential wetlands. It is also inferior due to the topography of the developable portion. Overall, this comparable is considered inferior to the subject. Comparable No.4 is a 136.46 gross acre site located near the southwest quadrant of La Costa Avenue and EI Camino Real in the city of Encinitas la 3.64 acre portion of the property is located in Carlsbad). The property sold in December 1992 for approximately $0.54 per square foot. The seller was Community Bank and they acquired the property via foreclosure proceedings. It was not offered on the open market and the price was based upon an appraisal. The property consists of approximately 50 acres of wetlands. The land use designation is residential, except for the 3.64 acre parcel located in Carlsbad which is designated Open Space. The property is in a physically raw condition and the topography varies from generally level wetland areas to rolling to steep. The prior owner, who was foreclosed upon, had plans for a 22 home residential subdivision. The buyer's intent is to hold for future development. This comparable's developable portion is most likely limited to residential use due to surrounding residential development. However, it has the potential for upper end product due to the ocean and lagoon views. It is considered as a less speculative investment due to surrounding residential development. However, it is inferior due to its high ratio of potential wetland acreage Inearly 37%1 to total acreage. Overall, this property is considered to be inferior and would indicate a unit value of greater than $0.54 per square foot for the subject. Comparable No.5 is a current listing of a 39.63 gross acre site located on the east side . of Business Park Drive and east of Scott Street, in Vista's industrial neighborhood. It has been listed I since mid 1993 at approximately $1.22 per square foot. It has an approved map for a 12 lot industrial ~ development and has a special use permit for a golf driving range. The property is in a physically raw . , 27 I I < ANDIIlSON .. IIlABANT. INC. A-.ff I~- lug condition and the topography is rolling. This comparable is superior to the subject because it has land use approvals in place. In addition, the $1.22 per square foot is only the list price and properties typically sell for less than the list price. This comparable was considered due to its recreation use potential as evidences by the golf driving range use permit. These data indicate a value range of approximately $0.25 to $1.25 per square foot for the subject prior to adjustments. The upper end of the range is represented by a listing (Comparable No.5) and the most similar sale is Comparable No.1. The remaining sales were all considered inferior. Based on these data, we have concluded that $1.00 per square foot would be a reasonable indicator for the subject. When this unit value is applied to the subject's three parcels, it results in the following indications of value. IPG Parcel @l 794,534 SF 118.24 ACI X $1.00/SF = $794,534 Rounded ....................................... $795.000 , Chula Vista Parcel @l620.730 SF 114.25 ACI X $1.oo/SF = $620.730 Rounded ....................................... $620.000 Mross Parcel @l250.034 SF 15.74 ACt X $1.00/SF = $250.034 Rounded .............................."......... $250.000 . I , 28 ANDE"~.N ~NT. INC. -F/::Y...J / ~- I /1. J 6 '1 I ~ I ADDENDA , ] :;: , I , 1 , I , ANDER-SON II BRABANT. INC. 117 -fJ -/lp /7> - tteJ LOCATION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: SIZE: TOPOGRAPHY: IMPROVEMENTS: UTILITIES: LAND USE: STREET IMPROVEMENTS: PRICE: .J. TERMS: TRANSACTION: SELLER: BUYER: ~. r' SOURCE: - COMMENTS: r- '- C I r , .. , " ... :; MARKET DATA Comparable Land No.1 East of East Beyer Boulevard, San Diego ISan Vsidro) 666-130-C4 thru 09 23.05 gross acres Generally rolling None All are nearby Residential and Commercial East Beyer Boulevard is an asphalt paved thoroughfare $923,000 ($40,043/net acre) $317,015 down. $85,000 1st assumed private, 17% interest only, due in 2 years. $125,000 1st assumed private, 10% interest only, due in 2 years. $395,985 2nd seller note, 10% interest only, due in 5 years. Grant Deed Recorded: Doc. No.: 7/92 422683 Brannan Ivonne De La Torre, and others Joe Gonzalez - buyer and seller's agent (476-1666) The site is zoned for residential and commercial and the topography is rolling. The site was landlocked at time of purchase but the buyer was confident that an access easement to East Beyer Boulevard could be obtained and access was secured after the close of escrow at no additional cost. It was also indicated that this property is influenced by a land slide area, but it was not a major concern as the area has not experienced any land slides in sometime. The buyer's intent is to hold for future speculative development. The purchase was based on speculation, but according to the buyer's agent, potential speculative uses for this sale property range from residential, to a theme park development, to land for extension of the trolley, to speculation on potential uses derived from the NAFTA issue. ANDEkSON a .l.A.ANT. INC. -I) -f~ I Z - 1/13, lOCATION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: SIZE: TOPOGRAPHY: IMPROVEMENTS: UTILITIES: LAND USE: STREET IMPROVEMENTS: PRICE: J TERMS: TRANSACTION: " SEllER: BUYER: I. SOURCE: r.~ COMMENTS: i. r" ~ .. I " , MARKET DATA Comparable land No.2 North side of Oceanside Boulevard at Via Rancho, Oceanside 162-082-13,14 64.94 gross acres, 39.50 net acres Generally rolling None All are nearby Light Indu~trial Oceanside Boulevard is an asphalt paved thoroughfare $1,000,000 ($25,316/net acre) All cash Grant Deed Recorded: Doc. No.: 3/93 165267 Hughes-Studebaker Properties . Ivey Ranch, Inc. Dennis Faherty - buyer and seller's agent (438-8500) This site is part of a master-planned development where the city has designated the land for industrial purposes. The buyer owns approximately 323 acres of physically undeveloped land adjacent to this aite and this sale property is located between Oceanside Boulevard and the 323 acres. Although the land was purchased for assemblage, the buyer indicated that the price paid was reflective of market. During the escrow period, the buyer prepared a map for future development of this sale property. The property is in a physically raw condition and the topography is rolling and elevated above Oceanside Boulevard. ANDU.SON . '''''SANT.INC. -,'~ .:fP 1'6 - /1-'1 LOCATION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: SIZE: TOPOGRAPHY: IMPROVEMENTS: UTILITIES: I: [ L LAND USE: STREET IMPROVEMENTS: PRICE: TERMS: I l. TRANSACTION: L SELLER: BUYER: l. SOURCE: r COMMENTS: .. r L ,. b ~ .. , MARKET DATA Comparable Land No.3 Haymar Drive, south of Highway 78, Carlsbad 167-040-24,30 95.82 gross acres Generally sloping to rolling None All are nearby Open Space, Residential/Professional, Commercialrrourist Haymar Drive is asphalt paved $1,000,000 ($10,436/acre) All cash Grant Deed Recorded: Doc. No.: 9/93 595175 RTC Joe Sherman Richard Chick - buyer's agent (434-7450); Larry Cortez - selling agent (714/261-6666) The buyer owns the adjacent property, but this sale property was not purchased for assemblage. This sale was purchased from the RTC via a sealed bid process. The list price at that time was $2,400,000 and the marketing time was approximately four months. The accepted price of $1,000,000 was the highest bid and there were reportedly several other offers included in the bid process. According to brokers involved in the sale, it reflected a market price. Prior to the sealed bid process. the property was in escrow for approximately $2,000,000. Due to the buyer's inability to secure financing, the property fell out of escrow and he lost his deposit. The property consists of approximately 59.19 acres zoned as Open Space. 20.68 acres zoned as Residential/Professional, and 15.95 acres zoned as Commercialrrourist. The property is in a physically raw condition and, in general, the open space portion of the property is below grade and closest to Highway 78 with Buena Creek extending through it. The remaining portion of the property has sloping to rolling topography and is elevated above Highway 78. The buyers intent is to hold for future speculative development. J<g-/!B ANOllkSON . '''A.ANT. INC. . -fllTi7 LOCATION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: SIZE: TOPOGRAPHY: IMPROVEMENTS: UTILITIES: LAND USE: STREET IMPROVEMENTS: PRICE: , TERMS: ~ TRANSACTION: SELLER: BUYER: SOURCE: , COMMENTS: . I T .., , MARKET DATA Comparable Land No.4 Southwest quadrant of La Costa Avenue and EI Camino Real, Encinitas 216-110-21; 216-122-18,19,25,26 136.46 gross acres Generally rolling to steep None All are nearby Residential and Open Space La Costa Avenue is an asphalt paved thoroughfare $3,200,000 ($23,450/acre) All cash Grant Deed Recorded: Doc. No.: 12/92 845365 Community Bank Larchmont Insurance Co., Ltd. Laura Cloud - seller 1818/577-1700) A 3.64 acre portion of the property is located in Carlsbad. The seller was Community Bank and they acquired the property via foreclosure proceedings. This property was purchased from Community Bank as an REO property. It was not offered on the open market and the price was based upon an appraisal. The property consists of approximately 50 acres of wetlands. The land use designation is residential, except for the 3.64 acre parcel located in Carlsbad which is designated Open Space. The property is in a physically raw condition and the topography varies from generally level wetland areas to rolling to steep. The prior owner, who was foreclosed upon, had plans for a 22 home residential subdivision. The buyer's intent is to hold for future development. ANDEkSO. N), 'kA'ANT. INC. ~ -=H:-T!J~ /8' ~ T I 7 lOCATION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: SIZE: TOPOGRAPHY: IMPROVEMENTS: UTILITIES: LAND USE: STREET IMPROVEMENTS: PRICE: .~ TERMS: TRANSACTION: SEllER: BUYER: SOURCE: COMMENTS: .. I , ... MARKET DATA Comparable land No. 5 East side of Business Park Drive, east of Scott Street, Vista 219-011-05,06,07,08 39.63 gross acres Generally rolling None All are nearby Industrial Business Park Drive is an asphalt paved thoroughfare LISTED AT $2,100,000 1$52.990/acrel N/A Grant Deed Recorded: Doc. No.: N/A N/A Liberty National Bank N/A Robert Gunness - listing agent (438-8524) This site has been listed since mid 1993 at approximately $52.990 per acre. It has an approved map for a 12 lot industrial development and has a special use permit for a golf driving range. The property is in a physically raw condition and the topography is rolling. 11.. L 17 - ff5 ANDU,SON . I"A'ANT. INC. -II;.. , IJ I .. . , QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER David John Nauss I. Resident of San Diego County since 1983 II. ... '" I' , i ~, L [ L I " I.- Educational Backaround: A. Graduated In 1986 from San Diego State Unlvelsily with a Bachelor 01 Science degree In Business Administration with an emphasis In Financial Services. B. Professional Education Completed: 1. Appraisallnstitute e. Report Writing & Valuation Analysis 2-2 b. Case Studies In Real Estate Valuation 2-1 c. Capitalization Theory & Techniques lB-B d. Capitalization Theory & Techniques 1 B-A e. Real Estate Appraisal Principles 1A-1 f. Basic Valuation Procedures 1A-2 g. Standards of Professional Practice 2. Mira Costa Community College: a. Advanced Real Estate Appraisal b. Real Estate Appraisal 3. San Diego State University: a. Real Estate Essentials b. Fundamentals of Finance c. Financial Institutions Management d. Business Law e. Principles of Micro Economics f. Principles of Macro Economics College Honors: De Anza College, Dean's Ust III. Professional Affiliations: A. Cartlfled General Real Estate Appraiser (AGOO2747) 0fIIce 01 Real Estate Appraisers. State of California B. Admitted to MAl Candidacy In the Appraisal Institute C. Oass IV Appraiser - California Savings & Loan Commlsslon D. Delta Sigma PI Alumni - Professional Business Fraternity (SDSU) IV. ADoralsal Exoerlence: Staff Appraiser, Anderson & Brabant, Inc. - Since June 1990 Independent Appraiser and Consultant, The Lawrence Group - May 1986 to June 1990 Analyzed Real Estate Umited Partnerships as a Student Intem, ~. Duva, Pendell, Warschauer & Co. - January 1986 to May 1986 ANDEUON a tkAaANT. INC. 2 _/i-J v i- I~- -rro ., . Qualifications of the Appraiser David John Nauss Page 2 IV Aooraisal Exoerienee: Staff Appraiser, Anderson & Brabant, Inc., since June 1990 Independent Appraiser & Consultant, The Lawrence Group - May 1986 to June 1990 Analyzed Real Estate Umited Partnerships as a Student Intem - Kelly, Duva, Pendell, Warschauer & Co. - January 1986 to May 1986 V Exoert Witness: Assessor's Appeal Board, San Diego County VI Tvoes of Aooraisals: ;l Commercial: Office buildings, shopping centers, medical offices, mlxed-use projects, existing and proposed existing and proposed Subdivisions, single family, apartments, condominiums, existing and proposed Commercial, industrial, residential, and rural Leaseholds, fractional interests, easements, right-of-way, partial acquisitions Industrial: Residential: Vacant Land: Other. T. .. I , /'7. 1.t I~~~ ^NDE.A.$ON . 'IUIANT. INe. .. . QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER Gilbert F. Kunkel. MAl I. Resident of S~n Diego County since 1946 . II. Educational Backaround: A. Graduated frorn the Unillersity of CalKornia at Riverside with a degree In Economics In 1968 B. Professional'Education Completed: 1. Appraisal Institute a. Single FamDy APPraisal - Course VIII, 1974 b. Investment Analysis - Course VI. 1975 c. Case Studies In Real Estate Valuation - Course 2-2. 1983 d. Valuation and Report Writing, 1984 e. Standards of Professional Practice, 1985 f. Standards of Professional Practice, Part B. 1993 2. Society of Real Estate Appraisers: a. Real Estate Appraisal - Course 101. 1974 b. Real Estate Appraisal - Course 201.1974 3. Seminars (Partial Ust): Valuation of Lease Interests - Part I. 2/89 Investment Analysis, 2/89 Subdivision Analysis, 2/89 Lotus 1-2-3 Templates, 9/89 Apartment Seminar. 4/90 Standards of Professional Practice Update 6/90 litigation Seminar, 12/90 Appraisal Regulation, 5/91 Condemnation Valuation, 11/92 Discounted Cash Aow Analysis. 3/93 Apartment Appraisal, 9/93 Subdivision Analysis. 9/93 Real Estate Forecast. 9/93 Accrued Depreciation, 11/93 III. Professional Affiliations: A. Member. Appraisal Institute. MAl B. State of California Community College. Umited ServIce Credential C. Certllled General Real Estate APPraiser (AGOO2101) OIfIce 01 Real Estate APPraisers. State 01 California I:~ .. IV. I V. . Teachlna Exoerlence: Palomar College, San Marcos. California - "Real Estate AppraJsar Aooralsal Exoerlence: Owner - Anderson & Brabant, Inc.. Since 1990 Associate - Anderson & Brabant, Inc., 1979 - 1990 VIce President and Appraisal Manager - Ananclal Appraisals, Inc., 19n - 1979 Staff Appraiser - Ananclal Appraisals, Inc.. 1972 - 19n AssiStant Right-of-way Agent, California Division of Highways, 1968 - 1971 ANDIUON . UABANT. INC. I" <('" -IJ /i' }/ /~-fW " . I. L. i r ; ,-, r" I .... r' j". . ~ Qualifications of the Appraiser Gilbert F. Kunkel, MAl Page Two VI EXDert Witness: Superior Court. San Diego County Bankruptcy Court of U.S. District Court, Southern District VII TVDes of ADDraisals: Residential: Single famOy, residential subdMslon, condominiums, apartments, mobOe home parks. existing and proposed properties OffIce buildings, shopping centers, medical offICes, existing & proposed existing and proposed Industrial, commercial, residential, & rural Avocado and citrus groves Leaseholds, fractional Interests, easements, partial acquisitions Commercial: Industrial: Vacant Land: Agricultural: Other: VIII Partial list of ADDraisal Clients: Government Aoencies & Municioalities City of Carlsbad City of Escondido City of Oceanside City of Vista Escondldo Elementary School District Escondldo Union High School District North County Transit District Ollvenhaln MunIcipal Water District Poway Unified School Districts Rincon Del Diablo Mun. Water District United States Postal Service Valley Center Municipal Water Distrlct Banks /Savinos & loans Bank of America Bank of San Diego Bank of the West California Commerce Bank Citicorp City NatlonaJ Bank Continental Bank F"trst Interstate Bank Great Western Savings & loan Grossmont Bank Independence Bank Palomar Savings & loan San Diego Trust & Savings Bank Union Bank Wells Fargo Bank Law Arms David Boss Carlyle & McDonough Daley & Heft Frandzel & Share Undley, Lazar & Scales Pillsbury, Madison Singer & Crawford White & Bright Others Argonaut Realty (General Motors) ChIcago TItle Carltas Company FIrst AmerIcan TIlle Insurance Company F1uidrnaster Corporallon Fraser engineering Pactel Cellular SI. Paul Title Insurance Company , 1'1-b .1%--++1 - . THIS PAGE BLANK 1'1.-7 /g-~ -j;- /V f , APPENDIX H LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Prepared by the City of Chula Vista Engineering DIvision July 14, 1994 , <11~/-P4 l g - /.:<. 'l TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS EXISTING CONDmON PROPOSED PROJECf A. Alternative 1 . Trip Generation . Trip Distribution . Project Impact and Mitigation B. Alternative 2 . Trip Generation . Trip Distribution . Project Impact and Mitigation C. Alternative 3 . Trip Generation . Trip Distribution . Project Impact and Mitigation D. Alternative 4 . Trip Generation . Trip Distribution . Project Impact and Mitigation E. Alternative 5 . Trip Generation . Trip Distribution . Project Impact and Mitigation CONCLUSION , Ij i~J~~4f EXISTING CONDITION The proposed project is located east of North Second Avenue south of SR-54 in the City of Chula Vista. The project area is also known as the Lower Sweetwater Parcel. The only access to the proposed project is from North Second Avenue via the KOA campground access road. Streets State Route 54 is a regional facility connecting 1-5. to 1-805 and points east SR-54 was recently completed as a freeway between 1-5 and 1-805 with three lanes westbound and four lanes eastbound. SR-54 provides access at North Fourth Avenue/Highland Avenue at a full interchange. At National City Boulevard, limited access is provided via ramps to and from the east. North Second Avenue is a two (2) lane, Class II collector street connecting 30th Street in National City and Second Avenue. South of "C' Street, North Second Avenue becomes Second Avenue. The pavement width along North Second Avenue is 40 feet curb-to-curb. The west side of North Second Avenue, south of the project entrance, is missing curb, gutter and sidewalk. The intersection of North Second AvenuelEdgemere and 30th Street . is signalized and the intersection of Second Avenue and "C' Street is stop sign controlled. Existing average daily traffic volume south of the project entrance is 7,360 ADT. Roadway Sel!ment Existin~ Level of Service Current daily traffic volumes on study area streets, measured against the City of Chula Vista's "Roadway Capacity Standards," provide an indication of the operating performance of those street segments that may be impacted by the project. The City's General Plan Circulation Element recommends that arterial segments maintain a design capacity of Levels of Service (LOS) C or better in terms of average daily traffic volumes except that during peak hours LOS D can occur for no more than any two (2) hours of the day. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of a roadway's operating performance and of the motorists' perception of roadway performance, expressed as a letter designation from A to F. "A" represents the best operating conditions and "P' the worst. When evaluating daily traffic volumes, the City of Chula Vista considers LOS C an acceptable design capacity for street segments based on daily traffic volumes. LOS C is generally characterized by stable flow and the point at which maneuverability, speed, and motorist comfort and convenience begins to decline noticeably. N. Second Ave. Class II Collector EXISTING Am: LOSC 7,360 12,000 Existing ADT to LOS C Street Sel!IDent Street ~lassification 30th St. to C St. under , /30 It.. 1.2-3 -fj-'fPCp Pagel WI'C ..:I/l.....si-.....1I"..\2039.9( PROPOSED PROJECf A. Land Use Alternative 1 Parcels A and B consist of existing development or multiple family. Parcels C and D - are proposed to remain as open space. Parcels E - is proposed to contain a water demineralization plant which would extract brackish ground water from the adjoining river aquifer and through a reverse osmosis process provide potable water which would then be piped into Sweetwater Authority's available reserves. Parcel Land Use (Rate) Total ADT AM Peak PM Peak NI) Existing Day Care (100 500+ 180 = 680 95+ 13 = 108 90+ 13 = 103 child at 5 trips/child) plus Adult Counseling (60 beds at 3 trips per bed) A(2) or/Multi-family (120 or/720 58 65 units at 6 trips/unit) B(I) existing KOA (270 sites 1,080 44 88 at 4 trips/site) C&D existing Open Space 33 -- -- (32.5 acres at 1 trip/acre) E Demineralization Plant 12 3 3 (6 acres at 2 trips/acre) TOTAL lRIPS(3) 1,845 105 156 EXISTING lRIPS 1,799 152 191 NEW lRIPS 46 -47 -35 TABLE 1: ALTERNATIVE 1 TOTAL ADT (I) Existing land use (2) Proposed alternate land use (3) The total trips column includes only the multi-family land use for parcel A being the highest trip generator. , I~' 12-~ -/I-tt-fJ Page 2 WI'C M:'lI....\eII~'a039.94 . EXHIBIT 1 P a.:f- ?, Trip dt~lri buHoVl fer IIlterlitzf;f/eS, I cud Ir 3o.t 40% I' TS - .. ...... II 1: ~t , :rs i. -fie f:la..I s tB% ~1 ,. 10..% \S'\ Ts 'c' ~'ru:1El.: - 5t C ~ .\1 \ :s ClI t4 's: \J ~i ~ :s 0.( ~ ~ 2.0,% :i -l) :"t ~ ~ I- ~ cO E "57"U~ s "5 s -4 ~ _. Jf>% T6 Th j, O' l- t' I: ,. .. .J: , . rs .&Si:)MIi~ecf 'Itllu'scd1Pot..._ - - . . ... - .. .5 & ~h>r CcM h"d .-I'nlers,dic>YL --...- ..5% Of" less , trip c:L~ \v; bc.Lliolo\. ~ f'\Cl- .s~01010\ I ,3'- / <j-1--25 ~ttI Imoact The additional 46 new trips will increase the existing ADT on North Second Avenue south of the project entrance by 14 trips to 7,374 ADT or 30% of 46 trips. The new 7,376 ADT is below the Level of Service (LOS) C capacity of 12,000 ADT for North Second Avenue. However, it is recommended that the segment of North Second Avenue between the project entrance and .C" Street be restriped for two (2) IS-foot through lanes and one continuous 10-foot left lane within the 40 foot pavement width in order to increase the segment LOS C capacity to Oass II collector or 12,000 ADT. The proposed striping will require prohibition of on-street parking. North Second Avenue is classified as a bike route in accordance with the City's circulation element of the General Plan. Therefore, bike signs should be installed on North Second Avenue. The project entrance intersection with North Second Avenue does not meet any traffic signal warrant for intersection signalization for this alternative. B. Land Use Alternative 2 Parcels A and B consist of existing development or multiple family. Parcels C, D and E are proposed to remain as open space. TABLE 2: ALTERNATIVE 2 TOTAL ADT Parcel Land Use (Rate) Total ADT AM Peak PM Peak Nl) Existing Day Care (100 500+ 180 = 680 95+13 = 108 90+ 13 = 103 child at 5 trips/child) plus Adult Counseling (150 beds at 3 trips per bed) Nl) orlMulti-family (120 or/ 720 58 65 units at 6 trips/unit) B(2) existing KOA (270 sites 1,080 44 88 at 4 trips/site) C&D Existing Open Space 33 - - (32.5 acres at 1 trip/acre) E Existing Open Space (6 6 - - acres at 1 trip/acre) TOTAL TRIPS 1,839 102 153 EXISTING TRIPS 1,799 152 191 NEW TRIPS 40 -SO .38 , 133 I&'- M6 ()- ,t,' J.. Page 4 (1) Existing land use (2) Proposed alternate land use. wpc y,_.,;-'mllic\2lO9.94 Impact The additional 40 new trips will increase the existing trips on North Second Avenue south of the project entrance by 12 trips to 7,372 trips. Which is below the Level of Service (LOS) C capacity of 12,000 ADT. However, it is recommended that the segment of r-lorth Second Avenue between the project entrance and "C' Street be restriped for two (2) IS-foot through lanes and one continuous 10-foot left lane within the 40 foot pavement width in order to increase the segment LOS C capacity to Class II collector or 12,000 ADT. The proposed striping will require prohibition of on-street parking. North Second Avenue is classified as a bike route in accordance with the City's circulation element of the General Plan. Therefore, bike signs should be installed on North Second Avenue. The project entrance intersection with North Second Avenue does not meet traffic signal warrants for intersection signalization for this alternative. , {34 lo~,~ -f}~ t~ Page S WPC M.'\bom.\ea~..94 C. Land Use Alternative 3 This alternative considers Parcel C as a public park and Parcel E as a demineralization plant. Other parcels (A, B, and D) will retain their existing land use, with the exception that Parcel A may have multiple family. TABLE 3: ALTERNATIVE 3 TOTAL TRIPS Parcel Land Use (Rate) Total AnT AM Peak PM Peak A(1) Existing Day Care (100 500+ 180 = 680 95+13 = 108 90+ 13 = 103 child at 5 trips/child) plus Adult Counseling (60 beds at 3 trips per bed) A(I) or/Multi-famiJy (120 or/720 58 65 units at 6 trips/unit) B(2) Existing KOA (270 sites 1,080 44 88 at 4 trips/site) C Park (18 acres at 50 900 36 72 trips/acre) D Existing Open Space (14 14 -- -- acres at 1 trip/acre) E Demineralization Plant 12 3 3 (6 acres at 2 trips/ac.) TOTAL TRIPS 2,726 141 228 EXISTING TRIPS 1,799 152 191 NEW TRIPS 927 -11 37 (I) Existing land use (2) Proposed alternate land use. , I.$S f6-~ q "if _, - I " Page 6 WPC M........\eD~9.M I I I EXHIBIT 2 -...- -- ....;. !; -I' ., Ii :rS .- - .. ""2D~-'--" .Jl .... ----j! " :l"s .--- .- -.- ._--- . ..- . --.-..-- .~. -6~ &4 . ..------..---.--- .--- .-.--. _ u___..._ _ -' '1: I' ~ ' t 17, i. Ts 'c' ~E~ .. - ~i -4f1O-t _ .. t i~ _, ID: ~s: :~ i< I :t. ""t " J I " :s j ~ ... cO ,.t. e ~71<~ ;$ ; i, --Ii ----.-- '5 .- - _. - . - ..-.. . .-- ---.' - _D ..______ -II '.--.i ----.---..--- .-.--..-- -~40t' . ------- ~_. -. ~ " .. .' \t\ C) -~ \ t-\ - -.-----. III ~ 1 ~.tJ. ------..- -..-. os -!r .. --- ---. ..- - - . ._--.-- \5%' . ,,' . s Th T~ ----- --..-... _ ..1. .. -- .. -- --..- - - ..-.--.--..--- ---.----.. -. __ _ ~ _ ._ _.-IS.... .-Si~....IJ!"'I-:t.lctscJi... . .. ----- -.---1;------$. ~ ~~f--~hbI-In~~:diOY)_._-------... ---. ..- . I, .... ..n' . . ....--.-----.-.---.. .. -.-, , . Ijrf Ig-~ I) f:JIY I ~~ , ; ~ . Impact The additional 927 new trips will increase the existing ADT on North Second Avenue south ofthe project entrance by 371 trips to 7,731 ADT or 40% of 927 trips. The new 7,731 ADT is below the Level of Service (LOS) C capacity of 12,000 ADT for Class II Collector. However, it is recommended that the segment of North Second Avenue between the project entrance and "C' Street be restriped for two (2) IS-foot through lanes and one continuous 10-foot left lane within the 40 foot pavement width in order to increase L'le segment LOS C capacity to Class II collector or 12,000 ADT. The proposed striping will require prolubition of on-street parking. North Second Avenue is classified as a bike route in accordance with the City's circulation element of the General Plan. Therefore, bike signs should be installed on North Second Avenue. The project entrance intersection with North Second Avenue does not meet traffic signal warrants for intersection signalization for this alternative. D. Land Use Alternative 4: This alternative proposes a public park for parcel C, a veteran's home for parcel D, and a demineralization plant for parcel E. Parcels A and B will retains their existing land use, with the exception of Parcel A which may be multiple family. TABLE 4: ALTERNATIVE 4 TOTAL ADT Parcel Land Use (Rate) Total ADT AM Peak PM Peak A(') Existing Day Care (100 500+180 = 95+13 = 90+ 13 = child at 5 trips/child) 680 108 103 Adult Counseling (60 beds at 3 trips per bed) N') or/Multi-family (120 or/ 720 58 65 units at 6 trips/unit) B(2) Existing KOA (270 sites 1,080 44 88 at 4 trips/site) C Park (18 acres at 50 900 36 72 trips/acre) D Veteran's Home (150 450 32 32 beds at 3 trips/bed) E Demineralization Plant 12 3 3 (6 acres at 2 tripS/ac.) TOTAL TRIPS 3,162 173 260 EXISTING TRIPS 1,799 152 191 NEW TRIPS 1,363 21 69 (I) Existing land use /37 (2) Proposed alternate land use. f'l u..J.. -fYTIltJ IZ- ~ WPC N:\klIMw. nanllic\2039.lU J PageS Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 8-9 Figure 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS '.1112 EXHIBIT 3 (Based on EstImated Averag. Dally Traffic. See Note) URBAN ......~............ RURAL ............................. 1. Minimlm Vehicular Satisfl8Cl Not Satisfl8Cl ./ Number of lanes for moving traffic on each IPpI08ch Ma'or Street Minor Street ..................................~................................... 2 Of more ........................ 1 ...................................... 2 or more ........................ 2 or more ......................... 1 ..................................... 2 or more ......................... 2. Inleruplion 01 Continuous Trallic , Satisfied Not Satisfied v Number of lanes lor moving traffic on each IPProach Major Street Minor Street 1.............JL':.................... 1 .....................~............ 2 or more ........................ 1 .........:............................ 2 Of more ........................ 2 Of more ......................... 1 _.................................. 2 Of more ......................... 3. Combination Satisfied Hal Satisfl8Cl V No one warrant satisfl8Cl, but 1oI1owk'1g warrants U1~1ed 80% or more ......... )( 1 MinirMn Requirements EADT Vehicles per day on major Itreet (total of both approaches) 71- f Urban Rural {!.b'),OOO 5,600 8,600 6,720 8,600 6,720 8,000 5.600 Vehicles per day on major street (total of both approaches) """ -1 3 r Urban Rural C!Jo)i2,OOO 8.400 14,400 10.080 14,400 10,080 12,000 8,400 2 Warrants Vehicles per day on h1gher-volurne minor Itreel ~roach (one direct' on ~ Urban -Rural O~)2,400 1.680 2,400 1.680 3.200 2,240 3.200 2,240 Vehicles per day on higher-volume minor street IPProach (one direel' n !!If h Urban Rural t.)1,200 850 1,200 850 1,600 1,120 1,600 1,120 2 Warrants NOTE: To...... only tor NEW IN1ERSEC1IOHS or........... ........ltIafflo 1'1 iliff'. .....1Io_nloCL , I!~ 131> -/tiVi c ImDact The additional 1,363 new trips will increase the existing ADT on North Second Avenue south of the project entrance by 546 trips to 7,906 ADT or 40% of 1,363 trips. The new 7,906 ADT is below the Level of Service (LOS) C capacity of 12,000 ADT for North Second Avenue. However, it is recommended that the segment of North Second Avenue bp,tween the project entrance and "C' Street be restriped for two (2) IS-foot through lanes and one continuous 100foot left lane within the 40 foot pavement width in order to increase the segment LOS C capacity to Class II collector or 12,000 ADT. The proposed striping will require prohibition of on-street parking. North Second Avenue is classified as a bike route in accordance with the City's circulation element of the General Plan. Therefore, bike signs should be installed on North Second Avenue. The project entrance intersection with North Second Avenue does not meet traffic signal warrant for intersection signalization for this alternative. However, the total ADT on the major street (N. Second Avenue) is 20 ADT less than the threshold limit of 8,000 ADT for signal warrant or less than 1% (exhibit 4). , WPC M:.................J\tntl'1O\2039.94 / K- 13' II .0 ~ _ 110 Page 10 EXHIBIT 4 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND UGHTlNG 8-9 ','112 Figure 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (Based on estimated Average Dilly Traffic. See Note) V MlnInInn Requbements URBAN ......................... RURAL .....................-..... EADT 1. Minirlllm Vehicular s.tisfl8Cl Nell Satisfl8d ~ Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on . major Itree\ (tolal 01 h1gher-volume minor both approaches) street epproach (one Number 01 lanes for moving traffic on each approach (nOlo) d"~?~:i ) Major Stre~ Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1.......,.............................. 1..................~............... 8.00((tJO) 5.600 2,.00 oi~ ,680 2 or more ........................ 1 ...................................... 9,600 6,720 2,.00 1.680 2 or more ........................ 2 or more ......................... 9.600 6,720 3.200 2.240 1 ..................................... 2 or more ......................... 8.000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. lnIeruption 01 Continuous Traffic Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on , Satisfied Not Satisfl8Cl V" major street (tolal 01 higher-volume minor both approaches) street approach (one drection only) Number 01 lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1................~................. 1 ....................~............. rtJo) 12,000 8..00 ~)1 ,200 850 2 or more ........................ 1 .........~............................ 1...00 10,080 1,200 850 2 or more ........................ 2 or more ......................... 1.,.00 10.080 1,600 1,120 1 ..................................... 2 or more ......................... 12.000 8..00 1.600 1,120 . 3. Conj)ination Satisfied Nell Satisfl8d V 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfl8Cl, but toIlowlng warrants NO AJ() UiIIed 80% or more _ vi" i/ 1 ~ NOTE: To lie UMd onlJ tor NEW INTERSEC1IONS or""" 1DcotI_........., ntflo ~U_ .... lie DDUnlecI. , -ft:JT1 I~ ~ r.~ E. Land Use . Alternative 5: This alternative proposes a Senior Care facility for Parcel C, a family recreation!fun center for parcel D, and a demineralization plant for parcel E. Other parcels (A & B) will retain their existing land use, with the exception that Parcel A may have multiple family. Parcel Land Use (Rate) Total ADT AM Peak PM Peak A(1) Existing Day Care (100 500+ 180 = 680 95+ 13 = 108 90+13 = 103 child at 5 trips/child) plus Adult Counseling (60 beds at 3 trips per bed) A(l) or/Multi-family (120 or/720 58 65 units at 6 trips/unit) B(2) existing KOA (270 sites 1,080 44 88 at 4 trips/site) C Senior care facility. 750 29 59 D Family Fun Center" 2,310 92 184 E Demineralization Plant 12 3 3 (6 acres at 2 trips/ac.) TOTAL TRIPS 4,872 226 399 EXISTING TRIPS 1,799 152 191 NEW TRIPS 3,073 74 208 TABLE 5: ALTERNATIVE 5 TOTAL ADT "Senior Care Facility: -350 units at 2 trips/unit equals 600 AnT -50 beds at 3 trips/bed equals 150 AnT TOTAL AnT is 600 + 150 or 750 AnT ""Family Fun Center: Total parking spaces - 280 spaces Assume - 75% parking occupancy 2 hour tumovcr 10 hour opention day 10% additional AnT for deliveries &. others TOTAL AnT is 280 " 2 " 0.75 " l!! " 1.10 - 2310 AnT 2 (1) Existing land use (2) Proposed alternate land use. , WPC M:lbomeleap-\n!:;.."\2039.94 -!f~t~l~ I I ~- 13. tJ Page 12 . I: EXHIBIT 5 I. . :..Trip ~fri bulioPl Df___.__...._u. _.._ _ _Afi.<<d~ ::IZ: 1.-. I <.. _._ __.u_-i;u____ I' I; :rs . - .'- ,d,' -- - - 1&% --- no ~".-- -4'" II. ... -1. 1: :rS ---.- -< -. - -----i't-- .-- --- ------ ---- . -- ~ -- t. I i I. I T~ o 1" ! t~% ----"'- - - -.. i: I' I: '6e ~ I' ----it .- ___'_dH -----.-.----.------ ;! '" Ii i~ rt: ~ !q- l' I 'c' ~Eet: -.A ... , ID% I~%- -'-~! -A 1l " -- -- ~ () ._u.. ~ \ t-\ -- - --- ~ J ~t 50% "'0 J: ns ,- ._.- -.. - . ~ \0. c(> .,. o e ~TR~ .S # ~ T"" ~(')"_.___.;.. _____--w . ~ 5 ~ ----1; ----.-----.-.------ ---- -1t. - - ._-.--~ ---' . - - ,-- .----l't-...------ ------ --.-.---.-----------.:----- ~': .____ ____...:rS_..s-Si~MIi~_~n~DI'J.-- _ _ _ ~____s~ ~k>f_ClMh:bl~lu5tdj~- . ' I. , -----...----.-- . ----- .-.....---.---.-.--.. .-.-.------ ----.----..-----. ... --..-.. t' , 141.. /3 -Jd'5 If;;:: ,'t--t - . ...-. Impact The additional 3,073 new trips will increase the existing ADT on North Second Avenue south of the project entrance by 1,385 trips to 8,743 ADT or 45% of 3,073 trips. The new 8,761 ADT is below the Level of Service (LOS) C capacity of 12,000 ADT for North Second Avenue. However, it is recommended that the segment of North Second Avenue between the project entrance and "C' Street be restriped for two (2) 15-foot through lanes and one continuous 10-foot left lane within the 40 foot pavement width in order to increase the segment LOS C capacity to Class n collector or 12,000 ADT. The proposed striping will require prohibition of on-street parking. North Second Avenue is classified as a bike route in accordance with the City's circulation element of the General Plan. Therefore, bike signs should be installed on North Second Avenue. The project entrance intersection with North Second Avenue does meet traffic signal warrant for intersection signalization (exhibit 4) for this alternative. , WI'C M:\b.........p.er\lraffic\2039.94 ~:;:~ , Iq-2 Page 14 . Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND UGHTING 8-9 '.1112 Figure 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS , EXHIBIT 6 URBAN M.....~.. ........ RURAl. ....................~........ Minmnn Requirements EADT. 1. Mininllm Vehicular Satisfied ./ Not Satisfied YIhIcIes pet' day on Yehlcles per day on major street (Iotal of higher.yolume minor both approaches) - street approach (one Nurmer 01 lanes for moving traffic on each approach C. e,1-113) dir74&~b ) ~~~~.~~~:?:.................... ~~~.~~~.~~............... Urtlan Rural Urtlan Rural 8,000........ 5.600 2,.00.1" 1,680 2 or more ........................ 1 ...................................... . 9,600 6,720 2,.00 1,680 2 or more ........................ 2 or more ......................... 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 ..................................... 2 Or more ......................... 8.000 5,600 3.200 2,240 2. lnIeruplion J'f Continuous T.raffic Yehic\eS per day on Yehicles per day on Satisfied Not Satisfied ,/ major street (Iotal of higher.voIume minor both approaches) street approach (one direction only) Number 01 lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urtllln Rural Urtlan Rural 1..................&L.............. 1 .....................~......... )( 12,000 8,400 1,200'/ 850 2 or more ........................ 1 .........:............................ 1.,.00 10,080 1,200 850 2 or more ........................ 2 or more ......................... 1.,400 10.080 1,600 1,120 1 ..................................... 2 or more ......................... 12,000 8..00 1,600 1,120 , 3. Contination Satisfied Not Satisfied V 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant utisfiecl, bullollowlng warrants X V U~1ed 80% or more ._..... t/'" t/'" 1 ~ (Based on Estimated Average Dally Traffic - See Note) NOli: Te lie... _ for NEW tNTERIEC110HI ........, IDaetI.IW -- aoIUaI traffIC .....IIM..... lIe.....nteeL , J Lf Y 13~B( --If:-d ;i , EXISTING LAND USE Parcel A - Child Care Parcel B - KOA Campgrounds Parcel C - Open Space Parcel D - Open Space Parcel E - Open Space D ... ... .. .. Lower Sweetwater Valley Stu...dy Area I?- -1-38" 11-:~tj /45' wpcM.~9.\lC Page 16 CONCLUSION Traffic analysis of the proposed project shows that the traffic impact from the proposed five (5) alternative can be mitigated. 1. Under Land Use Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, it is recommended that: a. North Second Avenue be restriped for two IS-foot through lanes and one (1) IO-foot continuous left turn lane; b. Tbe missing improvement (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) on North Second Avenue between the project entrance and C Street be installed to provide 40 feet of pavement. 2. Under Land Use Alternatives 4 and 5, it is recommended that in addition of the proposed improvements under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, a traffic signal be installed on North Second Avenue at the project entrance. 3. Under all five alternatives, it is recommended that the project entrance be aligned with the apartment entrance to the west. 4. Tbe project entrance roadway should be at least 44 it wide curb-ta-curb to provide for two (2) 17-foot lanes and one (1) 10-foot left-turn for a distance of 300 feet from the easterly crosswalk. , WPC M:\Ia....\eO........_\2039.94 fr'rP:J//lfh I ~ - J:??1 Page 17 I ~ 7 Ie -J.1tt5 DRAFT PRELIMINARY REPORT. FOR LOWER SWEETWATER OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CITY OF CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: BSI Consultants, Inc. . 16880 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92127 July 26, 1994 l~-Iqf: INTRODUCTION CITY OF CHULA VISTA LOWER SWEETWATER OPEN SPACE DISTRICT INTRODUCTION The Lower Sweetwater Open Space District is being formed to acquire open space within the City of Chula Vista. The formation of the Open Space District will allow the City adequate funds to acquire land and maintain the land in an open space condition. Assessments are levied upon each parcel for the necessary costs of acquiring land and maintaining land which enhances the value of each parcel in the assessment district boundary. Property values in a community are increased when public infrastructure such as open space is dedicated and maintained, additionally, the costs of acquiring land for open space has accelerated sharply in recent years as has the cost of maintaining open space. With cities having fewer resources to acquire open space, assessment districts have seen increased use to acquire land for this purpose. The method of assessment for maintenance to be approved at the time of formation of the Open Space District may be amended from time to time if deemed appropriate by the City Council. The maintenance of the facilities within the District are consistent with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and will be administered pursuant to the City of Chula Vista ordinances and regulations. The properties that benefit from operation and maintenance of the landscaping, lighting, median improvements, and appurtenant facilities, will fund these activities in proportion to the benefits that each property receives. Payment for the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes for each property. Revenues from these assessments must be placed in a special fund and cannot be used for any other purpose. The proceedings will be conducted under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 Division 15, Sections 22500 through 22679, of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Open Space Procedural Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista will set a date for a public meeting and a public hearing. The Public Meeting and Public Hearing will be held on the date and at the time and place described specifically in the Resolution of Intention. Notice will be given in accordance with requirements of the Streets and Highways Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 2 /4'1 /~-~ ~ DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The improvements are the acquisition and maintenance of open space land described as follows: IPG parcels described as assessor's parcel numbers 563-330-48 and 49 for a total of 18.24 acres, City of Chula Vista parcels described as assessor's parcel numbers 563-350-13 and 566-131-01 for a total of 14.25 acres, and Mross parcels described as assessor's parcel numbers 563-350-12 and 566-132-55 for a total of 5.74 acres. Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operation, maintenance, and servicing of the landscaping, public lighting facilities, and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, public lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities. Maintenance also means providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; and the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste. Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of the landscaping and the maintenance of any of the public lighting facilities, improvements or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for the public lighting facilities, or for the lighting or operation of landscaping or appurtenant facilities. The plans and specifications for the acquisition and maintenance of open space land are on file in the office of the City Clerk. 3 ')"0 I J ~ 143 , ~ PART B ESTIMATE OF COST The estimated cost of acquisition and maintenance of the improvements for as described in Part A, are summarized herein and described below. All costs include administration where applicable. TOTAL BUDGET FOR ALTERNATE 1 PURCHASE OF ALL SUBJECT PARCELS IPG Parcel (18.24 acres) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $795,000 City of Chula Vista Parcel (14.25 Acres) .................... $620,000 Mross Parcel (5.74 acres) .............................. $250.000 Total Property Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,665,000 Contingency and Incidentals @ 20% ....................... $333,000 TOTAL TO ASSESSMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND ... $1,998,000 Annual Maintenance (1994 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25,000 TOTAL BUDGET FOR ALTERNATE 2 PURCHASE OF CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARCEL ONLY City of Chula Vista Parcel (14.25 Acres) .................... $620,000 Total Property Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $620,000 Contingency and Incidentals @ 20% ....................... $124,000 TOTAL TO ASSESSMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND .... $744,000 Annual Maintenance (1994 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15,500 The 1972 Act requires that the City establish a special fund for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Funds raised by assessment shall be used only for the purposes as stated in this Report. A contribution to the District by the City may be made to reduce assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. Any balance or deficit remaining on July 1 must be carried over to the next fiscal year. 4 /:)1 13-~ ~ METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT 1. GENERAL Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code (the Code), also known as the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the Act), permits the establishment of assessment districts by cities for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which includes the purchase of land for open space. The 1972 Act requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. Section 22573 of the Code provides that: "The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements. " The Act permits the designation of zones of benefit within any individual assessment district if "...by reasons or variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvement" (Sec. 22574). Thus, the Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax." Excepted from the assessment would be the areas of all publicly owned property in use in the performance of a public function. Section 22509 of the Code provides that the Act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. Therefore, any reasonable formula, or method, when upheld by the City Council after a public hearing, is conclusive. 5 I~-~ I)~ ~ II. PARCEL CLASSIFICATION Since the assessment will be levied against properties as shown on the Property Tax Rolls of the San Diego County Assessor, the final charges must be assigned by Assessor's Parcel Number. If assessments were to be spread just by parcel, not considering land use or parcel size, this would not be equitable, because a single family residential parcel would be paying the same assessment as a 50-unit apartment parcel, or a large commercial establishment in a similar zone. Therefore, the single family residential parcel has been selected as the basic unit for calculation of assessments and is defined as one (I) Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). A methodology has been developed to calculate the EOUs for other residential land uses and for non-residential parcels, as described below. Single Family Residential. The single family residential parcel has been selected as the basic unit for calculation of the benefit assessments. This basic unit shall be called an Equivalent Owelling Unit (EDU). Parcels developed for single family residential uses are assessed one (1) EO U . Multi-Family Residential. Multi-family residential uses are given a factor of 0.7 EOU per dwelling unit. Based on data from SANOAG cities in urban San Diego County have traffic counts for condos of 8 trips per day and apartments of 6 trips per day. For the purpose of this study the average of 7 trips per day is used for all multiple residential units up to twenty units, with a factor of .35 EOU's for every unit above twenty. Many of the larger units have internal street systems and open space areas. Mobile Home. Parcels designated for mobile home park uses by the County Assessor are assigned 0.5 EOU per space. Where this designation applies to a campground, the number of spaces in the campground is multiplied by a 50% occupancy rate for a year which in turn is multiplied by 0.5 EOU per space. Commercial/Industrial. In converting improved non-residential properties to EDUs, the factor used is the typical lot size for single family residential parcels, which is 6,000 square feet, or 7.26 dwelling units per acre. The commercial/industrial parcels will be assessed 7.26 EDU for each acre, or any portion thereof up to five (5) acres, and 0.73 for every additional acre or portion thereof above five (5) acres. This lower EOU factor is based on the fact that many of the larger commercial/industrial developments contain internal street systems. The minimum number of EOUs per commercial/industrial parcel wi11 be one (I) EOU. 6 I " L ''6- ..~ 15'3 ~ --,-------- _.__._,._-"._._--_.-..--~_."-,.. Vacant Residential. Vacant residential property is described as parcels with no improved dweJ1ing structures. These properties receive benefits based on their land, as this is the basis of their value. The land value portion of residential property in Chula Vista is about 50 percent. Parcels defined as single family residential parcels which do not have structures on the parcels are therefore, assessed 50 percent of a single family dweUing. The parcels wiU be assessed 0.50 EDU per parcel. Vacant Commercial/Industrial. Parcels which are not zoned for residential use and which do not have structures on the parcel are assessed based upon the acreage of the parcel. These parcels will be assessed at 50 percent of the rate of improved commercial/industrial property. Institutional. Institutional parcels are defined as those used for private schools, lodge halls, convalescent hospitals, and other similar uses. These parcels will be assessed at the same rate as improved commercial/industrial property. Utility. Parcels owned by private utility companies will be assessed at the same rate as improved commercia]lindustrial property based upon a comparable land use for the property. Utility rights-of-way will be exempt from assessments. Exempt. Parcels of land defined in the County Assessor's records as being exempt from property taxes will be exempt from District assessments. This includes all publicly owned property, aU easements and rights-of-way, and common areas. The land use classification for each parcel has been based on the 1994-95 San Diego County Assessor's Roll. III. BENEFIT DETERMINATION Benefits from the acquisition of land for the creation of open space is of benefit to the parcels outlined in the Boundary Map. The costs associated with these benefits are spread equally, based on Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU), to all parcels within the District. The benefit of the assessment to the assessed parcels accrues as a result of a decrease in traffic volumes on ]ocal streets. This assessment was made as a result of site visits and a general determination based on the judgement of the assessment engineer. 7 I'K-~ , f f /S3 ~ IV. INVENTORY OF PARCELS The following information was obtained from the San Diego County Assessor's Roll, Assessor's Parcel Maps, and the City of Chula Vista based upon the Parcel Classification as set forth in Section II. Land Use Parcels Acres EDUs 1. Single Family Residential (SFR) 517 32.22 517.00 2. Multi-Family Residential (MFR) 175 128.50 204.75 3. Mobile Home Park 3 10.68 67.50 4. Commercial/Industrial 2 6.52 47.33 5. Vacant Residential 49 9.43 24.50 O. Not Assessable 7 7.19 0.00 TOTALS 753 194.54 861.08 V. ASSESSMENT PER EDU ALTERNATE 1 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENTS Total Assessment $1,998,000.00 Total Maintenance Cost $25,000.00 Total Assessment per EDU $2,320.35 Annual Assessment per EDU $199.11 Annual Maintenance Assessment per EDU $29.04 TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PER EDU $228.15 8 , <:g - -1-1-1 If /S4 ~ -_..-- ,_-,-_.'-'---'-"~'--'-_.'.'-'-'-'--'- ALTERNATE 2 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENTS Total Assessment $744,000.00 Total Maintenance Cost $15,500.00 Total Assessment per EDU $864.04 Annual Assessment per EDU $74.14 Annual Maintenance Assessment per EDU $18.01 TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PER EDD $92.15 Annual assessments assume a 25 year bond issue at an annual percentage rate of 7.0% based on a principal of "Total Assessment per EDU" for each alternative. Annual maintenance cost is then added to obtain the Total Annual Assessment. 9 I~' ~ /55 ~ ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP The following map describes the boundaries of the assessment district in general terms. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of San Diego for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor's maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Draft Report. 10 !<t~-!-:;a /5'6 ~ ____,___._.._.__.__ __.____._.__M___'_______._____.__. , ~ <qQ ~v ~o ~o <qQ ",0 ~A ~O PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. Sweetwater Open Space District CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO STATE OF CALIFORNIA LI:t:DlD _.._.._ tJIS1IffCT 8tl.WDARY ~1lCLIa NI:l~rJFEAl2I LaTIII PNICIIEL.....1HE.....,......,. _MUM DEDClCCUfl"l'~MAI'& ~ ,.......WGlA,.IItr~1MI-. E.ED.~'" - - 1<< ' If7 ATTACHMENT B ,/3~ 'S~ - . THIS PAGE BLANK .. 1<6-.1 '5 ~ SYNOPSIS OF COMMISSIONS/COMMITI'EE COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFf LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY ISSUE PAPER The following is Ii synopsis of the comments received from the Resource Conservation Commission, PlanDing Commission, Housing Advisory Commission, and Veteran's Ad Hoc Committee regarding the Draft Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper. The Commissions/Committee, as a whole, did not take a singular position, however, individual members provided the following comments or suggestions. Comments from the Parks & Recreation will be provided at the meeting. RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION IRCC) . An additional alternative should be examined which designates the KOA campground parcel (parcel B) as a public park. If the property owner wishes to sell the property in the future the City could have fIrst option to purchase for park purposes. . An additional alternative should be examined which combines the proposed Senior Care Facility with the proposed Veteran's Home. . As previously requested by the RCC, the City should make every effort to zone the "unzoned" portion of the Lower Sweetwater property. PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) . The Council should narrow-alternatives to those that the neighborhood support (Alts. 1-3) rather than expending City funds and additional staff time for the preparation of an EIR. . The "Greenbelt" concept in the General Plan should be kept alive and not be fragmented by individual actions. . All of the property owners within the proposed assessment district benefIt area should be notifIed of the process. . Concerned that citizens may not be able to bear the costs of acquisition of the open space independently. . EIR should cover alternatives 1 through 4, excluding alternative 5, since the proposed recreation facilities may involve restricted use as commercial and not provide public access as a park. Park land is known to be currently defIcient in western Chula Vista. . The proposed assessment district or EIR analysis should contain a full range of assessment district approaches, including a tiered or radiating benefIt approach. . Council should examine all fIve alternatives in an EIR in order to make a decision on the project. lD.-f;f1 +-r1h6 Synopsis of Commission/Committee Comments Page 2 . Alternatives 2 and 5 look good and property owners of the project lands need to be compensated. for any acquisition of their assets. Question whether the public is served by taking all alternatives through the entire process. . Issue Paper should look at alternative 2 and see if costs based on benefit could be spread to those who benefit from the "Greenbelt." HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION . A more agressive approach should be looked at for redesignating or zoning Parcel A. Some zoning designation which will permit social service-type land uses here without having to go through a public hearing process each time a modification of use is requested. . Do not want to see too dense a multiple family development constructed on Parcel A. . Senior Care Facility does not appear to be a compatible land use adjacent to the Family Recreation/Fun Center. VETERAN'S AD HOC COMMITTEE . Until a final siting decision is made on the Veteran's Home, the property within the Lower Sweetwater Valley should be considered for locating the Veteran's Home as depicted on Alternative 4. (:\lowsa113.att) 1'b~1-T5 </?;~J-J61 ATTACHMENT C Iy; - IO!} - . THIS PAGE BLANK t. 18'- I G:) UNOFFICIAL NU~~UYES EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 7/13/94 ITEM 3. REPORT: LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY GPA ISSUE PAPER. Principal Planner Bazzel noted that the City Council had directed staff to prepare an issue paper for a General Plan Amendment for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area, after a number of proposed developments had been presented to the City. Mr. Bazzel, using overhead projection, showed where the property was located and the proposed land uses being considered for each parcel, including a Veterans home on 14.25 acres owned by the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, a family recreation fun center, Senior Care Facility, Sweetwater demineralization plant, park and open space alternatives. Mr. Bazzel proceeded with the history of the property, the current General Plan designations and the current zoning designations. He indicated that in 1990 the City issued a draft ElR for a mobilehome relocation park on parcel D which was never [maled, and the project was dropped. Mr. Bazzel stated that the land uses would remain the same on parcels A and B on all alternatives. A preliminary traffic analysis had been done to determine if any of the alternatives would drop levels of services on any of the area streets to below a level of acceptability--below the Threshold level of service C. Staff found that with appropriate striping and signalization for Alternatives 4 and 5, and an intersection at the entrance of the KOA, the level of service would still be acceptable through build-out of the General Plan. Principal Planner Bazzel stated that as part of the direction of Council and requests by the neighborhood, an open space alternative was provided. The issue of funding open space acquisition and maintenance, with the potential for an assessment district, was considered and, through a consultant, a preliminary assessment district study was prepared which examined the potential benefit area for acquisition and maintenance and examined appraisal costs for property within the area--the current vacant area in particular. Mr. Bazzel proceeded with an explanation of the General Plan Amendment and zoning recommended for each of the parcels. He then noted that an Environmental Impact Report had not been prepared; staff was looking for comments from the Commission in response to the issue paper and any areas of inadequacy in the report or additional alternatives which the Commission felt should be studied in any General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Fuller, referring to the assessment district, asked if it covered only Parcel D. Mr. Bazzel stated the assessment district study addressed Parcel D, and Parcels C, D and E-- the 14.25 acres which was Parcel D, and then 38 acres (which included the 14.25 acres) in Parcels C, D and E. Commissioner Fuller noted that Parcel D belonged to the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. She asked if that would be included in the assessment district. Mr. Bazzel stated it would be included. The property was purchased through low- and moderate-income funds for low- and moderate-income housing. The advice received from legal counsel was that the /<{~~ /) '-/6' ~ 4 PC Minutes -4- July 13, 1994 property would have to be sold at fair market value if utilized for anything other than low- and moderate-income housing. Commissioner Fuiler asked if that was the reason Parcel C was designated in the other alternatives for parkland, and not Parcel D. Mr. Bazzel stated the designation of Parcel C as park with open space to the east on Parcel D could be reversed; it was only chosen in that arrangement because of the transition of land uses fr"m the KOA. Staff felt that natural open space buffering between the KOA and the park facility was not as desirable as having that park facility closer to the access, and then create a buffer between the park and the demineralization plant if it was built. Commissioner Fuller confirmed the City could not declare Parcel D land for a park. It was for low-income housing only. Mr. Bazzel stated it could not be done under the current funding arrangement. It would have to be purchased from the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Salas questioned the park inventory west of 1-805, stating there was a deficiency of public parks in that area. She was concerned that Eucalyptus Park was 1/2 mile away from the project site. She asked if there was any study in terms of the dispersement of parks within the City, and where the deficiencies are the greatest. Also, if the budget was directed to Eucalyptus Park, would that divert funds from monies that would be needed to put a park in another area of the City. Principal Planner Bazzel stated that the Issue Paper had discussed potential park acquisition and development fees that the Council had set aside for acquisition of parkland in the western portion of Chula Vista. He concurred there was a deficiency in the western portion which is approximately 1.22 acres per 1,000 residents. The threshold is 3 acres per 1,000. A Park Implementation Plan and Study is currently in process which looks into facilities and parks in western Chula Vista. Eucalyptus Park is currently considered at capacity, well used, and that consideration of another park in the area would require strong scrutiny. There has been no further direction from Council earmarking funds for this area versus Southwest Chula Vista. Commissioner Salas asked if that would be a consideration in the EIR. Mr. Bazzel concurred. Commissioner Moot asked if the acquisition costs could be calculated to implement Alternative 3, and if there needed to be an assessment district if the parcel were designated as a park as opposed to open space, or if the funding became different for maintenance if designated for park or open space. Mr. Bazzel stated that staff had initially looked at the potential for acquisition of the land for park purposes through an assessment district. Determination of the assessment benefit area would be somewhat different, and the maintenance and facility costs would be tremendous compared to acquisition and maintenance as natural open space. The majority of the requests from the neighborhood were for natural open space, and not an overwhelming request for parkland. Direction of Council was to examine the acquisition primarily through an assessment district, but also to look at park acquisition funds. Staff did not feel the acquisition C-j.. It - tffl PC Minutes -5- July 13, 1994 of the land as parldand through an assessment district was a feasible alternative given the high cost. Commissioner Fuiler asked if the proposal for an EIR including all five alternatives was direction from Council, or if it was the recommendation from staff. Mr. Bazzel answered that it was a recommendation from staff. Council understood that an EIR would be required, but had given no weight to any of the proposed land uses other than making a commitment to the Veterans Home prior to the any knowledge of the proposals. The purpose of the Issue Paper was to give the Council enough facts to either give staff direction as requested, or narrow the range of alternatives. Commissioner Fuller asked what kind of commitment had been given on a Veterans Home. Mr. Bazzel stated that Council had committed to the Veterans Administration that they would make every effort to locate a site in Chula Vista; this site had been mentioned in that discussion prior to any other proposals coming forward. The Veterans Atlministration was looking at a site by Sharps Hospital which they also felt was a viable site, but the Veterans had not reached a point where they would abandon their desire for the Sweetwater site. Council had not taken the Veterans' proposal out of the range of alternatives and had indicated they would not do so unless the Veterans Administration had secured another site. Commissioner Fuller commented the because of the information contained in the packet and the input by the citizens, unless the Council felt legally bound to spend the time and the money on an EIR that included all five alternatives, she recommended that the Council listen to the citizens first before going to the trouble and expense of an EIR that included all five proposals. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that Commissioner Fuller was speaking of Alternatives 1 through 3. Commissioner Fuller concurred. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that this was not a public hearing; it was an issue paper. However, he suggested that they may want to ask questions of staff; they may also want to hear from a number of residents in attendance who were notified, and then comment and provide their direction to Council as an offer. Chair Martin commented that the greenbelt concept should be given a chance. The concept should be kept intact; it was a good idea and a good plan, but would be fragmented if the concept is not kept in mind. Commissioner Tarantino asked how committed the Sweetwater Authority was in installing a demineralization plant in the area. Mr. Bazzel stated the Sweetwater Authority had issued a notice of preparation to' begin preparation of an EIR; they had three sites they had identified of which this site was one. At this point a preferred site had not been indicated. b-3 6 15{-)~ . PC Minutes -6- July 13, 1994 Commissioner Tarantino questioned what would be proposed for that area if Sweetwater Authority withdrew. Mr. Bazzel stated for alternatives 1 through 3, open space or a land use that would be compatible with whatever the approved adjacent land use was. Commissioner Ray asked if the funding mechanisms and cost of acquisition affect the available options. Mr. Bazzel stated it was not the primary mover on the range of alternatives. The citizen input had weighed heavily on the intensity of proposed alternatives. The proposed land uses staff was aware of and which had been included in the range of alternatives were those which had been presented to the City. Any range of alternatives or land uses could be looked at for that area, but given the significance of input received prior to these proposals, with the mobilehome relocation park, and with this process, he felt Council's direction had considered that input heavily. Commissioner Ray asked if the most vocal and the majority of the people were in the lower portion, or if it was more in the surrounding area. Commissioner Fuller stated it was in almost all of the area; they wanted the City to work with them; they were interested in their assessment district and it was not isolated just to the newer homes. Commissioner Ray asked what option KOA would prefer. Mr. Bazzel said the general feeling from KOA was that they wished to continue operating with their current operation and did not want any land uses to be included that might not afford them protection, both from the standpoint of noise and traffic. The Planning Commission Chair opened the meeting for public discussion. Josephine Payne, 62 Corte Maria Avenue, CV, as a citizen of Rosebank residential neighborhood, voiced her complaints against the Family Recreation Center coupled with the Family Fun Center (noise already existing, congestion, and a general disregard for her rights). John Payne, 62 Corte Maria Avenue, CV, finished Mrs. Payne's presentation by noting the additional noise which would be added by the Family Recreation Center and Family Fun Center including laughter, screaming, lights from the ballfields, bicylists, etc. . Roy Shepard, 28 Las Flores Dr., CV, had been involved in several meetings talking about the proposals. One of their main concerns for the people living in the area was development. The neighborhood never wanted development. Because it had been unzoned, the area was often used for unsightly purposes and the City did not have any authority because there was no zone. The neighbors wanted it to remain open space because it was a visual gateway to the City; would like to maintain the greenbelt; did not want to add more density--there already was a big impact to schools; would like to protect the llnimlll species already there and being eliminated. Once the open space is gone, it is gone forever. There is already a noise factor, and if the Fun Zone is there, more noise would be added. The northern part of the City had formed the tax base of the City from the beginning for the City to expand. They had paid for a lot of the infrastructure for other parts of the City, particularly to the south and southwest, and a little to the east. They C~4 /9 -lb7 PC Minutes -7- July 13, 1994 felt they should be helped in the assessment fees for open space. The neighborhood did not think the appraisal for the open space was fair--that it was too high. It was landlocked with no access, and of no value unless there were roads to the area. They also had a problem with the $15,500/year mamtenance cost. They did not understand why it would cost that much money to maintain the 14.25 acres as open space. Charles Bradley, 29 Second Avenue, CV, was not in opposition of the project. He was in favor of the Commission's interpretation of the General Plan. He thanked the Commissioners who advocated that the citizens of the area be listened to, for pointing out that greenbelts and parks were important, and that the idea of the greenbelt concept could be eroded. He underscored that when the trailer park notion came up before, it had drawn strong resistance from the residents. Having the area unzoned misleads the developers; leads to unattractive and unpoliceable uses of the land--consisting of dumpsters, oil rigs, trash, rusted hulks of automobiles and old tool sheds. He encouraged the Commission to maintain their sensitivity to the greenbelt concept and encourage that Chula Vista should enjoy the visual gateway to the community. He also spoke of the noise from the freeways, but also it could be a positive thing in that the drivers could see an open area. He wanted to support and encourage the Commission to stand behind the General Plan in designating the area as open space and seeing it as the backbone of the community as a strong definition of the quality of life that they hope to enjoy in Chula Vista and not adding to the density of traffic, the intensity of crime, and the over commercialization and the loss of what could become a beautiful asset to their community. Alfred R. Welker, 168 N. Del Mar Avenue, CV, did not feel the assessment district should include such a large area. Seventy-six of the petitioners lived on Las Flores Drive which adjoined the proposed open space. The rest live on the south end of the proposed space overlooking it. There were only two names from Second A venue, and no one from Del Mar A venue knew about the proposed open space. They had received only one letter stating there was to be an informational meeting at Rosebank School about two weeks before regarding the proposed open space. No mention was made in the letter regarding an assessment district--that it would cost people money to have this open space. As a result, no one from their neighborhood went. He stated a lot of people were for open space, but when it came to paying for it --being assessed $200/year in addition to the regular property taxes-many would not be in favor of it. He thought it should be very clearly put to the citizens of the area--of the whole assessment district --that they get the information that they would be assessed for the project, which was possibly several blocks from their home. Mr. Welker did not feel he would get any benefit from it. Regarding the area being a gateway to the City, he felt the City should pay for it, not the citizens of the small locality. Mr . Welker believed those closer to the benefit area should pay a larger assessment. Ted Bell, 111 N. Second Avenue, CV 91910, of Kampgrounds Enterprises Inc. (KOA), referring to pages in the Issue Paper, noted that page 3, referred to property located in the floodplain area--where was the property on the priority list for the federal agency to do the necessary study, and who had to request that. That may be a problem if the property is not left as open space. Page 5, the mobilehome park relocation and the draft EIR--they would object ---tJ--~ I D~ ! 6'8- PC Minutes -8- July 13, 1994 . to any comments in the Issue Paper regarding the Em. It was never accepted and the community found many errors and omissions in it. On page 6, regarding geology, the community was not.asked about this. There is an enormous filled area with trash, which the community used for a dump 0n the 14 acres that the City holds which could be pointed out. On page 8, the reference using traffic studies from the draft Em which was flawed. On page 12, limited recreational use in an open space area. He asked if the City or any agency was going to consider upzoning the unzoned area that was agriculture to anything other than agriculture, that they (KOA) be zoned instead of agriculture to Visitor Commercial, which would be more appropriate. If anything other than Visitor Commercial, KOA had the problem of having to come back and apply for permits to change, and they may fmd themselves with a problem going into a specific plan at an enormous cost. On page 25, KOA had stated prior to the consultant doing the assessment district planning, that the only fair way of assessing would be that it be weighted and that those having the most benefit would pay the most, and that was not done. They had also questioned making the district so large that the benefit to some of those people would be questionable. The City paid $165,000 for this property; the appraisal was for $620,000 and the appraisal was flawed. It needed to be adjusted down to a reasonable price. Regarding the maintenance cost, the area was not a high maintenance area, and he felt this was an inappropriate estimate for a level, undisturbed area. Regarding access from the Rosebank area, it would require condemnation of property to which property owners are opposed. Mr. Bell requested that the Fun Center not operate after 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Tuchscher asked Mr. Bell which alternative he saw as most beneficial for the KOA. Mr. Bell stated that Alternative 2 would be most desirable because of the open space. Answering Commissioner Tuchscher, Mr. Bell stated their concern regarding the Fun Center would be hours of operation and the traffic. They did not see the Veterans Center as a problem; the IPG Plan would not be a problem other than traffic and taking away some of the open space and greenbelt area. Commissioner Tarantino asked, if the land was developed, how people would get on the land. He understood KOA would be giving part of their land to build a road. Mr. Bell stated there was a 60' easement across the northerly part of their land for the IPG property only. For Mross and the City property, they would have to negotiate with IPG and possibly KOA to get access. There was presently no road; only a driveway being used for heavy equipment to get to the dumpsters. There was presently a publicly-owned pathway on the dike. Robert L. McCauley, 1987 Bucknell St., CV, representing the Veterans, stated that the State has an approved bond issue for $24 million to be build a home for the Veterans. He noted that the Veterans Administration had not decided where to locate another Veterans Home. The Council had officially identified parcel D and, if the State would accept it, they would build a Veterans Home there. This meets the requirement for low-income housing. Mr. McCauley said the State had not indicated whether they would take the land. When the proposal came in for the commercial fun center, an alternative site was suggested. No action had been taken to acquire it. Without the City having acquired the alternative site, and until the State indicates whether or not they would not take the alternative site, the present site should not be given over ~-t I y- "',/ PC Minutes -9- July 13, 1994 to any other use. Mr. McCauley suggested that any funds used to buy the land go back into the City to be used to offset and [rod another location that would be acceptable for a Veterans Home. A Veterans Home would bring jobs to the community. The families visiting the veterans would be 'using KOA facilities. The veterans would not be using any resources. Commissioner Moot asked how the land would be purchased for the Veterans Home. Mr. McCauley answered that the land was already owned by the City and the City would donate it to the State. The State would commit $12 million to build the Veterans Home and would maintain it, operate it, and employ all the State employees to operate it. Commissioner Moot asked Principal Planner Bazzel if that was consistent with the Redevelopment Agency having acquired it as low-income housing. Mr. Bazzel said he did not know all the full details. Mr. McCauley said it was approved by the Redevelopment Agency as a use. Commissioner Ray asked the location of the alternative site. Mr. Bazzel stated it was adjacent to Sharp's Hospital off Telegraph Canyon Road. The Sweetwater School District currently owns it. Commissioner Ray asked if the School District had been approached about selling the property and if it was a viable option. Mr. Bazzel understood negotiations were in the process. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned the obligation to hold out a land use of that particular property for a potential eventuality of a project coming forward. He cautioned the Commission about making land use decisions to hold out particular uses based on very preliminary discussions and correspondence. Chair Martin stated the issue paper gave five alternatives, which staff would be taking to City Council. Bill Ayers, 44 E. Mankato St., CV, representing the San Diego County Veterans Advisory Counsel to the Board of Supervisors, and the State Legislative Committee for the American Legion, said they had fought for 10 years to get a Southern California Veterans Home. The City offered that site, specifically, which was accepted in the report by the Governor's Commission on site selection July 1, 1993, in the formal report to the Legislature, specifically siting the Sweetwater KOA site. The offer for a possible additional site came up over the development of the proposal for the fun farm, looking to a land swap between the City, KOA properties, and the Sweetwater High School District. The City Council made the offer. The community did not know it had been offered. There is a dire need in this County, and it was the only site in San Diego County that was offered out of 600 sites in San Diego County. It was there, and they wanted to maintain it. Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, CV, representing Warner PropertieslPacific Malibu Development Corporation, asked for 15 minutes for an organized presentation. He stated that the question that needed to be answered was whether this particular site was a community issue greater than the immediate neighborhood, or was it strictly a neighborhood issue. Mr. Cox discussed the acreage to be used as a fun center and the amenities it would include. He introduced Les and Steve Warner who developed the idea of the fun center. He noted the 1.'6- t6t:; -C -,1'/70 PC Minutes -10- July 13, 1994 deficiency of developed parkland in western Chula Vista. He then showed slides of the proposed fun center. Mr. Cox stated that the family recreation center was envisioned as a public/private partnership between the City of Chula Vista and the Warner Properties and their fmancial partner. They propose that they would actually develop, operate, and maintain the fields--the City would put some money into the dt:velopment, and Warner Properties would put in the balance, and would take sole obligation and responsibility for the liability insurance, the maintenance, water, and scheduling for a period of 15 years at which time the recreation center would be turned back over to the City as a turnkey park. The City would have exclusive use of the ballfields the equivalent of three days a week; three days it would be available for the private sector partnership to be available for adult leagues, youth leagues, etc. which would be on a pay-for-play type of basis. One day would be set aside for the maintenance, watering, and upkeep of the facilities. Included in the slides shown by Mr. Cox were family fun centers existing in other cities. Mr. Cox noted that open space came at a cost--there are maintenance costs. There were concerns regarding vagrants and fires. The primary beneficiaries of the open space would be the people who live in the neighborhood. He was concerned that the prices established by the appraiser were correct. There was a question regarding the City parcel--since it was the original intent of the City Council for use as low- and moderate-income housing; over $2 million in City funds had been put into the Sweetwater flood control channel that would enhance the values of all the properties. Until the property is purchased for whatever purposes, there is no public access. Mr. Cox thought that perhaps some of the concerns of Mr. Bell would be predicated on the fact that he had a 60' easement that would have to be provided to provide access to the IPG property--property which is being used for camp sites which would have to be removed. There would be an economic impact on the operation of KOA. Mr. Cox stated there was a great need for youth-serving types of facilities in the City of Chula Vista. There is a proposal for a senior housing project immediately adjacent to the KOA campground which would be a good buffering. The school-related problems had always been associated on residential development; the School Districts had indicated an acceptance of these types of land uses because they do not involve the generation of new students. In answer to Commissioner Tarantino, Mr. Cox stated the Fun Center was proposed to be located on Parcel D on approximately 6 acres. The total parcel was 14 acres. The closest property line would be at least 400' or 450' to 500' away with a severe slope of approximately 180' up to the properties. At Commissioner Ray's request, Mr. Cox showed the location of the toe of slope. Commissioner Moot asked if the floodplain was a feasible place to Pllt construction under FEMA's current guidelines and regulations. Principal Planner Bazzel stated that the FEMA maps had indicated the area as being in the floodplain; however, with the completion of the flood channel it had come out of the floodplain but had not been formally taken off the FEMA maps. Technically, it was still included in the floodplain by those maps. The Army Corps of -&-:-S 1'6- ffr5 171 PC Minutes -11- July 13, 1994 Engineers studies indicated that the drainage flaps into the flood channel had been sized adequately to eliminate the flooding potential on that property. There was localized drainage which came acros~ the property, but the flood gates had been oversized to accommodate the potential for additional run-off. Commissioner Salas asked to see the ballfields which would be part of the family recreation center. Mr. Cox showed the Commissioners a drawing of the ballfields, and stated the concerns about lighting were legitimate; however, the new Discovery Park had lighted ballfields which were close to condominiums. The Parks & Recreation Director had received no complaints regarding the lighting. Commissioner Salas asked for clarification regarding the City's use of the ballfields. Mr. Cox reiterated it was subject to negotiation, but the proposal was that the City would have complete use of the ballfields for an equivalent of three days per week. Three other days would be operated as a commercial operation; the seventh day would be for tnaintenance, watering, and upkeep of the facilities. Answering Commissioner Salas, Mr. Cox stated the proposal to the City would be that the partnership would have ultimate ownership of the family fun center; they would develop at their cost the joint use parking lot which could accommodate up to 280 cars; they would tnaintain it and operate it for the IS-year period of lease; they would then assume the responsibility of maintaining the ballfields. The land would be provided by the City; Mr. McElliott, the owner of the IPG property has indicated a willingness to dedicate 8 acres of land, for a total of 16 acres for a family recreation park--the joint public/private partnership--predicated on having the ability of having the ability to do something with the balance of his property. Mr. McElliott had suggested a senior care facility. Commissioner Salas clarified that for 15 years they would share the use of the ballpark facilities with the City, the City having access for public use for three days. After 15 years, all of it would go back to the City with the cost and tnaintenance going to the City as well. Her concern was that it would not be a public park, and the City has a deficiency in public parks. She felt a segment of the population would be shut out. Mr. Cox noted the City could provide free play for the three days they would have it, at no cost to the City for the tnaintenance. Commissioner Ray questioned access to the park. Mr. Cox noted that once someone had been there, they would have no problem finding it. He stated the traffic concerns were legititnate, but most of the people using the facility would have only one access off North Second Avenue; they would be willing to work with the residents for an access from the Las Flores cul-de-sac if desired. Traffic on Second Avenue had dropped significantly since the opening of SR-54. With this project, it would still be below the 1989 traffic level. 171- I~-~ -tl~.-'f PC Minutes -12- July 13, 1994 Commissioner Ray asked if the area was zoned in any way which would be incompatible with Mr. McElliott's ability to use the balance of the parcel, it would preclude use of this parcel for the family fun center. Mr. Cox noted the parcel could possibly be purchased, and also that Mr. McElliott had offered 6 acres to be added to the Veterans Home site. If the Veterans Home were built, it would preclude building the family fun center. No one else wishing to speak, the public discussion was closed. In response to Commissioner Moot, Mr. Bazzel stated the City Council was looking for comments primarily on the Issue Paper and any other reasonable alternatives which were not addressed in the range of alternatives presented. He noted there were limitations as to the type of recommendations which the Commission could make given the lack of a CEQA document or completed environmental analysis. Chair Martip. indicated some references had been made by speakers that the neighborhood should not be required to pay some kind of assessment fees when they may not be benefitted, and that everybody should be told they would be assessed for open space if they would be paying for it. The Planning Commission was concerned about the intensity of the greenbelt. The public had to be listened to regarding the Veterans Home. Commissioner Salas supported Commissioner Fuller in that the public should be listened to; they want the open space preserved; the City of Chu1a Vista made a commitment to the greenbelt. On the other hand, while the community wants the open space, the initial studies for the assessment fees are too stiff. She also agreed that possibly all five alternative should not have an EIR done--just the first four. She felt Alternative 4 would have a smaller assessment district with the one park as opposed to assessment with three open spaces. Commissioner Fuller stated the proposed Veterans Home and the proposed family recreation center were both proposals which were invited by the current Council for that piece of property . She felt the Council would not be able to make a decision predicated on only open space; they would need all the information in front of them. Commissioner Fuller asked if there would be a thorough ElR on all the environmental impacts or if it would be cursory. Mr. Bazzel replied that it was their recommendation that all five alternatives would be given the same weight of analysis. Commissioner Fuller suggested that the alternatives including the assessment district proposals have many different ways the assessment district could be formed, how the boundaries were established, what was included, and what assessment value weight was put on the homes closer to the properties and those further away. Commissioner Tarantino agreed that the information would be needed to back up the decision made; he would be in support of staff's recommendation to have an ElR conducted that would examine all five alternatives. <:l~ -7iJ 121- M 113 PC Minutes -13- July 13, 1994 Commissioner Tuchscher felt it would be a difficult decision; Alternative 2 and Alternative 5 looked good. If tQe community wanted open space, he felt someone would have to reimburse the City for that ,asset; somebody would have to reimburse those property owners. The alternative would be private sector maximization, highest and best use, which would be Alternative 5. He did not know if an EIR examining all five alternatives or even those two would give anybody the comfort level to make that decision. Commissioner Ray felt the assessment district, even though it was far reaching, excluded Third and "E". He would like more information .from Community Development regarding the alternative site for the Veterans Home; he would like to hear from Mr. McElliott regarding his options on Alternatives 4 and 5; leaving parcels as open space seemed like a waste of good real estate although he could appreciate the neighborhood's concerns; and the value of the parkland and the need for open space and parks in the western portion of the City. Chair Martin believed staff should take their recommendations to Council. Commissioner Tuchscher was concerned about taking testimony from the public without the meeting being noticed as a public hearing. Principal Planner Bazzel replied that this had been an ongoing process; the last notice which had gone out to property owners within 1,000 feet also included the time, date, and place for other commission meetings including the Planning Commission at which the Issue Paper would be presented. A presentation was given to the RCC on Monday night; it would be given-to the Veterans Committee, the Housing Commission, and the Parks & Recreation Commission, and then to the City Council. It was noticed 1,000 foot radius; however, during the latter stages of preparation of the Issue Paper, the consultant's draft feasibility study on the assessment district proposed a benefit area which exceeded the notification boundary. In terms of the assessment district information, the notification for these meetings did not extend to the complete proposed boundary. Commissioner Tuchscher was concerned about notification in general, and if it was noticed in a manner that gave the public the idea that they would be able to provide input. He was not concerned if no public input was taken; if some was taken but not all, he had a concern. Commissioner Ray asked how much added cost there would be for adding alternatives on the site. Mr. Bazzel said there would be a cost factor; he did not have a cost estimate although he did not see a significant cost difference unless the scope of the land uses was expanded. Most of the significant impacts would come from the higher, more intense alternatives, and there would not be much difficulty in analyzing lesser intense uses. Commissioner Ray questioned if any thought was given to analyzing alternatives 2 and 5 only and reducing the cost, which would give both extremes. Mr. Bazzel stated that staff did not feel they were in a position to analyze anyone as opposed to all of the alternatives. He concurred that if an ElR analysis covered a full range and another alternative fell in the middle, the impacts would be generally covered. The alternatives, however, were so similar, he did not feel there would be a great expense in analyzing the first three alternatives. I~ ~-ttrt ~ -It,/7 'I PC Minutes -14- July 13, 1994 Commissioner Ray questioned the concern by KOA regarding having to obtain permits, etc. Mr. Bazzel replied that staff felt enough guidelines could be applied to the Specific Plan that the KOA operation could continue without any threat of acquisition of their property as open space. Commissioner Ray asked why multiple zoning was not a proposal. Mr. Bazzel stated that through the specific plan process, all of the land uses on the site could be dealt with in a cohesive manner in terms of access, setback requirements, strategic landscaping--something that is unique to this site that might be more restrictive than the current Zoning Ordinance standards. That type of planning would provide better compatibility for adjoining areas. Commissioner Moot stated he would like the Issue Paper, either with Alternative 2 or some part of another alternative, to take a closer look at the incorporation of the area into a greenbelt, the ability of the City to spread the cost of that on a greater basis than the assessment district proposed, and the ability to use open space as passive parks. With Chair Martin's permission, Mr. Bradley returned to the podium to state that the people in the neighborhood had been to countless meetings on this particular proposal, and they were tired of bringing up the same point they had voiced loudly and clearly at different times both formally and informally. Regarding direction to the City Council, the Planning Commission's most courageous step would be to support the General Plan and recognize the importance of the greenbelt and submit to the City Council the adherence of that backbone issue of a greenbelt according to the General Plan would be a simple, straight forward, unequivocal and final suggestion that the Commission could propose. Commissioner Ray commented that Commissioner Tuchscher's concerns about the rights of the private landowners would be a big issue. The City would not be able to afford to buy the properties back and leave them as open space, and property owners could not afford to let their properties sit. -C!. - / :r- Ir-~ 175 EXCERPT r]"'''~'''-'''''''.. . ",. r" .~.~~ll1"r.'ES ~~\j~iI~..;~~J~ti.. .;,j~h~\6 ~ . MINUTES OF A SCHEDUL:ED REGULAR. Mli.C"nN'G Resource Conservation Comml,sion Chula Vilta, Califomia 6:30 p.m. Monday, lu1yll, 1994 Council Chambers Public Services Building CAlL MBBTING TO ORDERlROu.. CAlL: Meetins wu called to order 11 6:35 p.m. by ChaIrman Kracha. City Staff EnviIomnental Review Coordinator Doug Rdd called roll. PRsmt: Commissioners Hall, ICradIa, BurrallClVto, GhouFu1ml1, Myers, Guerreiro. It was MSUC (HallIBum,.....no) to excuse Commiuioner GueImiro from the meeting of June 20 due to work conf1ict. The absence of Johnson, was unknown; will vote to e.xcuse 11 next meeting. AY?R.OV AL OP MINUTES: It was WUC (Hal1IBurrucano) to approve the minutes of the meeting of Pebnwy 7, 1994; 6-0. It was MSUC (HallIBurrucano) to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 21, 1994; 6-0. It was MSUC (HallIBurrascano) to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 25 , 1994; 6-0. The minutes of June 20, 1994 could not be approved due to lack of quorum from that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Proposed Lower Sweetwater General Plan Amendment and Issue Paper: Duane Bll..-I presented a detailed report of the five Land Use alternatives and zoning. [Ghougassian uked to be excused and left the meeting at 7: 12 p.m. during the discussion period. He cited possible conflict of interest u he Jives in the study area]. General questions were raised on the exiJtll1g ellttments, park and open space, and traffic access to the various proposed pucel.. Mr. 1b'n'el aotecI the KOA is a lq-te.rm nsidc:nt of the cunent parcel B. auerreiro requested the City consider another option: ahould the KOA ever vacate the 1""'}ICrty, the City have first priority to the land, that the parcel B be red~~gnated u open space, and that the rest of the pattels be left cIeslgnatecl u open apace. Jle: Alternal:ive I2-BurrucanO asked if funds were available for the purchue of open space land. Mr. 1b......1 .tated none were available at this time, but more open apace is tItIetcd for the IeI1Sitive hahitat area. lle: Altemat1ve 13 and 14-JCracba commented on the limited ~SI on 2nd Avenue. Be also aotecI that open park space west of 1-805 it alwaya made available at the north end of Chula Vista lather than the IOUth. He alao questioned whether &he Vetc.ran's Home wu still pursuin& a site in the atudyarea. Mr. ~97'el said the Veteran'. Home is currently pursuing a site near Sharp'. Hospital off Telegraph Canyon. A study ofnece,,,')' berm aound wa1ls bas not yet been done for thiI project. /g- -H6 ~J7' R.esourc:e Conservation Commission - Pqe 2 :R.e: Alternative IS-Hall asked why pucels C " D (Senior Care Facility and Recreation Center) weze ad,cIed next to each other. Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, spoke u a repro- IeIltative of the proposed ChuIa Vista Family:Recreation and Family Fun Center. He . alated that Mr. McBlliott, representative for the Senior Care Facility, was unavailable this eveNnl but could probably address the issues of c:oncem and how it effects the facility. Gue.rre.iro sulleated a possible Alternative 4A be c=ated to look at the Senior Care PaclUty and the Veteran's Home together, ndesiJnate the KOA camparound to park land, and the rest be considered open space. Mr. J:lll77~1 clarified for Myers that Parcel B was not the only one up for sale and that none of ~ alternatives would effect overcrowding of schools. Mr. lb77el summarized that the current timetable on thIs issue is short. It would 10 first to the Plannina Group on July 13; tIw1 to the Veteran's Administration Bousina, the Housing Department, and Park and Recreation the following week; then City Council the next week. On a final note, Kracha requested the UDZOned areas be zoned. A recornmelldation had gone to council a year 110 but no action has yet been taken. Staff noted it was not recommending an~ yet but will walt for counc:il to give them a direction. 2. PIesentation byUJ:ban Ore, Inc.-GtetchenBrewer, 7648-1/2 LalollaBlvd., Lalolla, CA 92037, presented the proposed Solid Waste plllnn;nl Process for the City of ChuIa Vista. This facility would set up a transfer station in the city and transport to the land fill area. She eltp1aiDed the Berkeley Land Use site and how the sortina and ptOO'"o';T\1 works. Myers asked if they were receivina the City Council's support. Ms. Brower stated Mayor Nader has toured and was impressed by the facility. Be is in favor of the project but has not been supported by the rest of the council. The city has alowod down its efforts to see what the county does and will respond afterwards. It was noted that ulban Ore has donated their time to meet with ChuIa Vista. Teresa Aland, Indwe1ler:s, pointed out that the City has expended DO money to date but has .muy.4 Dearly 530,000 through the consultant. A motion was made (MyerslGuerreiro) that llCC recommend to the coUllcil to Jive thIs project of the serial MRF more attention; 5-0, motion CIIried. A IUbsequent motioll was made (GuemiroIMyers) that the Commission endorse the proposal by Urban Ore; 3-2, (no: :KIacha, Bumscano); motion "nM Ms. Brewer suggested the city look into other a1tematives to broaden their UIlderstandina of the project. The next ltep would be to develop 1ft economic analysis which would support the ChuIa Vista feasibility ltudy. Mr. Kracha directed her to put the proposal and IUllestions in writina to the city. / D . I 77 ~::::;r Jj ATTACHMENT D l?r- I 7?t - . THIS PAGE BLANK .. I ~ ~ I 71 interoHice M E M 0 RAN DUM to: from: re: File Juan P. Arroyo, Housing Coordinator Report on Neighborhood Meeting Regarding the Lower Sweetwater Valley Area General Plan Amendment July 15, 1994 date: BACKGROUND As per City Council direction, a neighborhood meeting was held on June 29, 1994 to discuss a draft General Plan Amendment for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area and to report on the feasibility of forming an open space assessment district for the subject area. The meeting was held at the Rosebank Elementary School auditorium and was attended by 42 local residents. At the meeting, staff gave a presentation on the proposed land use scenarios for the area, as outlined in the attached issue paper, and presented preliminary information on the costs associated with the formation of an open space district. Most of the questions raised at the meeting centered around the feasibility of the open space district, the cost per unit, the district boundary determination, the value of the Agency property, the assessment process, and the sources of funds available to purchase property. CITIZEN COMMENTS/CONCERNS Property appraisal was challenged as being too high and unfounded. Indicated that the proposed assessment district is not equitable. Interest in knowing how residents could submit comments on the land use proposals. Concern whether reimbursement to the low/mod funds has to be made irregardless of land use determined. Requested information on financial resources available to purchase property. Requested that the open space district costs be spread over entire City. Requested information on the assessment district formation process. A detailed step-by-step explanation was given which emphasized that residents affected would be given opportunity to vote on the issue. Opinions expressed about the viability of the Veteran's Home project considering tl1at there might be better alternative. juan\memos\file.mem ])- I I rg ~ I 'Zq ATTACHMENT E I~, rti ':3 I - . .- THIS PAGE BLANK 1. It, I ~ ~ r- , , -, July 14, 1994 City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 JUl. 1 1. 199, 1-'". 'I LI,.." " >\1. .,., . \I...; This is a letter of protest in response to your recent proposal to acquire property in Sweetwater Valley (Lower Sweetwater Valley, General Plan Amendment Issue Paper, 6-29-94) for the expressed purpose of open space, and especially to protest the creation of an assessment district to purchase and support such an acquisition. I have the following objections which I request response tOI 1. What is the reason behind your proposal to acquire these parcels for open space rather than for a city park? The land is too disturbed for the presence of endangered plant or animal species, and is not large enough to support a diverse natural animal community, even though many animals may live and forage there now. As a biologist with the County Parks Dept. I have observed that urban open space areas of less than 100 acres are of little long-term value to wildlife, and disturbed sites should be of 200 acres or more for native animal populations, although disturbed grasslands generally support a higher population of rodents, which can then support avian and mammalian predators. However, without resident large predators such as coyotes to keep feral cats, racoons and other opportunistic predators in check, small bird species are limited, particularly the ground nesting species. Without extensive restoration the parcels you propose to acquire have little or no value as significant wildlife habitat. The proximity to the Sweetwater River channel is not significant as an extension of habitat, as the riparian system of the channel supports a different animal community than does the disturbed grassland of the proposed acquisition. Human intrusion into open space for natural plant and animal communities should be very limited or precluded entirely. This would limit the value of this area as an addition to the City's park acreage. 2. If a non-maintained Ropen spaceR is created as proposed, who will bear the financial burden of maintenance? Even wild lands require weed abatement, removal of dumped refuse, fencing, signage, etc. I assume that this yearly fee is proposed be charged through taxes to the assessment district. What will this yearly fee be and how long will it continue? If this is to be part of a greenbe I t park why is it not a city-wide fee? 3. It is inappropriate that the City stands to make a profit in this way on lands originally purchased' for other purposes. I strongly protest the City's proposal to compel land owners in the vicinity of the City's unwanted or unsaleable land to purchase this land to provide that prOfit. That a public agency would decide to purchase property that it just happpens to already own seems to leave the City open to suggestions of wrongdoing. Has this property been on the open market at this /g - 1ft -b--t 10 price? If it has, and has not been purchased, may I suggest that the price does not reflect "fair market value", and is actually excessive. The land seems excessively expensive for land zoned open space or agricultural. 4. I protest the boundaries of the assessment district. If, as I understand, ,the property owners overlooking the subject area believe that this area should be open space, let them pay a greater share of the burden of acquisition and maintenance of the property. An open space area within the view shed of these homes would greatly enhance their property values. It would do nothing for the rest of the properties in the assessment district. This inequity could be resolved somewhat by the development of a tiered assessment, with properties more removed from the open space paying much less than the property owners deriving direct benefit from the open space. Alternatively, if this site is designated as a portion of a city-wide greenbelt, then the entire city population should be taxed for its acquisition and care. In addition, how were the boundaries of this proposed assessment district arrived at? Why is Fredrica Manor apparently purposely excluded? Why were the Eucalyptus apartments near 1- 805 excluded? Why was the industrial area west of N. 2nd Ave. excluded? Mention was made at one of the meetings of placing the assessment over the "mesa top". What does that have to do with reality? That is a comfortable planner's strategy, but then why not include the south side of E street, and again, why is Fredrica Manor excluded? They are also on the "mesa". In conclusion, I strongly protest this proposal, and my inclusion in the assessment district. The proposal is an ill- conceived attempt on the part of a few homeowners to protect their views and property values. The rest of us should not be forced to subsidize their increased property values through higher taxes. I also protest the way this exercise has been conducted. It was unfair not to notify the entire proposed assessment district that this issue is under consideration. property owners have the right to know and provide input to the decision-making process in a timely matter, especially about issues that affect them so directly. I trust that I will receive answers to my questions with all due dispatch. Thank you in advance for your response. ~o.-v... \ -. W~ Susan T. Welker 166 N. Del Mar Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 A.P.N. 563-290-2200 , I~.f=ti C-Z'I'iI'I . [' -~',-., ,. ,~-- '"---, .. ~_\ JUL 1 4 1994 July 14, 1994 168 ~. Del M~r Ave. Chula Vista, GA. 91910 Chula Vistc Pl:mning Dept. ATT::; 1:L.... D. B&sil (L-h;ii'i.'--' Yi.'V1,,) I protest the inclusion of ny property at 168 N. uel Mer Ave. :hula V~St3; in tile, prop?s ~d. LoHer S';eetwat~r Valley Op.::n Spacs Assessraent D~Stl-~Ct as snO,1l1 ~n f~gure 13 of the lm;er Steetwater Vnlley Gener"l Plan ~~,~~cnt issue pep~r dctcd June 2~, 1994. 1. I ..~uld rcc~ive little or no benefit fror., the open spacc district b;c2use ~f.the distance fro~ my property. Any citizen of Chula v~;;tc dr~v~ng on North 2nd Ave., Hlv.,'. 54 or I 805 can see the proposed District, which I cannot see 1.mless I drive on t.lose same streets. \~iY should I be assessed to pay for it? 2. Th03C property own~rs overlooldng or adjoining the open space ~ay benefit fro~ the enhanced view and lower noise levels, and if they choo3c to purch~se the property for open space, that is their choice. But the proposed 3ssess~ent district 1.mf~irly includes ::: large ar~a of prop2rties which \~ll receive no bcnefit froe the open Sp2CC. nle l~tter and petitiJn included in the issue papc~, requesting the op::n space and the fO~~2tion of an assesseent district contains 115 n::_,es; 77 of w.lich are on Las Fl,ores Ave., on thc ,;est edge of tile "rop_'3~d o)cn sp2ce, and all t~le rest exccpt for 6 :>rc '\litliin t~le J-L.) bloc:;s on the southern edge of t~le pro;:)osed o,nn sp;:ce. If t.iis is the "neig~ibol~hood" request- ing the open space, \lhy not c.mfine tile assessr.l::nt d~str~ct to t~l.:t ;:re::? 170 one in uy nei:;.:borhood on the <<est side of 2nd A'Ee. asked for t~is opcn sp3ce ass~ssu~t district, but it is proposed to include t:le uree 1'.11 t<le way to 3rd Ave., including my ttlO lots on N.)rt~l Del l;::r Ave. 3. The notific,:ti)n of pUblic Forucs cnd City Council ..:::etings whcre t~E concept oi neighborhood acquisition of vacant land for open :n:ce \,;~re cliscus:.;cd, tJ~3 lil:U.t.:od to the so cc:ll"d "neignbol7hood" ;.,dj:::cent to tOle prvposed open s')ace. Those of us in tLie enlarged pro?oscd assess~cnt di:.;trict hcd no opportunity to express our o?position to the consider"tion of a open space assessment district which would. include our properties. 1hy is Frederica Menor left out of the proposed assessment district? Could it be because it is a large acreage under one ownership that would be unlik~ly to be in favor of the assessment? 4. 5. l~y are all prop~rties assessed at the sarae rate regardless of the distance from the open space? The KOA caapground is between my property and the proposed open space. In conclusL:n, I hope the city Hill honor their co=etr.l~;nt to the Vetcr,,-ns of t~1is area and to the neighborhood, 2.nd adopt Lmd-use altern:.:tive It. four. The veteran '3 horae llould sctisfy the requirment of the :fuul.~ vist.:. Redevelopmel1 t Agency, and the park tl:Juld rcduce the dcficic~cy of p~rk ncrcuge west of 305 and be a real asset to the neig.iborhood. 4i' I ~5 (,,~& Q.... ~~ _~. ~ed- R. Welker cc: _City C.1.mcil 'J ~~. "-'. -. J-~1~7 1:+, Jv, '. E9!.~ 'LJ 1 19~'< .t:>.. /, -..... ....." 1;;.... j).<y3ne. B,,-sil Cil.ul.. vista F::'anning Dept. I p~ot2st wy ?ro?erty being included in the pro?osed Lower S"2et\.].:t-cr V;:'-.1"y'3 Op..n Spo.c~ aSS2sm~nt district. I Ob~2Ct tJ ~n ~udition~l tax, e3p~cially to prop_rties with- out direct vieK of the pro:)os,-,d opzn :;?ac~. 'r.,c vslue of direct vie~' l:>ts..ill b,," incr,,-~s.~d, but not ,dne. l.t>. ,:,Lu ~s still of D\.l:.l?!tY' S Industr~d p:,rk a,',d G I Trucldn:;. At 1:c.'2 tl.:-.-:': Ju:.:?~"1~i 1 3 F(..:~"'l~ ~l~8 g J__n::; ~n, tl1.::ra w('.s ;,nly a hnn d- iul of us "ui~'cct Vi:\l" '')r:>pcrti. s <::nd "'8 did not c.x")cct or r~c::.iv.2 non:~cljoi'..lilig-nci0~1.bJrs tlju;:~)in(; in ~.~d bU:lili2 UiJ'1 t11.:'- 'J ..~_=-..y 1 ".-.u. ..:. ~ i::J .._...;;.. ;___"".:~ ,:;':2.:." _ ',:; ,'l1el C.~_..i2t. UvJ;,,~ c. f.u~ .t\.:"; t:'lj~.. -.J. ;';~ll;~r l~,_. ~:. ..J_;1 i~ :." i.'-,.'~ ";~'~,._l. -J~ -. t~, ~ :.. S 1_ ..;'.3. ~"~1.~:i."~ ,_..r...: or ::J:':":J::.").::rt~''':3 ioc(..-.ted ';)ff H. Del 1~l<.":r Ave., all still v~ce..,t, vlh.ct's t"e ch<.:.nce of it becJmng It' Open " Sp~ce? , 18 -/ff-6 -C-'1- ~: ,.....r-..\. July 12, 1994 ~;v A(' ~,~\ . tJ:<(':<(:::";<"\" city of Chula vista 276 4th Ave. Chula Vista, CA. 91910 City of Chula Vista, et. al.; This letter is in response to the Lower SWeetwater Valley Issue Paper presented at a town meeting in June of 1994. '1'his letter expresses the position of the sole owners of parcel E (Kross Trust, 5.74 Acres) as designated in the Lower SWeetwater Valley Issue Paper. This property was purchased in 1967 at current market prices by Dr. GeorgeA. Kross as an investment property towards his retirement to provide income for his wife and family. Since 1967 he has paid the required taxes as well as the required liability insurance on said property. When Dr. Kross was no longer able to continue his practice due to a disability, it became necessary to look for a buyer for this property. Por a period of years there were several buyers that offered 500 K for the 5.74 acres in Sweetwater Valley. When prospective buyers consul ted with the Ci ty Redevelopment Agency and the Planning Department, no one could or would give the builders a timetable for development of the parcel. '1'he builders received no information as to what they could do with the property. '1'he offers were withdrawn due to the city's inability to give definite answers on the use of the property. Igr l't J- k=-5 ~ In the Lower Sweetwater Vall er Issue Paper the assessment for Parcel E (Kross Trust) was stated as 250 K. This does not seem to be in line with the numerous offers that have been received for the property in the last few years. Due to the city's indecision. Dr. Kross has not been able to realize his just and deserved return on this property. This letter is a request to the City of Chula Vista to make up it's mind so that Dr. Kross can realize the retirement investment that is his due. please take this into consideration when attending to this matter. /~O( ~~ ~~ Dr. George A. Kross ~ K1f:::ZJI:A::OS~ ~ ~~~- I~- I "1j TO: Chula Vista City Council July 19, 1994 FROM: KOA Campground, Ted & Mike Bell, owners RE: Lower Sweetwater Valley General Plan Amendment Draft Issue Paper INTRODUCTION: We would like to outline our views and concerns regarding the issues brought up in the special study area. KOA is one of two developed parcels ill the Lower Sweetwater study area. Any changes or development proposals advllllced in the rest of the valley will have a very large impact on us. In our 25 year history we have always tried to be a responsible member of our neighborhood. To that end, we have generally supported and been sensitive to the wishes of the neighborhood residents. TIte fol1owing material represents our opinions and thoughts on the various proposals being offered by the GPA study area issue paper presented by city staff. OPEN SPACE: In keeping with the wishes of the majority of our neighbors, we recommend that the city property be maintained as open space. There are a range of possibilities within the open space designation that could encompass outright preservation in a natured state to leasing for an agricultural purpose. Any of these would be acceptable to us. Regarding the formation of an open space district, there are several important issues to be resolved. First, the district should only encompass the redevelopment agency owned property at this time. Attempting to purchase al1the vacant property is too expensive and will fail to get enough support from the neighborhood. Second, the appraisal nsed to establish the value for purchase by a district is seriously flawed. TIle value is far too high. TIle appmiser failed to take into consideration seveml factors which would reduce the value of the property. He based his valuation on the hypothetical purchase of al1 three vacant parcels as a whole rather than considering them separately. He failed to take into account the fact that the redevelopment agency owned property has no legal access. It is landlocked (which is one of the reasons they bought it so cheaply). He also failed to al10w for drainage and other development problems like needed fill and cleanup costs. TIlere is a FEMA flood overlay on the property with 110 predicted timetable for removal. Removal may require costly improvements. He also ignored its current general plan designation of open space. TIlird, TIle study undertaken to fonn the open space district failed to include a key element that was requested hy staff and the neighborhood. TIlat was a graduated assessment based on proximity or benefit fmm the open space property. TIlis element is needed to be fair to al1 residents of the proposed district. ACTIVE USE PARK: We are opposed to the concept of an active or passive use park. It would be too I~- I 'I? -E-1. costly to build and maintain. There is another active use park only 1/2 mile away. TIle location's close proximity to National City would probably mean that Chula Vista residents would not be the predominant users of the park. We have grave concerns regarding security of a park. It could become a magnet for gang activity, dmg dealers and the homeless. There will be a single entrance and exit to the area. When police respond to problems, offenders will scatter into the neighborhood and our park to evade capture, TIlis will disturb residents and put them in hanll's way. VETERANS HOME: We do not think that this use would pose auy problems for us. We do think that the noise level in the valley from 1-805 and SR 54 exceeds current city thresholds and would make pennanent residency uses undesirable. CONGREGATE CARE/RETIREMENT HOME See veteran's home above. FUN CENTER: A fun center and playing fields could have sonle beuefit to us by increasing visits to our park. It is difficult to predict how much. We have some security concerns if the center is not profitable and/or is not mauaged properly. We would strongly object to the fun center aud the ball fields opemting after 9:30 PM beC<lIIse the noise would disturb our guests. We enforce quiet hours from 10:00 I'M to 7:00 AM. A 9:30 cutoff would allow time for people to finish their games and depart by 10:00. Late night noise would cause us to lose business. ZONING ISSUES: Since we are currently zoned agriculture and are a confonning use under that zone we do not object to remaining in that zoue provided the undeveloped property retains that zoning also. If zoning of neighboring property is changecllo allow proposecl development we want our zoning upgmclecl also. Our current use would probably be most compatible with visitor commercial. Our primary concern is that we do not become a non-conforming use since we will have to make substantive changes to our property to allow for the 60 foot roadway easement for the undeveloped properties. Leaving the vacant property unzoned is causing problems. Whether the current land use issues are resolvecl or not, sOllie zoning lTIust be appliecl to the vacant property so that city zoning enforcement officials C<III do something about preventing the property from being used improperly as it is now. OTHER: City staff have made a statement in the Issue Paper that they think that any of the proposecluses are fellsible environmentally. We think that it is premature to give an opinion like that before the environmental studies are done. Copies to: Resource Conservation Commission, Phinning Commission, Ad Hoc Veterans Committee, Housing Advisory COlllmission, Parks and Recreation Commission. IJ'~ .,e - ,~ /4 {) ATTACHMENT F 17)~ ~ ./11 - . .' THIS PAGE BLANK .. ;e-rsn I,' '1-- : ~, ,,' ~ ~ .... "'~ r\ \\\~r'::rrlT : ( c:p=qJ ~ ~ &~" '~;J ~ '~ - k -' '. ~~q .~. -:- !~ I- . "-... L I". lu' /' .,- ~. __ (~ ~. ~ .d __ "~ V y" ..... ...,..,--.;: ~ to.; . '. . ,. I" "/:: ':::'11." .,111" ....... .- .....~.. ~. -. .:p i~ ~ ......... .....to,,. l...) "'- .l, - J~ .. ""'o;~ ...~ ~ '" ,...<...... c.fy'.'; 1_ 1!Jl.l.l- ;ii..,~.... ::::::::-~. "~\r y' ~ · _c-- I~ I'll I'll"" ~ ~v ~..~. ~:'l ~:.. . 1~liI (II ,;. IULI_'J -= V~ " ~ ~ i ' t r . \e<< ~t/: ~- -l....L r I ""'" ~,~L.';i. 7~ ///~ ~~1 (' . . . l/' PROJECT SITE \ i . . I ;' \ '/ / //: " " " "" """""" ;' l~ ..".h"TI .~~~ ~ ~F~ . / Url~ ,. I I L- ,.. / .' -too; (- \ \ ,\ ' i ~~f ,; , l1,' .:... "T ..J I :,' -=-- = ' ". \ \_--- ,1i\.H l: - f-l, ' '.L- "~~. \: I . 'I~ ~ .. ' j r' ~.. ~ \. \; T! =-nmn -mj I- -:~ :: .'j' ~ \, ~\~: '\ T ~.. ~ ... .. 1\--\ \ \ u :::'\ .. .. -- . II ~,'7 (I-~ jlll I I ~..~ ,\ : . ~ 1000' PUBLIC NOTICE BDY.~ l!I ': \\: \\ .\ j :.~~ '-'~T ~ !~: .~ -;g .os~.: r-' . " \~ ..,;: ,O~ '::f:j ,~~ ~~ j Jl f- I: , :':::15". ~ III "lIT I~~" ~f \ ~ m nnnf1nr=1r: I ...' J,/: \;= l,~ v - ~ B - r i, . F. III .( ~ - ENEFIT AREA . j : : I r-: \ TTl----' . . - -, r--. -I""'--.........-1-J1"....J L..JL-J -- - t.l. ....:...... j_ :.. l : ,f - --------- ~ J CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT C) APPLICANT: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY ADDRESS: SWQ SR54 11-805 GENERAL PLAN AME~ SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: ISSUE PAPER / ~ ~ NlllU'H I" = 800' N/A IrE~ /~ l MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CIWLA VISTA Tuesday, February IS, 1994 6:12 p.m. Council rhsnnhP.fS Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Horton, Fox, Moore, Rindooe, and Chairman Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attomey; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February I, 1994 MSUC (NaderlFox) 10 approve the minutes of Fehruary I, 1994 as presented. ( CONSENT CALENDAR (Item pulled: 4) 3. WRfITEN COMMUNICATIONS: None Submitted. 4. REPORT STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING TIlE PREPARATION AND PROCESSING OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TIlE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY AREA AND REPORT ON NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING-On 12/14193 Council directed staff to conduct a neighborhood meeting for the purpose of discussing a number of proposals involving the Lower SweetWater Valley Area. Staff held the meeting and the City is now considering preparation and processing of a General Plan Amendment for the Lower Sweetwater Valley Area to best accomplish the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. Staff recommends that the Agency direct staff to prepare a draft General Plan Amendment for the Lower Sweetwater Valley Area. (Community Development Director) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, gave a brief synopsis of staff activities. Eight bundred residents bad been noticed regarding the public meeting at Rosebank School and eighty people attended. Their prime concern was that the lower Sweetwater area remain open space. An additional number of concerns was listed in the staff report. There were four proposed projects for the lower SweetWater Valley area and those were shown to the neighborhood groups, i.e. veterans bome, Family Fun Center, demineralization plant proposed by the Sweetwater Authority, and a 400 unit senior residential project. All the projects would require a General Plan Amendment and staff recommended they proceed to analyze and develop the correct land use designation, bold another public forum, consult with the appropriate committees/commissions, and return in three to five months to Council with a recommended land use General Plan designation for further direction at that time before environmental analysis began. He bad been contacted by Col. Vargas of the Governor's Veterans Affairs Office who indicated that the veterans, to his knowledge, would prefer the site by Sharps Hospital as their preferred site in Cbula Vista. He also felt Cbula Vista was going to be recommended by the Governor in July for funding as OIle of the preferred sites in California. Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, gave a brief outline of the process and why the City was pursuing a General Plan amendment for the area. Member Rindone questioned if the earthquake fault by the property would bave any impact OIl the f'roposed project. ( Mr. Salomone responded that staff bad done a preliminary analysis of that and felt at the current time that the facility could be located on the site by the hospital. The hospital was actually on a site that bad an earthquake fault and they were able to design around it. /~--' /Cjl! Minutes February IS, 1994 Page 2 Chairman Nader questioned what the cost would be for the processing of the general plan amendment. Mr. Leiter responded that it would be a three month study and would require one half-time position within the Planning Department. A work program had not been prepared. Chairman Nader felt that information was a prerequisite to considering the item. Di=tor Goss felt it would be approximately $5,000 - $10,000 in staff time. Chairman Nader questioned if the person would be hired or if existing staff would be utilized. If existing staff was used, he questioned what projects would be delayed. Mr. Leiter responded that existing staff would be used. Staff would be returning with an Advanced Planning Work Program. A couple of the projects that had not been scheduled yet were the park implementation program, the child care element, and the Greenfleet trip reduction program. Those projects would either be delayed or extended over a longer period of time. Chairman Nader stated the opinion in the veterans community appeared to be split and it was uncertain as to whether the other site would be available. The City's Veterans Advisory Task Force unanimously recommended that Council continue to look at lower Sweetwater for that use. The City had offered incentives to the Commission and he was not under the impression that they would be enthusiastic in assuming the cost of a land use study. If the City was to use the property for parks or open space he questioned if staff was saying that the costs would be absorbed anywhere olher than the General Fund. He stated that staff indicated that was correct. He questioned if there was any legal requirement that the City had to undertake the proposed General Plan Amendment study prior to amending the GeueraI Plan. Agency Attorney Boogaard responded that the Agency had the legal authority to do so. Chairman Nader stated it was a matter of whether or not the Agency felt a study was needed to address those issues. . Paul Kelpin, 3755 Putter Place, Bonita CA, "",resenting San Diego South County Senior Softha1l Association and President of the Chula Vista Senior Recreational League, stated they were interested in holding softball tournaments in the City but they needed the recreational facilities to bring in people from out of state. They needed an area with multiple diamonds. . Dr. Mohiner Boomar, 5 Las Flores Drive, Chula Vista, CA, gave a presentation "",resenting those in opposition. He stated they wanted the area to remain open space. They felt the noise reduction measures proposed were inadequate. Tbe area would be subjected to chronic health hazards which could result in high blood pressure, ulcers, increased bear! disease, neurosis and personality problems, and deafness. They also expressed OOIIcem reprding the affects of carbon monoxide. Heavy traffic flow on Second Avenue also needed to be addressed. The hours of the Family Fun Center were of OOIIcern as well as undesirable people and dNg and alcohol problems. lbe brightly lit area would impact the entire neighborhood. The demineralization plant was also undesirable due to the noise generated by the pumps, storage of toxic chemicals on site, and potential reduction in property values. Environmentalist coac:ems regarding wildlife also needed to be addressed and they requested an environmentalists opinion. A petition was being circulated requesting that the area remain natural open space. Notices of the meeting were only acnt to those attending the public _ing at Rosebank School. Member Horton questioned if the residents were notified of the Council _ing. Mr. Salomone responded that staff's interpretation of Council direction was to hold a public _ing and report back to Council on the results. Eight hundred residents were notified of the public _ing and those attending that _ing were noticed regarding the Council _ing. It was also in the newspaper. Ir'~/1'5 Minutes February 15, 1994 Page 3 Chairman Nader stated he bad a problem with that because there was a difference between coming back with a report on a neighborhood meeting, whicb was what Council directed, and a recommendation that the Agency proceed with a GP A atudy and environmental work that could lead to a change in land use. Had it only been a report on the neigbborhood meeting be would have understood why that notification process was used. The item before the Agency was a recommendation from staff to proceed with specific action that could result in a change of land use and the Agency may want to consider whether there should be more complete notification before they proceeded. Mr. Salomone stated part of the recommendation would be to go back into the neigbborhood and bold another public forum; none of the meetings were required under the ordinance. . Lisa Moctezuma-Bender, 48 Las Flores Drive, Chula Vista, CA, apoke in opposition to the staff recommendation and in support of open space. . Susan Luzuro, 95 "0" Street, Chula Vista, CA, apoke in opposition to the staff recommendation and in support of open space. Sbe questioned wby developers purcbased property in areas that were not zoned for their projects. Sbe felt the City should be more creative, i.e. assessments for the people in the neigbborhood, etc. . Frank Luzzaro, 95 "0" Street, Cbula Vista, CA, apoke in opposition to the staff recommendation and in support of open space. He fell the area was the gateway to the City and should nol be developed. He expressed concern regarding noise from the proposed Family Fun Center. He requested that staff return to the neighborhood at a meeting at Rosehank Scbool with the process necessary to keep that area open space. They were an organized community and would listen to whatever was presented to keep it open space. ( Member Horton questioned if the residents wanted the Agency to consider some type of ..----......t district where eacb of the families bad to pay into the district annually to keep it open space. Mr. Luzuro stated be wanted the City to bring to them anything that would make that process possible. . Damian Zamudio, 478 Parkside Court, Chula Vista, CA, Associated Student Body President-EastLake Higb Scbool, apoke in support of the Family Fun Center. He fell the Fun Center could be beneficial in providing a new and positive activity for teens wbile taking them away from the negative aspects of the community. It would also provide jobs for teens. . ~aniel Edward Stevens, 1552 Larkbaven Drive, Chula Vista, CA, Junior Class President-EastLake Higb Scbool, apoke in support of the Family Fun Center. He fell it would be a place for families to come together. . Terry Costello, Country Vistas Lane, Bonita, CA, Commissioner of Finance-EastLake Higb School, Eagle Seout, and President of EastLake Higb School Interact, apoke in support of the Family Fun Center. Their organizations were looking at a reward system for maintaining a certain GPA and be felt activities at the Family Fun Center could be an incentive. . Sandee Reyna, 64 Minot, Chula Vista, CA, apoke in opposition of th~ir reco~dation and in support of open space. Sbe fell EastLake would be a perfect place for the Family Fun Center as there were areas currently zoned for sucb a project. ( . Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200, Chula Vista, CA, cave an organized presentation on behalf of Family Fun Center. He emphasized that the facilities being proposed were a newer lleneration type. They bad lush velletation and sensitive type lillbtinll. He reviewed the geographic location of the various components of the project. He did not feel the noise from the go-carts would be perceptible and they were willing to allow the environmental and noise studies speak for themselves. The issue on lipting was a legitimate one, but the newer generation of ligbting not intrusive on the neigbborhood. Traffic was also a legitimate concern and was another issue that would be deall with in further environmental studies and EIR. There would be benefits to the community, i.e. upwards to one bundred employees during the summer and fifty to seventy-five employees for the balance of I '{~--1/1~ Minutes February IS, 1994 Page 4 the year. As part of the facility there would be a learning center with a computer lab which would be a free facility available to adult achools, elementary and secondary achools, business associations, etc. as a community service. Council had been concerned regarding the lack of recreational facilities in the western portion of the City. The facility offered a supervised environment for the youth of the community. They had recommended a shared use of the recreation complex where the City would have full control of use for three days a week. The high school and elementary achool did not have any concerns regarding the type of land use being proposed, strictly from their purview _ whether it going to generate additional students for Rosebank Elementary School and the junior and senior high schools that '.'!ould be serviced from the project. Whether they were talking about the Family Fun Center, Sweetwater project, family recreation center, or senior housing, there would be no children generated by the projects. They were in complete support of the staff recommendation. Even if the Agency wanted to pursue open space they would have to move forward to the next step. The worse thing the Agency could do would be to do nothing as it was unfair to those proposing projects and to the residents. If the Agency wanted to pursue open space they needed to look at it as to whether it should be open space acquired by the City, which had not been the policy of the City over the last thirty years, or to find out if there was an interest on the part of the residents in the community to purchase the land at fair market value. He hoped if that was something the Agency wanted to do, they would still allow the planning process to move forward on the other alternative land uses. Chairman Nader questioned if the traffic access would be off Second Avenue. Mr. Cox stated that was correct, there was a sixty foot easement that was proposed as access for the veterans home. Chairman Nader questioned the number of parking spaces. Mr. Cox responded there were 280 parking spaces and it was a shared area for the Family Fun Center and the Chula Vista Recreation Center. Projections had been made regarding vehicle trips for the Fun Center and that information would be supplied to the Agency. It was an off-peak type of traffic pattern. Chairman Nader questioned if any other sites had been looked at. Mr. Cox responded that Mr. Warner had been looking in the Chula Vista area for the last 3 112 years and did look at a number of sites including the Rancho del Rey Business Park. Other possible sites were where the tree farm was located on "H" Street and 80S, and the proposed Sweetwater site was the only site they had been able to identify. They also looked at a site across from Eucalyptus Park but it did not work out for a number of reasons. The Rancho del Rey site was within days of submitting a proposal for the Home Depot. Chairman Nader stated EastLake was going to bave a requirement to make up some public recreational acreage that was lost because of a misunderstanding between EastLake and the City as to public versus private nature of parks in EastLake I. He questioned if there had been diacussions about using the project in one of the future phases of EI'" .I<e as a means of EastLake _ing that requirement. Mr. Cox responded that it had not specifically been diacussed, but when looking at the Family Fun Centers in San Diego County, every one was adjacent to a highway. Chairman Nader questioned if Mr. Cox had staled that the noise from the g<H:8rts would be d.....,...ed to a level of insignificance to the nearby residents. Mr. Cox stated he was convinced that was true, but it had to be established tbrough qualified people. That would be due to the distance to the closest residence and the small size of the engines. There had been a lignificant number of changes in the 1l<H:8rls and emissions and noise were within the Slate standardo. Member Moore felt it was proper for the Agency to review the site and complete the zoning for the &rei as it perl8ined to the General PlIO. A1ternltives, including open space, along with the various developers desires and neighborhood desires should be reviewed and returned to the Agency prior to the environmental impact report. The draft EIR was not official and had to go to the public for review and input. It would then come back as an EIR ) I K -ICJ 7 Minutes February IS, 1994 PageS l which would again go out for public review and input with public hearings by the Planning Commission and Council. Member Rindone felt it was important 10 IisleD 10 the community. The one theme consistent with the speakers that needed to be addressed by the Agency was to look at the other alternatives prior to making any motion. Assessment districts was one option and another option to be considered would be some participation by the City. He boped if the item was referred 10 staff Ibe option of looking at the DIF fees that were collected for purchase of parks and open space on Ibe west side of Iown would be examined. The most obvious problem with any proposal, including Ibe ones be bad mentioned, was Ibe traffic concern which be felt was a critical issue. There was a great deal of concern expressed by the residents in relationship to the demineralization plant. There was Ibe process of Eminent Domain available to Sweetwater Aulbority regardless of the wishes of Ibe City. He questioned if Ibe water was currently demineralized. . Jim Smylbe, Chief Eogin_, Sweetwater Authority, responded that it was not. Member Rindone questioned if it was a new process for water in Ibe system. Mr. Smythe responded that it was not. The quality of the water from the Sweetwater River bad more minerals and required a different process. Member Rindone questioned why Ibe process was being started now and why in that location. ( Mr. Smythe stated Sweetwater Authority's goal was 10 become less dependent on imported water through Ibe San Diego County Water Authority. That water was becoming more scarce due 10 environmental concerns in Ibe north and more water from the Colorado River being taken by Arizona. The lower Sweetwater River basin was another source of water, but because it was poor quality it required a different treatment. Member Riodone questioned if Ibe water was more alkaline. Mr. Smylbe responded that the area that drained into the basin was very urbanized so there was a lot of grease, oils, and olber pollutants. The treatment was called reverse osmosis. Member Rindone stated from what was being described it was not currently being done anywhere else in Ibe system. Mr. Smythe responded that was corteel. Member Rindone questioned how the Sweetwater Authority came to the conclusion that Ibe Sweetwater site was Ibeir top choice. Mr. Smylbe responded that the property was about S In acres and they needed only three acres. There was one olber site at Sweetwater and Plaza Bonita Roads. It was in a flood plain, but would be listed as an alternative site. Member Rindene questioned what Ibe mineral conleDt was as it entered Ibe site. Mr. Smythe responded the Aulbority was under a stricl regulatory environment from Ibe EPA and State Heallb Department. One measure of waler was Iotal dissolved solids and Ibe regulatory requirement was SOO milligrams per liter. The water going down Ibe river was anywhere from 9,000 10 10,000 milligrams per liter. The water in Sweetwater Reservoir from rainfall was roughly 1,000 10 2,000 milligrams per liter. ( Member Riodone questioned what chemicals and other substances would be added 10 Ibe water during Ibe process. Mr. Smythe responded thai Ibe first chemical that would be added would be sulfuric acid which would allow Ibe reverse osmosis to act more efficiently. When the treatment was completed Ibere was a compound that would bave 10 be disposed of. Once through Ibe reverse osmosis process another chemical, which he could not remember at 1~-$/7 g Minutes February IS, 1994 Page 6 the moment, was added to raise the ph and then sodium hypo-chloride was added as a disinfectant to kill the bacteria. Two chemicals helped the efficiency and one was used as a disinfectant. They were meeting the guidelines of the regulatory environment and there should not be a problem. Member Rindone questioned if there were any gases that could be released from the sulfuric acid or other liquids that could leak into the environment. Mr. Smythe responded he was nu: aware of any. Member Rindone questioned the by-products. Mr. Smythe stated there would be a concentrate which contained all the minerals. That would be flushed and disposed of. Their consultant was conducting a pilot program to determine all of the constituents in the by-product and then they would have to go to the Regional Quality Control Board to see what could be done with the concentrate. It could be put in the Spring Valley outfall, put back into the river, and there were a number of areas that had once been wetlands and they had talked to environmentalists about restoring those areas. Member Rindone questioned whether those options and impacts would be included in any studies. Mr. Smythe responded that the EIR would address all that. Member Rindone stated it was is understanding that the water from Sweetwater Authority was chlorinated. Mr. Smythe responded that it was not fully chlorinated. They used chloramines which was chlorine and ammonia. Again, it was a regulatory environment. Member Rindone stated he wanted assurance that those issues would be addressed. Another issue that had not been addressed, which had been raised at the Rosebank meeting, was the safety issue of the facility. Member Horton stated one of the concerns expressed was how much noise the facility would generate. Mr. Smythe responded there would be noise from the pumps but they would be contained within the building. The building would be constructed to attenuate any sound and would meet any noise thresholds imposed by the City. Member Rindone stated it was important there was a thorough examination of the issues as it was something that was beyond the authority of the City due to the possibility of Eminent Domain. He had also been told that there would be containment on-site of any leakage so there would not be contamination of the ground water. Mr. Smythe responded that any of the tanks containing chemicals would have containment facilities to ensure there would not be a leak. . Cary Wright, Director, Sweetwater Authority, felt Member Rindone's questions were well founded. Reverse osmosis and demineralization of water was not new and was being done all over the world. To leave any kind of impression for the public that the Sweetwater Authority would in any way try to pass off any type of safety hazard to the community was totally inappropriate. Of the twenty-four water agencies in San Diego County, Sweetwater Authority was probably the most environmentally concerned as they protected the upper Sweetwater River and fought the Pointe Gosnell development. Of the three chemicals mentioned, the facts should be fully presented to the people. The EP A and State regulations protected the public on that issue. There were DOl that many places to put such . facility and be appreciated the concerns presented by the public, but felt once they saw the facility and the way it would be landscaped and low noise levels produced, it would be the least of the problems created by the other proposaIs being considered. The bottom line was that they were importing 90" of the water and it was predicted there would be less water next year. Sweetwater Authority had an opportunity to become more independent and therefore give their customers . better break. The citizens should be assured that be would have no part in any kind of . danger to them or their children. The Council and citizens should get behind the water Ix -:~ I ~ ~ Minutes February 15, 1994 Page 7 ( collUDunity to see that they bad a change to deliver more water because the future of water in San Diego CowIty and South County was in very desperate straights. Member Rindone stated the COncern of the residents was not only the water supply and costs, but the safety aspects and the Council bad a responsibility to ensure that those were being done. He felt the number one issue was the traffic impacts and also the commitment the City had to the veterans home. . Deseret Moctezuma, 48 Las Flores Drive, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Rosebank Safety Patrol, stated there were people that were driving in the area that students did not know and were playing loud music and it was scary. There bad been an attempted kidnap near the school and she and other students were scared. Chairman Nader requested that the faculty advisor contact the Police Department regarding the potential kidnapping. There was also an ordinance that regulated boom boxes and the Police Department would work closely with those on the Patrol so no student would be afraid to serve on the Patrol. Member Fox was concerned the residents were not notified of a meeting where the Agency was requested to take action. He questioned whether the proposed facility by the Sweetwater Authority would impact the other alternatives proposed. Mr. Salomone responded that it had not been assessed in detail, it looked like the Sweetwater proposal could go on its discreet property witbout impact on the other facilities. ( Member Fox appreciated the COllUDents by the representatives of the Sweetwater Authority and knew for a fact that the collUDents made were true. He agreed that the worse thing the Agency could do would be to do nothing or go back and study it again. The issue needed to be resolved. He wanted to give the residents an opportunity to bave what they really wanted, Le. open space. The City needed to be fair to everyone and allow them to make their case and that was what an EIR would do. It would give the Agency information on traffic, noise, air pollution, and other problems regarding the proposed projects. If it was going to create significant impacts that could not be mitigated be would not support it. It was the first time he bad beard from the neighborhood that they wanted open space and were willing to pay for it also. The Agency also bad the duty to look at the Family Fun Center proposal as it establisbed facilities in an area that was facility poor. He was not endorsing anyone particular project, but was giving all alternatives an equal opportunity. ( Chairman Nader stated he bad only heard of two proposed uses that he was ready to consider supporting. He was not speaking about the Sweetwater demineralization plant as that was something under the jurisdiction of the Sweetwater Authority and the City's jurisdiction would be limited. Of the other proposed projects or uses be would support the veterans home and park or straight parks and open space wbich seemed to be the clear preference of those living in the area. Any use other than low/moderate income housing would require that the City's bousing fund be reimbursed from other funds for that property. There could be ways of achieving that, i.e. an assessment district or outright purcbase by the City. Once the siting of the veterans facility was announced be would be supportive of polling the residents in the area as to whether they were interested in selting up an assessment district for permanent open space acquisition and preservation after the City bad received a reliable figure as to what the costs would be so the residents would know what the costs would be. He felt there was a need for a Fun Center somewhere in the City, but he was concerned regarding the impacts on the existing neighborhood and that was why staff was directed to hold a neighborhood meeting. He boped that if the Fun Center did not locate on the Sweetwater parcel that it would look at properties in EastLake or other parts of western Cbula Vista, perhaps along the 1-5 corridor. He bad a fundamental underlying problem with the staff recommendation to proceed to a General Plan Amendment. Phase II, the environmental process, was required if anything was to be done to the property. The three items staff indicated would be delayed to accollUllOdate the General Plan Amendment study were of higber priority than the GPA amendment. He could not support direction to staff to delay those projects and allocate staff time for a GPA study _ Phase I whicb would basically be preparing a great deal of paper on subjects that bad been discussed numerous times. If there was a policy decision that the Agency wanted to do an assessment district for permanent open space, or the Veterans Commission indicated it was willing to go ahead with the veterans project, or the majority of the Agency wanted to go with the Fun Center, or the Sweetwater Authority came in with · / ((- ~ {J1J Minutes February IS, 1994 Page 8 demineralizatiOD plant, the last part of Phase 1 would have to be drafted at that point. He felt it was putting the cart before the horse to draft that without specific policy direction. Everything above that OD Exhibit A was essentially a rehash of what had already been presented, especially if it was done before the environmeotal analysis. He would be interested in holding a hearing on, and consideration of an actual General Plan Ameodment if ODe was put before the Agency in response to policy direction by the Agency. Member Moore stated staff could only do so much and felt there needed to be priorities. He felt staff was going in the right direction. Northwest Chula Vista WlLi short of recreational activities and the Fun Center proposal gave the City control over the recreational facilities for three days out of the week for free and after X number of years it would be turned over to the City. The study should be done, the statistics should come back, the opeo space district should come back, and the assessment district should come hack. MS (Fox/Moore) to adopt the staff recommendation - the draft GPA should include costs for an ass ..ent distrid and open space. Chairman Nader stated he would vote no for reasons already stated. Everything above the last line OD Phase I was material that had been discussed on numerous occasions and he would not assign it a high priority. Member Fox questioned if the staff reconunendation was approved if the review by the boards/commissions would be included in Phase I, prior to Council receiving the report. Mr. Salomone responded that was correct. Member Rindone stated he could support the motion as it was partially what was advocated by the property owners. He wanted to ensure that any park land fees available for the western area of the City would be looked at as another option. Agreed to by the Maker and Second of the Motion. It could be an additiODal option, but it was not intended to deprive the other parks of those D1F fees. Chairman Nader stated the City had made presentations to the Veterans CommissiOD in the past on a potential project and he interpreted the motion on the floor as not pulling back on the position. If the Stale Veterans CommissiOD wanted to work with the City on that proposal the City would remain willing to work with them. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-1 with Nader opposed. Member Rindone stated an item of such magnitude should never be put on the Consent Agenda. ...... The Agency tee: I !led at 8:13 p.m. and reconvened at ,:25 p.m. ...... · · END OF CONSENT CALENDAR · · PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM ENERGY AurO RECYCLING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR THE AurO STORAGE, WRECKING AND DISMANTLING AT "3-A ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED IN THE OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SUPO-'3..o3)- The land uses on the IUbject parcels were authorized by Conditional Use PennitIlPCC-73-27 in 1973 as part of the Otay Industrial Park and expired in 1986. Under the Otay Valley Road Redevelopmeot Plan, formed in 1983, the land uses allowed for this area is limited Industrial/Research. In order to continue the existing land uses, these beinl the storace, maintenance and repair of heavy equipmeot, the impounding, storage and dismantling, and wrecking of automobiles, . Special Permit is required under the Redevelopmeot Plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. The I I y- )( ~ a I Minutes February IS, 1994 Page 9 { public hearing was opened and continued from 1he meeting of February I, 199410 this meeting (February IS, 1994). (Community Development Director) ( RESOLUTION 1372 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT TO ENERGY AUTO RECYCLING FOR CERTAIN AUTO WRECKING USES AT 783-A ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISI'A, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TOWN AUTO RECYCLING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR AUTO STORAGE, WRECKING AND DISMANTLING AT 793-B ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED IN THE OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SUPO-93~) RESOLUTION 1373 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT TO TOWN AUTO RECYCLING FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED AUTO WRECKING USES AT 793-B ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE OTAY V ALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA C. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM ALL-Z AUTO RECYCLING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR AUTO STORAGE, WRECKING AND DISMANTLING AT 793-C ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED IN THE OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SUPO-93-05) RESOLUTION 1374 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALL-Z AUTO WRECKING FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED AUTO WRECKING USES AT 793-C ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE OTAY V ALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA D. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM JAY JUSTUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR AUTO STORAGE, WRECKING AND DISMANTLING AT 891 ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SUPO-93-06l RESOLUTION 1375 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT TO JAY JUSTUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS FOR CERT AIN DESIGNATED AUTO WRECKING USES AT 891 ENERGY WAY, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA; PARCEL BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Chairman Nader stated be bad been informed by the Agency Atlomey that the bearings could be beard simultaneously. Member Moore stated on page 5.24 and S-2S some of the conditions were listed. Items under 'bullet 1/3' bad 10 be done within ninety days and items under 'bullet 1/5' bad 10 be done within thirty days. He felt it was an extremely important item. The problems in the area bad been brought down 10 a minimum and the City needed 10 do what was necessary 10 get everything in order. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being DO public testimony, the public bearings were declared closed. RESOLUTIONS 1372, 1373, 1374, AND 1375 OFFERED BY MEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimnu..ly. ( / 7~ ~O 1- Minutes February IS, 1994 Page 10 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ACTION ITEMS None submitted. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Item pulled: 4. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - None 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - None 8. MEMBERS' COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ) ADJOURNMENT AT 9:30 P.M. to the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday, March I, 1994 at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, Council Chambers, Public Services Building. by: Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk ~. .' /<t ~!{ () 3 JlEm * /!? COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO July 26, 1994 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Cou . FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes re: Lower Sweetwater Valley Issue Paper Attached are minutes from the July 21, 1994, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting at which the Commission discussed and provided comments regarding the Lower Sweetwater Valley Draft General Plan Issue Paper scheduled as a public hearing item (item #18) on your agenda for tonight's meeting. (:\p&nnin.722) Attachment /~~l64 DRAFT - EXCERPT FROM PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 19, 1994 . , b. Lower Sweetwater Valley Draft Gen. Plan Amendment Duane Bazzel of the Planning Department pre&ellted the proposed plan for lower Sweetwater Valley area giving ~ alternatives for the use of this land and ltated that Itaff'S recommendation was to :ciliate an EIR with an equal1cve1 of analysis for all five alternatives. The Commission asked questions relative to the practicality of the Veteran's facility and the impact of location on the potential of Chula Vista to be selected to bave a Veteran's facility. Commissioner Palma does not support this as a location for a Veteran's facility due to the noise factor. However. be does support the concept of the family fun center. Greg Cox presented the conceptual site plan for the Family Fun Center and explained the proposed joint use concept for the facility. Commissioner Hall concurred witb Commissioner Palma to support the conceptual site plan. It is his feeling that this ties into the Youth Action Plan, and wbi\e many details have to be refined, but be does IUpport the plan in concept. Ted Bell, KOA Campground, feels the fun center would have some benefit by increasing visits to the RV park, bowever be bas security concerns if it is not managed properly and strongly objects to ba1lfields operating after 9-.30 pm because the noise would disturb the campground's guests. He also expressed concern as a taxpayer as to wbere the funds will come from to build tbe roadway into the fun center. In addition, be objects to baving an active park in the area as it will attract additional gang activity to the area. Mo Goomar, a resident of Chula Vista, spoke in opposition to the fun center. AI a resident of the area, be would like to see the area preserved for open space. He elaborated on the effect of noise on bealth and feels that the combination of fun center and veteran's facility is not a bealtby onCo He feels that his comments are typical of the feelings of most of the residents of the area. Commissioner A1evy thinb that the area is currently an eyesore and a blight on the City. It is his feeling that the Commission is tasked to act on bebalf of all of the residents of Chula Vista not just on behalf of the residents of one particular neighborhood. He feels that this area is a gateway to the City and sbould be developed to be consistent with the new image of Chula Vista wbich is one of a vital, active community. He bas been out in the community talking with, not only residents of the area, but also residents of all areas of Chula VISta. He strongly supports Option #5. Commissioner Willett is in favor of a draft EIR. Commissioner Sandoval would like to see the dollar benefit to the City included in the issue paper. It is ber feeling tbat use of the ballfields 3 days a week adequate compensation to the City. She favors the fun center but questions the desirability of the location She feels that this land is a critical link in the greenbelt. J~~:(o S' Commissioner Carpenter concurs with Commissioner Sandoval in that she docs not feel that it is an appropriate site for the fun center. In addition, she would like information on the opportunities for young people for employment at the fun center. Commissioner Hall would like to ace more attention addressed to having housing in the area rather than commercial. He also is concerned about the building of a road in this area because of the type of land and the expensive modifications that would have to be made to make a roadway feasible. It is his fccling that there is no better location for a fun center in the City. Commissioner Palma thinks that the issue of where the money comes from to build the road is not an issue for this Commission, but an issue for Qty Council. Commissioner Helton is not in favor oC locating either a Veterans's facility or a senior care facility in the area. She also feels that a fun center should close earlier than 11:00 pm on week nights. Motion to suppon the draft issue paper and to convey the Commission's comments and concerns to Planning Cor the EIR. MSUC WII.LEITICARPENTER 7-0 Commissioner A1evy thinks that the topography oC the land as well as its past uses and current condition should be better defined in the issue paper in Section 4.1.5. It is his opinion that the current dialogue creates an inaccurate picture of the land in the mind of the reader. I 0' -~O~ J-ff /'1 / ~ July 24, 1994 Mr. Mayor, and members of the Chula Vista City Council. My name is Lee "Buck" Kitlinger. I live at 451 Orsett St. Chula Vista, and have for 20 years with my family. This letter is to comment on the recreation/Family Fun Center coming up before council. I don't know if you are aware of a group called the Chula Vista Youth Sports Council representing Youth Sports of Chula Vista but, there is such a group. We Meet once a month in the cities parks and rec, building. Enclosed you will find a list of the members and the organization they represent. I would like you to know that at last months meeting (June), the Warner Properties development of a Family Fun Center was presented to us by Mr. Greg Cox and Warner Properties. This concept.' as it is on paper now, was turned down and found unacceptable. The part unacceptable was not the Family Fun Center, but the proposed softball fields. Much to my surprise the member in attendance representing softball thought the softball fields should be replaced with soccer fields. The reason he did this is understandable, as there are no soccer fields in Chula Vista. I can imagine you are saying "what dose he mean there are no soccer fields." There are no soccer fields in Chula Vista. We have to use the outfields and in some cases parts of the infields of the baseball. softball. and T-ball diamonds to set up a soccer field. This takes the fields away from those sports and limits there playing. We in the Sports Council have come up with a season use permit for the sports in season. The problem now being we are all playing year round in Southern California and in Chula Vista. The first plan for this complex was for two soccer fields, but the director of Parks and Rec. did not want any over lay of soccer on to the softball fields. So the second soccer field was converted into a indoor outdoor arena. Here again "soccer" was short changed. Why wasn't the request made to do away with one of the softball fields. I'm starting to think everyone is saying "the heck with soccer." I myself have been involved with soccer in Chula Vista for 15 years. AYSO, YMCA, Boys and Girls Club, California Youth Soccer Association. and indoor soccer programs allover Chula Vista, San Diego County, California, and other states. I have been on the Chula Vista Youth Sports Council since it began, and have represented the Chula Vista Youth Soccer League, the South Bay Select Soccer Club, and the California Youth Soccer Association for the last three years. I am and have been vice president of the Chula Vista Youth Soccer League and South Bay Select Soccer Club. I have also been field coordinator and field and equipment manager for the last three years. I am also with the Chula Vista High Soccer team and I have been co Tournament director and field coordinator for the last two years of the San Diego Spring Classic Easter Soccer Tournament. I 'if ~/~() 7 I I personally would like to invite any member of the city council to come to monthly meeting of the Chula Vista Youth Sports Council. The next Meeting is August 11. 1994 at 7:00 P.M. in the cities Parks and Rec. council charriliers I would be glad to answer any questions I can and I will be sending the city council a "Soccer State of Condition" in this city. Did you know there are no "SOCCER" fields in Chula Vista? Did you know there is at least between 2.500 and 3.000 youths playing soccer in this city not including high school and adult leagues? Enough for now. I will be sending you more facts and information at a later date. Respectfully. for youths in soccer . ~~~K~ 451 Orsett St. Chula Vista CA 91911-3016 (619) 425-3978 /~~~c1~ .// '-- I i i i ~. :'\ I \ ~ r I (" ''l I r- 11-~ot:t t:::J) \V ! II, ib I! III ~ . 1 r=;-:JI ~' .1 ~: 21.' r;-";\ , ~. nil n., ~~r ll=;i ooii " dl , " ~.t ~I: <==\\ Ii =:::V ,t ll=i @"I l!:!!:!J. .~ ~ (Q) t? " ~, . \81 . .. . . i . ~Il al :i I ) . 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA. 91910 omCERS (619) 691-5084 President: Ralph Munoz First Vice President: John McLintock Second Vice President: Jerry Prior Secretary: Steve Minton MEMBERSlDP I. Bob Arciaga 4113 SweetWater Rd. Bon 91902 475-5525 Sweet'vater Valley L.L. 2. Gib Garcia 1626 Mills St. CV 91913 421-5999 Rarne Softball 3. Miguel Garcia 214 Zenith St. CV 91911 420-5198 Otay Soccer 4. Andy Hannegan 50 Fourth Ave. CV 91910 422-8354 Y.M.C.A. 5. Ellen Heifers 340 Greenwood Place Bon 91902 421-9787 AYSO 6. SaJaIuli 1540 Melrose Ave CV 91911 422-9049 C.V. Bobby Soxl 11. ._..,,-'r'" Light Softball . Buck Kitlinger ;; 451 Orsett CV 91911 420-0119 CV Youth Soccer . c., 8. D. (Bobby) Lopez 1671 Albany Ave. CV 91911 422-9236 Otay Soccer 9. Manny Martinez 347 Montcalm St. CV 91911 691-9630 Parkview L.L. 10 John McLintock 3720 Calmoor Way NC 91950 479-5982 C.V. American L.L. II. Steve Minton 3716 Glen Verde Ct Bon 91902 479-2976 AYSO #116 12. Ralph Munoz 591 Pineridge Ct Bon 91902 421-7251 B.Valley Girls ASA 13. Larry Preston 1326 Tierra Bonita PI CV 91910 421-7709 Thunder Softball 14. Jerry Prior 3256 Casa Bonita Dr. Bon 91902 470-3520 C.V. Pony North 15. Butch Quentin 1666 Pt. Conception PI CV 91910 421-7188 South Bay L.L. 16. Brian Relaford 1363 Sheryl Ave. CV 91911 422-1492 A YSO #290 17. Scott Shields 3317 Kennelworth Ln Bon 91902 479-9543 Rebel Soccer 18. Carlos Sosa 178 E. Quintard St CV 91911 585-1031 CV Pony South 19. Danny Vega 66 Murray St CV 91910 427-3726 Parkview L.L. 20. Will Young 24 E. Orlando Ct. CV 91911 420-1767 South Bay L. L. -- tITY SUPPORT STAFF 1. Jim Tollefson 276 Fourth Ave. CV 91910 691-5084 2. Bob Morris 276 Fourth Ave. CV 91910 585-5618 k\'I'OUZJ'SON\JlOS1'EIl.t3 J'*-J 21. JJM I?;-f(/O ;T~ /~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 94 Presented By Mohinder (Mo) S. Goomar, M.D. Chairman, Lower Sweetwater Valley Open Space Committee. The Lower Sweetwater Valley area is a gateway to the City Of Chula Vista. A properly maintained open space In this location would be a welcome interlude in the vast urban and suburban asphalt jungle. The overwhelming majority of the residents surrounding the valley voted and signed petitions supporting the open space in March 94. The community suggested to the City Council about the formation of two assessment districts: One covering the entire 38 acres of vacant land. Second district based mainly on the purchase of the City owned property. A public meeting was held by the City of Chula Vista on June 29, 94. The land use alternatives were presented. A consultant was hired by the City to conduct the feasibility study to determine the benefit area and obtain cost per unit for acquisition and maintenance of the open space. The benefit area extended from SR-54 to E st. and 1-805 to fourth ave., roughly 1000 feet from the center of the valley. The benefit area contains 868 equivalent dwelling units (EDU's). The city also obtained appraisal for the three vacant parcels of land. The following are the appraisal values: IPG parcel (18.24 acres) 795,000 City of Chula Vista parcel (14.25 acres) 620,000 Mross parcel (5.74 acres) 250,000 The acquisition cost of all three parcels Is 1.984 millions or roughly 2 millions dollars. The per unit assessment comes to $218 per year for 25 years. The board of directors of the Open Space Committee met and discussed the input from some neighbors. They felt the acquisition cost of entire 38 acres piece of land though desirable and cherished probably will not be acceptable by the majority of the neighbors. The owners of the KOA campground who represent 135 EDU's or 16% of the district, are not in favor of acquisition of all vacant land. I cr ~~ I \ " Ideally we would like to have all of It as open space. It mayor may not be financially feasible since we received the appraisal. We will have to go into the community to ascertain their final interest. As prudent neighbors we believe the larger assessment district may not be feasible. However, we will have to know what the community has to say in our future meetings and mailings. The purchase of 14 acres City owned property will be less burdensome and financially more acceptable. The acquisition cost Is $744,000, $94 per year or $7.66 per month. It assumes a maintenance cost of over 15,000 dollars a year. This figure Is rather high. This property Is all natural and not landscaped. This should not require Intensive maintenance. Howing for fire prevention and trash pickup once a year would be adequate and should not take more than 24 hours per year. We also believe the appraised value is too unrealistic. It is landlocked. The appraiser based his value on assumed combined purchase of all three parcels, not Individually. The appraiser also applied the same per square foot value to all parcels. Clearly, a speculative buyer would pay less for the the land-locked parcels than one with the deeded access. He mentioned strong community objections and blockage of development plans in the past. But he failed to assign proper negative Impact on the value of the property. A savvy Investor will be reluctant to buy a property In presence of vehement objections by the community. The subject land Is also in the flood plain and amenable to liquefaction-jelly like state in case of earthquake. The property Is unsightly because of following reasons: Unzoned part of the IPG property has been used for mobile home sales and repair; concrete and roofing contractor's yard; waste hauling company yard and storage of toxic material and hazardous waste hauling trailers. These are possibly zoning violations with fire and health hazards which the city need to look seriously into. When we consider all these negative factors the value of the subject property might drop. It is possible the monthly assessment may even be less than $7 per month. We also suggest to the staff to take creative measures to further reduce the maintenance cost like community gardens, tree farming, or horse stables etc. Although the neighboring community will be assessed. Let me re- iterate, the open space is not our backyard problem. We believe it should be Chula Vista issue. Because like nature's trail or walk It would not only benefit Close-by community but also the whole of Chula Vista. The open space should not be made a small neighborhood Issue. In Los Angeles County voters approved a bond program in the past for acquisition of open space. Why does not San Diego County initiate similar program? I~' ~ t.Q Recently we discussed our proposal to buy City owned property with the City attorney. A question was raised about legality of what we proposed. In response we state that we would do whatever is legal to provide access to the Mross property. In the slides shown by the proponents of the Family Recreation and Fun Center the Mross land is clearly left land-locked. I wonder, how the City attorney would respond to that. Next I would address the Issue of noise. The Lower Sweetwater Valley is heavily impacted by two major sources of noise, SR-54 to the north and 1-805 to the east. In 1989 noise measurements were done during peak traffic hours on 1-805. The noise level along the east boundary of the project was 68db, 3 decibels above the City's minimum acceptable level of 65db for residential areas. The noise is expected to increase with the progressive increase in the traffic on 1-805 and SR-54. The noise will have serious impact on any residential developments inCluding senior center or veteran home. The sound reduction measures have been suggested In the past. But none can contain the wind velocity and direction. The plantation of trees may be aesthetically pleasing but I doubt these can control noise. The erection of walls may also not be fully effective against the wind and future increase in traffic. As a physician I am aware of the Impact of noise on health. The inhabitants of the valley will be exposed to chronic health hazards. These health Incapacities may be Initially Imperceptible. But later might cause deafness, high blood pressure, stomach ulcers, increase in heart disease and various psychological and psychiatric disorders. The carbon monoxide pollution from heavy vehicular traffic Is additionally a problem. I think It Is unwise and Inhuman to subject seniors or veterans or for that matter anyone, to this unnecessary physical and emotional trauma. We think City may even be liable for permitting such area for any residential use. The land in the valley Is very low lying. The 1-805 and SR-54 totally dominates the view. The residents either would see the walls of their rooms or outside view the massive concrete slabs of the freeways. In short it is very bad site for any good projects. We honor the rights of the property owners. We support the existing Rl zoning and development consistent with that zoning so long as it is environmentally safe to do. The Impact on the schools has to considered too. To change zoning to high density dwellings will be rewarding the questionable or risky judgement shown in purchase of these properties. J~"J/3 ~ We understand City would lease the 14 acres piece of land presumably at nominal cost for 15 years to the Family Recreation and Fun Center. Also IPG reportedly is donating 6 acres of land to the Fun Center. What exactly is expected of City in return? What contributions are requested of the City of Chula Vista for the development of Fun Center? It has been suggested the City develop the easement road and possible off site requirements. These may cost the City around $750,000. What would City get in return? A three days a week use of the ball fields! Is it worth it? I am all for public and private joint ventures but this does not sound prudent. Besides the ambient noise of around 65db the ball fields and go karts etc. will generate their own noise. The kids and adults would be yelling and screaming in the frenzy of games. The neighbors presently hear the noise from the Eucalyptus ParK at considerable distances. The gang style drug activity will increase. The gangsters would disperse and infiltrate into the surrounding neighborhood on Police arrival once the only exit is blocked. Reportedly the J street park closes at 7 PM on account of gang and drug activity. Being close to National City the Fun Center would draw people mostly from National City. Lastly, the Demineralization plant by the Sweetwater authority appears to be least objectionable. It is stated that the building would be only two storey high and aesthetically and architecturally pleasing. It would not generate much traffic and practically no noise. The landscaping would be done expertly with adequate input from the community. We would be reasonable people. Although it will not be exactly an open space we will agree to that. 1~-~/4 f;E/7 )?f July 25, :t994 Dear Members of the Chula Vista City Council, I would like to voice my opinions on the proposed land use options for the Lower Sweetwater Valley. I will outline each issue below. Appraisal of land: It seems to me that the land appraisal for this property is to high. The fact that this property is landlecked)and it's historical use as agriculture should have been considered when appraising the value. Family Fun Center: Using this property to site a Family Fun Center would be completely incompatible with the neighborhood. The noise generated by the fun center machines (bumper boats, go-carts, and water slide) would contribute to the already unacceptable noise levels. contrary to what the Star News editorial says, the noise will not blend in with the freeway noise. Whenever there has been anything happening in the valley (vehicles, generators, even voices) I have been able to hear it quite distinctly. In addition to machine noises there would be noises from the sport fields. I already have a difficult time sleeping because of traffic noises. This would certainly excaberate this problem. It would also generate increased traffic on streets which are already quite busy and unpleasant to live near because of the inconvenience, noise, and air pollution. The proposed lighting for the fiadswould not only illuminate my yard but force me to purchase heavy drapes and keep them drawn in order to shut out the light. The family fun center would also certainly increase crime in our area by drawing gangs from Chula Vista, National City, Spring Valley, Paradise Hills, and Southeast San Diego. As the gateway to Chula Vista this property should be a asthetically pleasing and approriately used. A Family Fun Center is not what is needed. J~--)') -2- Financing the Family Fun Center with even a portion of city park funds is completely inappropriate. These funds should never be used for a commercial enterprise. The developers in this part of the city where unable to provide open space but did pay into the PAD funds. Considering that those funds should be used to provide a benefit for this neighborhood, not a private individual who wishes to make money at the expense of our neighborhood and the environment. The developers of the Family Fun Center have been gath~ring signatures on a petition in favor of this project. It's notable that they are gathering them at places such as Ralphs Grocery at Bonita Point Plaza. Of course they will have some success there. ihose people certainly don't want it in their neighborhood! Senior Center/Vet Home~ These 2 projects would basically cause the same types of objections: noise (from cars, generators, air conditioners, trash, and people), lisht pollution, traffic, air pollution, ... visual blight, and loss of open space. Park: This would be attractive but unfortunately would invite crime, noise (music, parties, traffic, people), and light pollution (if it had lighted playing fields). Open Space: This is the only viable alternative. It would give this area of Chula Vista very much needed open space, add to the greenbelt, provide a wildlife corrider, and be a visually appealing entry to Chula Vista. Assessment District for Open Space: I would recommend that the assessment district include only the city's 14 acres at this time so that it would have a better chance of being approved. Sincerely, Daniel and Sandra Renk ~~~~ 1~-~/6 Ifr/7 If? FUN-4-ALL Sof.dh Sa1'e promler Fomlly Fun e.",.,. 850 Industrial Blvd. Chula VIetti. CallfornlB 91910 (e18) 427-1473 FAX (619) 427-1810 July 22. 1994 To: Tim Nader. MIlYor ShIrley Hor1OD. Vico-Mftyor Lrnnnrd Moore. Cnuncilmcmbcr . Robert Fox. COlloolmcmhcr ,-- Jerry RiDdono, Council member J" ~ - " Chula Villla Cily Council 276 Fourth AvCllue Chula Visla, CA 91910 Dellr Mayor and C:ouncilmember$: It has come 10 my auention 1ha1 on Tuesday the Council will coDllider a plan to allocate $750,000 10 help Cle3le a l4-acre family'entertainment cenler and rcc1'I,"tion park Ilt 1-805 and Highway 54, at a cost to the leasee or only Sl.OO per acre per year. Fun-4-AII feels strongly about this issue in levcml respecls: . As I am sure you ClI11 appreciate. Fun-4-AII bas a major linlUlcial ln1erest in this project Fun.4-AII IIu been In business In Chula Vista slnee 19'7', and has been owned and operated by my ramUy Illnee 1986. We all four wed III this bu&ncss. my wife and I and our two sons. both d whom own homes in East Lake. Over the years. my family has invested $1.5 million in this businllllS. We continue 10 invest in our facilities. , Recently we have fmalized with the City a plan 10 in.taIl a go-can traek at Fun-4-AlI. . We pay sales talles and property talles that beoent IoeaI JOvernment. Our payroll Is slgnlneant also. We have 30+ employees at any given time. plus family' members. and have about SO l,'iVer a year's time. . We also do a veal deal tor the South Bay community, Fun-4-AII worla;: with various organi~.ations on fund raisers, Many groups even use QUI' place fuI' free. When you think about it, over the past eighl yeam we have probably given out $750.000 worth of gift certificates 10 various organizations (nol2 for b but free). . We work with IInl8 church youth groups, tbe Chala Vista Boys and Girls Club, the DARE program. YMCA, Salvation Anny, ehula Vista Activity League, Leukemia, Heart Fund and others. The Out=ch Program for kids gcttin~ off drugs is here lOClay. 20 kids for bumper boilL'llI1d golf. ab:dulely free. not B nickle. J do it all the time. / (r ~t 7 From Fun4Rll PHONl:: No. bl:1 4d( 14(,,) .,JUl.O:::b .1'='"J4 .1.1."+OHl"' r~~ l~. . We open up \0 menlallr l\lIllrded children and adults and make nothing from this. 1n lIddition we RIve jobg to young people BpullSOrecI by the J..uel~tlon of Retarded Cltl~ns. Many of these ACR-lrolincd people have never had a rea1 Job before and It'S womlerfullO see \heir reaction to receiving" p"ycheck. . We hal'e IpOl1IlOred both Pop Warner lIIIeI LIttle League tee_In Claula Vista and the SO\I\JJ fta)' ~re.. . Sev""a1 yt;lU"S ago...c lflM't<>cI at Fun-4-AlI a prolJl"lm to I'fIMlIIllze good attendance by lICbool ehlldren that no oth.... family eaurt8lnment cellte.. Is doing. We smelly enl'orce alllnlanc)' laws at Pun-4-AII. IIlld we wanted lO encoufOge school aUcndancc. More recently we added rewards tor good llrades. AdministratorS and teaehers have lOld us how much \hey appreciate what we arc doing. Kids with good attendance certificaleS get a-game of gelf free, a bumper. ride fRe, anda free soda... Kids .. ::~~ grades show us their re~rt ~~ a':ld ge; toFs~able for rides and . ...., My family and I have womed hllJ'd for what we've achieved. We started with nothing. we've been mllfried 36 yc:ars, I'm 54 years oId,llDd my wife 11:53. We don't mind competition but when the e1ty nna_ somebody that ""HI put me out of bllsln~... J don't think that's rlght,lt's Dot the Amerlelln _yo So when Y(lU'Ve worked this hard. kepi the place clean, improved the landscaping every year, and done all you can to make the business an as..'lCt \0 the c:ollUltunity, you &re quite disheartened when some oulfit from Las Vegas Ibat has never been in the community comes in and is offered such a sweetheart delll by the city. . As I said, I'm Ii competitor. Let'g CODlpc:\c 011 eVen playing field. SUbsidizing the land purchase and leasing it to the boys from Las Vegas (or a dollar is grossly unfair lO me: and toy family-owncd business. We maintain the place. give buck 10 the comnlUnity, pay taxes, and we deserve the opportunity to grow .- that' sthe way bulrine55 ig wpp.....ed to worlc. lfthls land Is avaIlable for a tamlly eDtcrtalntoent center, Jet's put It out for eVerybOdy to take a sbot at It, and hopefUlly Jl'un....AII ,,01 be given some consideration for being here aU u_ years. I urge you to either refuse this pn>jCC:l or open it up for c:ompetitive bidding. ~.UG --f President J 'g'- :<J 15 , f :~J Ite.m ~ \ 8 . Kampgrounds Enterprises, Inc. 00 ~ U ~ w'-~m l ~ IS'::J';! ell; . . . ..' .'" I 1..,. .:.....~" " .,:": I', l.A F'ranclWet of Kamwounds of Amt'ricI, lne. 111 NORTH SECOND AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 TELEPHONE 11519'427.3601 TO: Chula Vista City Couucil July 19, 1994 FROM: KOA Campground, Ted & Mike Bell, owners , RE: Lower Sweetwater Valley General Plan Amendment Draft Issue Paper , INTRODUCTION: We would like to outline our views and concems regarding the issues brought up in the special study area. KOA is one of two developed parcels in the Lower Sweetwater study area. Any changes or development proposals advanced in the rest of the valley will have a very large impact on us. In our 25 year hislory we have always tried to be a responsible member of our neighborhood. To that end, we have generally supported and been sensitive to the wishes of the neighborhood residents. The following material represents our opinions and thoughts on the various proposals being offered by the GPA study area issue paper presented by city staff. OPEN SPACE: In keeping with the wishes of the majority of our neighbors, we recommend that the city property be maintaiued as open space. There are a range of possibilities within the open space designation that conld encompass outright preservation in a natural state to leasing for an agricultural purpose. Any of these would be acceptable to us. Regarding the formation of an open space district, there are several important issues to be resolved. First, the district should only encompass the redevelopment agency owned property at this time. Attempting to purchase all the vacant property is too expensive and will fail to get enough support from the neighborhood. Second, the appraisal used to establish the value for purchase by a district is seriously flawed. The value is far too high. The appmiser failed to take into consideration several factors which would reduce the value of the property. He based his valuation on the hypothetical purchase of all three vacant parcels as a whole rather than considering them separately. He failed to take into account the fact that the redevelopment agency owned property has no legal access. It is landlocked (which is one of the reasons they bought it so cheaply). He also failed to allow for dminage and other development problems like needed fill and clean up costs. There is a FEMA flood overlay on the property with no predicted timetable for removal. Removal may require costly improvements. He also ignored its current general plan designation of open space. TIlird, TIle study undertaken to form the open space district failed to include a key element that was requested by staff and the neighborhood. TImt was a graduated assessment based on proximity or benefit from the open space property. This element is needed to be fair to all residents of the proposed district. / 6~}Cf II ::1 . ACTIVE USE PARK: We are opposed to the concept of an active or passive use park. It would be too costly to build and maintain. There is another active use park only 1/2 mile away. The location's close proximity to National City would probably mean that Chula Vista residents would not be the predominant users of the park. We have grave concerns regarding security of a park. It could become a magnet for gang activity, drug dealers and the homeless. 111ere will be a single entrance and exit to the area. When police respond to problems, offenders will scatter into the neighborhood and our park to evade capture, 111is will disturb residents and put them in harm's way. VETERANS HOME: We do not think that this use would pose any problems for us. We do think that the noise level in the valley from 1-805 and SR 54 exceeds current city thresholds and would make permanent residency uses undesirable. CONGREGATE CARE/RETIREMENT HOME See veteran's home above. FUN CENTER: A fun center and playing fields could have some benefit to liS by increasing visits to our park. It is difficult to predict how much. We have some security concems if the center is not profitable and/or is not managed properly. We would strongly object to the fun center and the ball fields operating after 9:30 PM because the noise would disturb our guests. We enforce quiet hours from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. A 9:30 cutoff would allow time for people to finish their games and depart by 10:00. ulte night noise would cause liS to lose business. ZONING ISSUES: Since we are currently zoned agriculture and are a conforming IIse under that zone we do not object to remaining in that zone provided the undeveloped property retains that zoning also. If zoning of neighboring property is changed to allow proposed development we want our zoning upgraded also. Our current use would probably be most compatible with visitor commercial. Our primary concem is that we do not become a non-conforming use since we will have to make substantive changes to our property to allow for the 60 foot roadway easement for the undeveloped properties. Leaving the vacant property unzoned is causing problems. Whether the current land IIse issues are resolved or not, some zoning must be applied to the vacant property SO that city zoning enforcement officials can do something about preventing the property from being used improperly as it is now. OTHER: City staff have made a statemeut in the Issue Paper that they think that any of the proposed uses are feasible environmentally. We think that it is premature to give an opinion like that before the environmental studies are done. Copies to: Resource Conservation Commission, Planning Commission, Ad Hoc Veterans Committee, HOllsing Advisory Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission. If{~ ~:26 PATTI PHAIR ;t:/".c /'1 ) ~ ~~J J ~~~~I ~ 6)L~'VLc- ~~ I ~ ~ ~L ~ b--N ~ ~ ~ U~~ ~ ~-~-'l~ ~SS ~~ U--'" ~ ~~~ ~ U lhu Lf~ ,;}1 ~ ~ ~J~ ' ~ ~ ~~I ~.~ ~~ ~ cQs, k.(.~~. k(f 'LfL 1~ . ~ ~ ........ "::t i ~~d: ~ ~L- ~04.h-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. 4-RL ~ ~ ti f".~ ~T~.~ , ..._~-----_._._-_._-- ---...- / J;" --J. ~ ) ~a-~~~~ h ::::: ~ ~ -'I-~ ~ <L -...., ~ ~ "1- ~ ~~U ~~'- ~~ <~ '-1 ~~~~: -P~~ ~ ~-,l) ~ ~ ~ ~ Av Vd"-J~ ~~ ~:;r. ~ ~. ~.I ~ ~~ 4.-J ~ A~2~_ '-t)~ J Z)~j PAcWu Ig-::<~.:<. (Of'l.),-Nf"- July 25, 1994 HElmERS OF THE CHUU, VIST\ r.ITY COUNCIL The attached petition does not support or oppose any of the proposed land use alternatives. It is intended only to express opposition to the inclusion of this neighborhood in the proposed assessment district for the lower Sweetwater Val. ley Open Space District. su~ ~_~~ Hfred R. ;l,lelker Total signatures 93 / Y ---J~ 3 ,.!u:;, "\ -" i J;,'~ !.1;":'1BEHS 0? rI'i-:E CI~ljL.'-. VJ ,)1',\ ra TY COtf\:CI L' The <1.ttached pet.i tion does not snpport or oppnse :lny of the proposed 12r!cl u:~e ,:;1 terrwtl vps. Tt is intended only to express opposition to the inclusion of tbis neighborhood in the proposed assessment district for the Lower S'.eetwuter V'llley Open Space District. Submi t tell By ~~ tQ..~~0'- To tal si gnatures 9;' IS - c:2.2 4 V'E, THE FOLLO"'ING, ''-ISH TO VOICE OUR OPPOSITION TO THE HCLUSION OF OUR PROPERTIES IN THE PROPOSED La'/IER S','!KETl'iTER VALLEY OPEN SPACE eSSESSMENT DISTRICT. NI'ME (PL=,PSE PRINT) l=\\-. r~G.S) \<' WI;: L',~ ~t\\,,'(\;('- C, WE:\\(e, ~\CAi',^-''''1 V, ~\~?i{'- . I (J}SdcAJb C{J{I?~';lUrcC' ,jIfCttkU i~ V(< J::J ik1..M<t.. Pa..~":(:0, 'I, U r pUG_SOt\ -r;1i> y;., I; D () lOri/if! '/:YIi'--r!zIPi, PEiER l3/1.Qt--./f1ew/c"::.. fuHP -E' 'Y\Os.S // /"! /J '~. .-< ~~-~:-<-.r1__% --'^-%~"--. /'," ,~-:;t " A-?-t;A~'/~ /"-~ ,\c<.. 'J bla~) <; }I CoPf '(,? ": IJ 7 .'.;, /J (): / I I) L' l tJ J 1 leI. - fJ {~ j( i, I . I I ' [/'\.... / 1,--,1 J' I ~- j J/hN{ (5ii\/ 1"11- ':, w Ii tv .5,0' ;1.-/ D - tv' I) 11 C IJ.- Hd); Jlf{~ d \? v 1/1 ~-'tr~vl~ I DDRESS SIGNI"TURE ~Q.~&. R . L:~,.l ()~'- 6J"thH>.., C , Wal/kA/) \ \ '\' ' J'o ,~{ I" \!t'-- ;C{[)' ~ " 'J) -" '71) , a"r.' ' _ - t IJ...,,\. (>.. (/,.. ,. "0<.-(._\<~ __ / ~ -J... -;) c~-:I:: (_)-~-r.' --.'liL4' . "71'- - ' fA f./'),1.{J/r.I((C~ ",~ \'. ) P-09JL\~ .;ft'~, 2 \(. o~, I /'-:Y ,:~L.-L_oL--c"" ~.......'--'- l~~ t::~ .~7 /' " j.....-~./ // r~ft(, ',- /~;'/"&"A,) "ft' 7) iLl /~/U?~ ,(..~/ .f"", ;'-,/ '" /'~v {tltJiM>')/c'~( , 1, ,:-<'{..li~ JtA , ............ ( .',' t"x:-. ~.. j r /.t ,I c: ~ ; n .lrt~:J~/ 'fiE, TilE FOLLOVING, \HSH TO VOICE OUR OlTlX,lTTON TO THe: 1:,CLl'~:lOJ" (IF UTI'( PilO!'F'lTIK'i T ~,1 THF. PROPOSED TiJ"ER ;3>\:ESThiJ~ TER V/ LV~Y OPf<;r.. ::',j'!.Gl': ;' ::j:;~"r":!< \'1' llT >j'r:(; r;:'. !JiBE (PLEJlSE PRINT) ,JJJvE L. S; d FjFF~ E~ /--0 r..e}J -0 ~ lA IIJ.S Vel/Ai r ,NC7~-J,. (J~j.~u-L GLd./lJJrt B. LlJkEJlHff0 C T L,iT' \ \;::,{' v. ~) U 5 C\ tJ . ^J' 1'- C'{U!(U~ ~6N!(k~ v SY~J~~~)~f:~~ _// Vc 1t---l\L::: .", .. r '-'f~G<-;'-"'~" . ')1u~ i- _ . ... /vt /1 IX 1ft tJ ,VI::; Ti'? /:ceCIIJ J (,,) ,III Flh' t), 'Y d.,',,,) \ v I \ y" A C;') u r J. <:. k.\ ~~)jlQ&f; .,ffi(J4(t[/ ell FF"ecflgeAj/J11! K0~ D '?Ob.,-ILTS 73el'fle.f) /2.cich" I H<<."<'t'I\J.N fJ Pi! ad......;1 Ih~ ha;) ), 8;}tlolo/1 t, DDRES2 ': >";W TlU ( f~~- Z'~.L~~ /&c~7r<B~~ ;_~ ~~. O~ LtfaL ~fl;..i~ y..L~Ovv\. T-:- WLiO"~,'l "-r:J .. /t' _ Rll~_~~_ /ccZA-c.[c Jt1''---&/.c /11 ~'7</ 1~-u..e.n-J ".' l. cJ..~ rox,,,--...__},...L'", i,L.{)t- V'""''- [ 2:i '_ I' hi' iD ~,\/"V~ /.~.,--<L...h""-" rit' .' ~' fI' ( f . f CJ' - : ( ", " :' 1, 1:Jp};WI '/ i '~ ,~d;:F afJ f) 0/ /' I {':-DY I .7i-lYl i 1"1. / .'.~S2i l-~"~ .7'::0 ~,U:t*L-L- ;fiF<Fl.91 €-lM-u'4: CI., J {.<< eLl t / t:.z .i~il1e.~/U':&i&: 6:- \olE, THE FOLL01'ING, \IISH TO VOICE OUR OI'PO:,ITTOI, TO THE HCLU,:ION (W OUf( PllOPFitTH:': T ;'.: THE PROrOSED TAYtTER SdEETl~f~ TER Vi'I LLSY OFEr; SP!. CE ;' SSESSHt;NT DISTi ~ (;T. ""IE (I'Ll"" C1C DRIll'!') ,,1-, _d d., t ~ '\DDRESS :: :G~:' TtFLb: ~'L~U'<- 'x~, , (t; Z ~ J..-.,.~ t,-- y1 I'Lv ~l~J.-d_( aLly ~kc' /J,I," -I" J.t;;:~ Lj" /f"{"'--"'~-- ,/7 .- , _ r\ 'i I "', V k-St, (,ct, L-eC:" ' ::::=}--",--~~ '7 Z '-c-et:;c__ (/j d. ' ~~ b4"Z:~~' - f i' ,/1/ - /':j' ~!,/l ~--(i('d"-~Jqj, v(J L~c/(_I ~/?jI, 0);/ fL~!i~ ~~~~!1~~~ / ~wJ~J0 ~f!jJ;f}e~ I)c.)x-tBca ~, 52-\,3:(''( 1h 1J..s U - Sftt/Jov,4L ~J ~ ~~J 'l L' '(;[<2./>""'t'" <<UhN<o ;JJ'.X ~~/;Nh:L ;; ,E ), E 1'-1 A, ;;)-j Ii ),1 J, L j l \/\L' (], L t STiI." ,]I'J. . /~J::: I) jI, fe' r/ JZ (; f) / c ~4/ !3L/TIi<'llFLL " </ //,/ ;--7(( t, (;)u!, /(f~ (_ I. '-" 8/1/ (lKff!foN wi!! ,Qlry) V tt"il ! 5 Y;;~tt~-A UfZ!LJ)\! . 6:j.vvarJ CJl e--t-ClJf,'an ]/r/-y I- L /0' CN:c7n.Mr7AJ 1Y;-~:<"7 \'J8, THE T<'OLL01'INr' "ISH . ", ", TO VOICE OUf{ OITC)C;l';'TU ," '[\) ';'llF: tLcLU:;rU1,1 il';' H_ ::11 I~ ~'lcUPF:?Tr~:~ r: THE PROPOSED TI)1 'm S"J)':I,TLi.TER v'r,L"Y or ," 'i" ~', 'on ., ,- , . l~, i.)) '. ~ " r) T -_ ';' { T ( !!i~lE (PL",,JISE PRINT) ~1~~/?y<-f~/j2i;"tY1't:6#U7 , L' / /1~/1' ~[" ."1 "'(' ,-'-_l,' II,V:" 1- __,r,t, j~'L!" G 1/'I_I--r:!;I,,~ CkrcJ)r~~A;;\ CL ,J~6YL~ ...~~ (OVIl{ /1>1-+0"/0':/ i'~:~"i~ !J,~Z;~ 1/ ) pl. / J .if/', }l1 I) 'L L ',~ t-1LL ILl">) iiy \X~ /I~ f}-.J.t'-{'rz.- {!/tI4y:! M#c~ /g L /.:;2 ! Ic_~!:-- )/t.: / /'J /"? /-,7:"--(::;> '- .. T '-~_ ,'''_ C -' / .,.-,' ~ t/ CLu-((Y -t: C14 V~ Ri-tev A LcvChco'lGf. -riZ,p:j oJ 1<.. C i. Pr C'1f"l "" (.: ~~~ ' ~D~~\ c\ ~. ~I" ~s:c,J 'V~(" oiL S. t/. (/ t':<<c..,c. S;, 'fiies;r /~R..l3fj pCJcf~{ / A~~ 5~~yt~ftPve:;z jJJtlft7SJ1 j)j//,/c~ 9G\0'A:~\-J S~ /1 AX L. 11ft IV/VlIifG i/6R()~t/A 1-. r1A rJlVift/& HiI~f/+- [3. iUz 'IJ')R;"~" L. . .J~,. ; / /,"' /. //, '-:~Fl' 'iT:!!'. ;/ 1;;,z~ J';;;7J~" /~# :>1 ~.JVt-~i~-<0 C~~~LL 3-~ t::;~c~c,4(fj~, p~;~<> ;~",~~dZ/r~c_ /-}.. Cvt-c.LJi' (' cftg "LpL- 5iftV a, J<~ Q(C(M.a ~;;JaI~ V/411h~t-U /114~// .,,\~~0H~ '$'~O- 6CVlbc--- '!J1CjL:i ?J1~ j)~ A'7h~ 95 _~.Q ~ 1-l1L~c- t f~ l"iE, THE FOLL01<ING, \iISH TO VOICE OUR OPFOSITTON TO THE II.CLU:>lO': OF Om( mOPEftTH,:: T~! THE PROPOSED T1)1/F.R S",rjEETI,U,TEH V[jLLSY ()l-'H:[', SPt,CJ'; ;' S:<;E(~.:}:h'\T DTST:C(;'-'~ WHE (PLEJlSS PRINT) ,\ DDnES~ -' 'nO ebCf/j cP /Jf/~ ?o-IV/ )L~ #t:{~ J rGV\,"€- L E~ k El'liLJ 1'1'1 RES 1I~I-~VM1~ ~~~ -511 Ndf2A klNcPONG !J/LLdtv TJJ t)JJbv kfin i(j~ "'. \ Ii D ," R,fc '-.J.JnV\ fl. '/Jlld?t// ~ /J/l-fC:Y* t((ilCt I},THSCf{I!.d . D/afl~ Or~Pt[() f/6Lt5N i. Po 5C y :::DC'~: n 1 (h, '1; L~ .) I?~j! ~4 ,~~ /' . )O};~Pl-l E, L6G8ocT ~-w u b1 -- -- Petitions Chula Vista Family Fun Center C and Family Recreation Center rJ Julv 26, 1994 / g- -~o LUI~ Co.(\c.- C'" (\~f"l(1 /fJ 1f66/ ~ 1..,,;'111 j') /f?v,Nf nS/-1 - '/ ..:54&.N-" We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address tV 1<(; -~31 ~~ .e.1.~ I~ ~rJ~~~f~~'- I~ , ' NAME (Please print) (lyt1ll f fV~ ;f;J)e~ ~~ ~ ~~w L\JjJh ~ tU:' -<~ \.. \00\ " We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address \ / J Il-~3L Tv fL6 IF; /II( 1/' z(j - , ~ /-/ , ,.:---- 1 I ,'-I NAME (Please print) f(i (JL Kt::.L if ^) __,l/" '1/< /: p~//>'r'~~ /^A' ..A;,'?/,ulr> ll) \7_ 1\ S I F / /"^ / . -- h<.l\I.J t:::.. LJ I L-13 ,r €- Art(v/< RuS5GL L o u G- L--I(k~ j1t"(, ~Vr./I/-/P(~ ~t:'J),zt. I , WL1~()x ...~. f)Li-L We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address 1$ -- ~ 3 ~ Signature -t/({I{- . , II - / )/(/ / I / ,; / ~J i j ~~ J~ ~~ f?~ 10~~o__. : Lt' .::..' NAME (Please print) ':si:j -=-~-r . if ~J A ,J .~(' Ci~~ltW (&-->>11. Be V(W, We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address \ 1~-~3L; Signature 1t-v,-~ fl.r5~2 J),~Jlt__ I~dn II, /k,f~-?~ em, r!) ""-- ,~,~ ,it... NAME (Please print) Dtf.(2[ 5-{ II{. If'S erelt !<ovJt-~lC Rob :-r[ S'eber _ -, "lj "...~ _.~ ,..... I --' :7) hi't aE-btfb~ 5'~?2";V/<""..e6 ",' A\' rUt-' ,vO: , ' I, I 11- ~o /~:hu a I( K 'f 0i6@i2-7 5 ~ We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address Signature '11;:: ~. ifJ---I~ t \<'~ e~ ~~I'-" , ~ ' ~J0 ~1 r/~--P./~ , f If --<.3 S .1,-/ NAME (Please print) f\0 O/J e II iv; tJXotL8 j) 'Gf - > ,I' , j;/Lc.<>< .;;.::-0; RLfS5-<?// -r~/ /eclck tlYlrf\\1C.- ~ox l::- /-. J- ) t/ t 6X We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address ..-.:J., ..- I "A I~; .'. ...... 1~--<36 Signature ;;'.M.- :' ~-{'-- -. -- ~ I v 0"U"-~: NAME (Please print) :-r< . \ :Kj~,/ m /)l( /\ / c, < l--~L r{t:Dllf t! I r V\ /l7V' 1":0 . c, I i Lt;j:~ OAf? ()L '-I AJ I /j ;jffl: Ie I P (--v/lf''D fW;1A- v'E;'f~ Ie, U) Cd, fs; ." I 'r... 'J ,/ hfAt(11/Cl l ~cr.,< ..ev ;) l.t tl (..c)~. \ ( (\.4,~1,1.." ( -> l" tr: ';i.. r 1 ." -:~,.__ / ! I _ (. j( ,Ie" c[-::>)~.)C{ In('1l -It ( ./ \' .--: We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address I z- ~3 7 Signature ) / --/ ( ''-L" , - /) . .~'- .- ".'~_f.'_ /J - .--.- .. ,l-' (I -~/"\\ L._7"";' d, .1' / ''/ "i(1 I" ~'I 1_""- f'u J. t ~ -! I J 1tc' rI/(',! .) {. t....c:.h l- JAI..lL"/L { <- ( ;1' --- l-(.UCl.' 'y.itA ,z,(dd! .fo-J tl." Ii J{ / / '?!-.' ." .. lid I /'J{ \".\t ,-L. - It?:,," L ~{J - ( ; ./" / 47 ICe co , ,t:. .-," f' ji-- 1\ ~'~.. ~_i'\ /'..- NAME (Please print) .e /?,' (. 0 V' --, \..). ~'" ;.;TJ't/L hGL T rz /L ) I ' v")r;: ?- ;-I,;} Iii: A(*I Jj( 7' ( ~\~J \, c-/ 'II~.~, V r\-- \ r\ -(~ L. ( ({\L.>I\\E L--~)I\~ (; I ~.\".! C'Yl./ y . ;'CC\\,"L, . We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address t I /g-0231f Signature y\ ~--1/'-.S:~::t . r ~~t ~c,., ">- Z<. 13~m f \. ,.....;.. ,-1"- t_..(../~, ......._ , ib.1I.UJt. 'fi.~^-drl/ .). f :,-7~- <[J./. i1' ~ '. /;/ / \ .7';/ '! ' -. . ('tl /~ il):......( If. _ ' /~' ( '. \ \ ~,jl" \ ) 1,/ I ...... ,f \,J /' ') .//, /" <?Xt ...L. ,/~. ;'-U-"" - \ \ r ~ el\" (c' 1+,,1 /. ' I /;'. /'-07/)(' /" .. '( Y/fLtlLut/V!) I "-/ ,""i" \W~ ~AME (Please print) I ~t/ ,I , ' , , f~,CI Jrv,' ' ..-..,.\ ( "/,' 'tx ~",.". LIt--' ~> mfA_ .<::' . j.,t{ I~n(\ .:.-1'-- c,: it 0' t.>".ov,,) -- (F' ;'" I '~ I 'j Ii.' ~.-.., -- (( 1__! ./ '\.,)... 1'"1. ~ ". ~ /' (~)K... __L b (t" M- S, \v;' ' P(,?~ c:l),v, We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address Signature :::y:-~{. I -J~_--1( e,'J-\' (v ( ;', r,f .'(.!{ \.. IriJi ft '--"-"" . --,,"-'-'- ~Jl.oJ.Lr-I~].6f_ >4~ -:... _ _' ., //_ (i . '~r. /< ,~C~~ / ._-._~ c-' . II, - '!- . J / l. L ,,\ (i /' '/,") ,,/, :\ ........ .' ... .l:..~ '. ...... i ". .c;.j ,~/"-.c . /"<"/!."'( ~-; /!:.-"~__ -L ~, ',' :.: / " .,;{, ..... "-;, .< / I t- It - .(>31 ,.----...-/( ~,....._,{ , " ~/ (JJ0)v+h, V (. /'1 NAME (Please print) .---- ] i'FQP /BJI( El2t/S' T) 0 AJ A /-,.1) - 1::, J:::12 11'/ l" I I i/'i,~ .......,...... v~~ -- _,0'- " , ~ i..-J('+ ~,\ A " rz.(', \2l <0, M I"v 'D- v' ,!,J f' ~CZt cku L0 L 6Cll'1 'L.Cl Ie L We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address I ' ( \ ( I I' I I Ig-<~() Signature ~ ~ JlrJ / ,/;'~7~ 9r7aU G G___......~-- , , I I }.'" ----, '- -l \ ./ tL-<(~ I .,L L LL_ V t(J){ .( ;).\.-- .ie, <~ f&'L ~ / ,(7'/! I / 't~;< 1/,' '_ ,~~{ 1) ./lfctt-Y:?___ ~- i.__- IL/ NAME (Please print) ,"':'-... '/., .\'.r / Ge r ; be r to A, O{~:. _f)f1 ,~ " / ' , -:1" l,-,$(., . . ~+t., c- ..(-f=' f' / CP.~L \N!>,I.-Lt\q: r~~l IJo:Jdj ., /\:/! 170 )'I-::4nn~1 /1 ,; //i//. /. /I' YI/, /-t/ / /v;L/ mLi/Y- 0::)l1irt"1''0- ..:Z--,r ,~ / / --: .----- ;' C"- .w. 5 ,) ,:.~~c r: ;jO\~j\JE $",,,<) f., We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address ., ) "bzJ 'ftr,{,<. (t-0241 Signature .- / ,.') ,. L --/ - (.~\{/I/r , j / / , ,"",:;.rU4i ) ~ift: t~. ~r;~~-' i ;1 'l . ;~ '-f"'-- _/ e,v~, ,,~------'-"" ____..__, / / IL r--.' ~)- '/ . .. /' 1__.. (./-'~, \,.:" ~..._',,- --- -,-.- !/\ J ~ tlv,.. NeVI;;--) -j ,/ // t,if 7:-(.ir A ~ c /'%, / 'Vi/" .. ,,/ 1'/'/"<-.__ ' '... . ,- r/i '\,... fr,- -.(j / 1.--'/"./' I' />/-....... /1 f. / j ./(' /1 ,1/\ t ',_ /'rf7[i[7I. / '/:.{.L.. ! /'" .' /:/ "/,;? '~",-~~~...Q t; ./- ~- ')\ , / /". . .. \' '._'~: ,,:---. \./.v.... .) ~(, /~ // /' ..'/, ,..(.-,- /1' / i // .,">:~f <' Ie.( NAME (P.lease print) \ W\~'" l\J< Y) MoL {UiA o 'CSf'7P-ANz..t.- F (:.t ( tikJnf f/o Of1t\BI- T t.\i..CkZA f2-- "R.PIJ/C( t ~..01 ~ /.}v 1/1/7/'1 ~ '//M.;L~ C~)r.:4\"'t< We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address /~-':<4'L Signature '-' b ;L'~", (1. "JA".L .QJI~ ~Jj)(J,v\p, Ie., "? C 0- ,t> ." ...:x. \.' , ^Ob<?~\ Sj,E'~'2J( . ! I-llU-rC"- ,jrYlj..fh We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address "" ~ .-. ,. .- J j ( '" C! . ( l;s - .:!43 Signature t. /J. 5&7ttd- up\~ffif:~' -;;L) LA~'~ !' c ( (. OJ - ~~-<.' ,//1 ~'V- ~~L & <--eu:V:J. 1'1 ::;::..~,..':-: '. We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista .. 1':'}. . >> .;.~ ,. NAME (Please print) Address -Ij -'(2.0'-( 'D. t:'.p,J \L , , 1~-.244 Signature .J- (v V'-.- C:, / c '. ~. I ) ~I. ). . ::-; ". 0' \ '.~' .. r " 1\../', \)\j\./._!..... W' ~ c' ? a .2:., mN\?1'\ ':: ,4-~~_ ( "\ '-, .~~: {Q /(Ar-C . ~vu1Vf~L.v--~ _' h a U)1d.:1'l_Y , flAil ; Ij./ L^- - /~ /1 , ) ()J . /-:-, jl ~ " ~""Vr~ A.1.z.. /' tit> NAME (Please print) L!L c je'J / RIff. !i'/f ,.u;:;,;j -; N rCi? - f I:.J~--6 We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chura Vista Address ( ;; Signature 'U-~~ ~....6--<<-4- - '-- ~~t16 ~~tl,:- Ci " ~ ' 4l '/...-t?Ai--"f /1_--, l ~ '" ~r;a~ e fPt/L/L-rj-- , {.'A~ ./ ! g-~4 5' N NAME (Please print) 'Kvd ~\ZAlfUr ........~ '-.... We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address ,. / ( i\'1~))rVIiY' a1etl v)&(jJ- '\fI1I\>-l ~ ~.Nilo . ;Jit!;~ y ;.:. Y t'sse? , , lo--?ljC IU NAME (Please print) Koc1ettltf -e! rJ/fIlC v'> r:llD " d We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address JIl5C7/V [_ ;fI1.j't./..-To A/ (; .d-- , \ ."- v , ) I~ I ~- .2 4 7 Signature ~,~/u</0 1(~ -~~ '1 VI _ c-- ~ . ~ ~~A'/ LI{/JI1A '----- uA~4~ \ I 1,/ NAME (Please print) Address ':...:; <( (\ lJ1..... . LO aL~ 1 ) ~ C~.h1 ~, --" /A.~ '~ 7l! _~ II );;\0 (J)/b&H\Q L :), ~- If '-- V(UE 'WILLIS c ~e:/U7 V AL.6 N2:(jE c \' 13-.248 , 1,-/ We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista NAME (Please print) e Lwrv We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address r v\ L ( I <:" 1 , I~ - ~ y 4 Signature Vi'. I ,8~ "" p"....., ~~ ~ p- kMJr; "" 1h~ I ~wv~ .1U~a~ 7: ev/ i 4/ )" '~ ~ ~ NAME (Please print) ~' ~ . (' , i ( /' 'I I "",''--1 ';' !i.AJ,- I :f(,yf"i. ; ,'r (-_~_'7 .< :f ';\...... I ,A <qJ ~~lv\ ~ VJ I /" cj' .' 11':1 !'() ,'( ,,)') f''l i/ -1:.0 ~-, . ., ISI{!A e ~ ) -/ ,', - L'- .... ('\ ~---. 'y~ . ,.{.iI. Jo WE (i ; IY '" IV S 'd/~ \ . 'e. <. / ) (c-1 /'\\. .~' i (...4 : -'I <.;;'- }, l ~6 JL /1 I" .} 11//.. (>.... -- ( "~_...( "'-, t. We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address Signature /, r' .', l I,' / 1/ /' i , ./. {'""If). /, / f~L 1"'. .... f I P<" , (f.7 .J- . ~'A 1,;1',1>> IV":-\..t.. ,f, i , . ! .;~-t\ ' ;;. , ", / . ( .I' /-;:7 .; ih1~ / /{.. /( ,/ f,. / ./ /"1f": '/./ orV-"' , I f" /i Ii :r(..i-c'J ,/ 1; itt ....,...-- " ''--..--''-A~ ,'){!...'kJ(, .......' '~ ' '~r . i (i ')Yl'::>ll.:1.'!;:~1 . ,.~ ~~~-c't,---";; , I' .. '-=--: . /-1 {}<.~ '.' _'yt-:.../>,.,__ / \ /' , ~ y ,'< 1=1 Iz (( 1-- "I. J I~ - ~:5 0 ~ 1<1 NAME (Please print) l--A \ \U< ""\ '" '-\. L-\:lQ.-- '-f 'l:'Cllle ~ -A ''''OS ( e" I , We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address ~ '( ") Signature tu f 1l~ 1 A/4Ii {o iJ'-., ~~ :5 tz.t 7.~ t1~0J1-, 0.rvC-fl;a.-- , /u Q (..h I'>A' 'u__ ~~ ,11/ It ~ J JUIIIJ e ':iI\N <-D)( '\~o . 1 \<, - /s - ..2 S / J)... NAME (Please print) p L~f7l~ c: R 5 otJ7es Iii L L c..' II It .To h (\ ~lc,- V Ct. '(' -(' 0 fo feF I~) 0 - Kt Lt/w ES I /,"' '- I~ .~) :ffN/5 //6U/l-f;( .5/\ ! 1- o u..', 6 ~- .~ e.:-.tL, We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address " I/H . /7> - ~ :Sf<. Signature ~~~~ id ~-::i7 :;0, h.w "7 aJP~ tJ1~;:1 ._/ff ~ ~;:L C-- . lU.4~.-, ~~ !;? NAME (Please print) r ! . , (, ,'-re'1 pltJ. ~\ (J. We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address ....;- ( /,IlJ-- I~- ~ 53 ~ -:-<jhJ C,' .,:,.:;:~:.: ,. .::':::=:"':'. .':". ::::~:::._:, .,--. '.,' '.'::::"','. " . ~~."..-~... ~ . " . ."..~.:. . .....~?;'...,:~::~~:.::.~,: NAME (Please print) e~'f ~ ~ C'fo.\n \0 I- 0'1..4. LI-'''^ ~ ']) t DIJ IlL. I) L, t11 /ll.€ '( I f4/It IJ~ ! $6 M LDfE7- I ~j./I~I/L '~(,k~J ~GDO ~5i We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address ~ \;) , o " 13-~S-4 - .illL ./ ~;/J / IJ,~ >f ~ --f:(~. 1\10- , l !J7J~ /L/ We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista NAME (Please print) Address { hr;.<; Gqbe I 5'? I i _~.V ' /z..,.2r-s Signature r rJP:t~$ ~ I]'J~~ \be~eSSe ~ 7 ."r (.~7 (~. 'I 7 ).. " .~)<( ~ I;, NAME (Please print) y ~o-rO-- ~ l-4-0ue I -r: M S v..J ~ 'f--\ L. ~ ~~ ) (. fA/U~- (!V I ~ '- ~~~ We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Ad~ress ) c n ~ IJ L / ~ ~ -2 r-C Signature ~~~ AAJ--(#~ 6~ f~ /<-I (j \j NAME (Please print) s , puvtO C (/2"fn /hJ We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address , I~ --25'7 Signature ~ ~/b4.~ ~:. J2J~ ~ B~ ~fkQa~ ~ r>-",,~-/~ -- 17- ~,~ ~<>/1 OD~ ~~~ ~~:_, . r?~~ , ~ ~ I, ' .....1 NAME (Please print) We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address r I t. "" r::J - I /g - .2SZ Signature 7.J-d _ (~ ..::.:.:.:,i(~..:" We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista ',::".:. ~:::~..::::.....:,. .~;.: x .....-. .... :,.,::~:~: :.::,,=::;::. .. ::., u. .,~:; .....N:.:.. ., ., ~~,':-:. .,:.... .. .:.;':...... .".,:.,....... x . ~:.x "'........ '..:';:." NAME (Please print) Address ~ /3 - :2 SCj We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista NAME (Please print) Address (..J/Cfi,'") 'T (' t::\f\j/ ...J, Signature 11, /JJ I-~ Y"~ ~ 7!t :r-- A5r~~ / :; ) .-'" /" \.- ! Z;(' /i': e---- .' "-" , )1(Hc' ~ti~ J.~~ r / Ig-~0(J I ! I I ~ I We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista ::::::'-"'~:~ ':':':{':.': ......'" .:<:-;{.: :~~:"y, x. :.:.>. '.-.... -'.- :,.", ., .._,...., :h:::':.,.'...... :,c< ,<< tp=. ['~ I U .....w....^..,... .".,' ..~.<.:.=:<~'~.>~.. wo.:.':. .~~~ :',~ NAME (Please print) Address .~~5-..~_ \...~\ '\ L "C) l1kr\Y\ Ce.r("){', ErJJ Jr~ Q e, Ld~ 0 T+60iJ 0J't.1l>'v JA-1.vt~5 U;Lsor. .&ZliLh4.E V. 1%,eTI4.E ;;J.- :J:0.J e.. ~~'1~ N~J ~"of"\ Jl'M5fo€\llt ;:: ?~~~ . ~.AJ JhJA~L , I ! , - I I I " f', Signature ~o L.-\t(tl-A~ t:~~ m UJ~ vr.b uJ1 M e. ~.v I\. .. 1<6~~" II? NAME (Please print) j7!? III We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address t. 1 / ( t9t I J _~~: +~~\(). V\~ e.- ~ ~ e-- ~ -':1,(t~jk. L U,r;e'\ L L fie... ,,- ^ ...----..--- ----",.,------- --_.,--~.- .---- "1/ Ie '1('1/0 I~ - .2 " L .> 1" . ~ '> ). --,}I':!'\ "" / y ~~ ~~J' Xu. '::;FiC .iA.( ~ ?- ~ ~ ,../ NAME (Please print) =.J '...IC,-...D<..( P "JoU"...D . l\ ~ '^lAr\.. .1hntL. .taJet/ I -~ f\' ~ t\.L U-J ~ / ,- We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address (, 2 1/ I ~ I ,/ r 1I IK--~(3 Signature I ~~ &,p,Q-'~ P I<~ "- ~A~ d_?~.~J.JL "'.. ". C L " fj: ..., V ei{ tljei~<2. ::..f- Ie 11- h?-A-..::v-.--' Ii NAME (Please print) \W,~5Im- r 1\ Url We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address QV _.~ I Jd.-- I ~ - -20, q lJ10~ it~oY~~ ~~ ?f ~U-- / ~~t{ I ~ 1'-1 dP I~ (0' ro (e.":', ~/Ic~ /t Qp~ 'A'f1Jh;~ A<= ~ 1ft/( /i (i j /" 1? r ;1,// 1-4 C I /.I ~ -. PIJv li-IL ~ (l';/-t:; VC~ J1- .:()-""D IP 6() N~( O~ tv\ I,( t\t C~ €. cflPoRI/LE ~ -J0AJ c- Kdyqv~ NAME (Please print) We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center f Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista "'~< " c. ....:.:. ',,'" ".,,::;:....:.-."........:-:'.l'i._v.... Address Signature c~~ 1/7 I; ~ ~A/\ .oJ '3 ;"! .. / ~~4~(U- , " ($ - .:?C S Ie{ We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista .,. ':n;~.::: ,:::;:9.i': ....:.:.,. 'W'~""'X-"<' ;:::.,.:.:..,-,.:~~: ':':'.'" .., .."'.... ...., . '~'''''' ;." .~~<:..... ,@ NAME (Please print) Address /- A1'2-Tl'f~ f2Avno<;. "^t:\'tl. \~ tA~\ \,\.0 .. 1<3 - ..2 b,b ......,... ......... ...... ":'~"" . ...... ,:..:.: ....., h.:/'" Signature D~ , ~. . "'- y \ (\ C'\ ~ ~~J}; ~J " A~ ~ ;J) - Ii NAME (Please print) ~e)~ r(WV\.~ll'{, L-ltfl ~ YYl c'S We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address G ,- Signature w.... ') ~ ~~..~~ ~&-. (14 J.1~<J a .1^~ ~ ~\/ 11-.267 N ~,.' I ';-~ 'y') \ __-;--~~,..;.,.,(.:.->, L ,'~ ,)-1-Ll I,? {~(/, vJ;~~) I I~ ." "f' ~ _,;.. fili::ci (,t \,-~ l: I,,} ( ~ 1\ ,'..f./ .-/ f.-'I I, ._":._.-=-_..__w~:':...':"~--=-__J_ Ii l\j~('. "-'!t",eL ~,,\,,--\.. (H(/.,. "::,.../ ij z71,. L/ .J\,\.~ .x..(' '''~' \CA ~ <...) ',(:;. -"', , ( " 'h I /;/.i YF ' A ,) I LLaJIv E. , , '- _C:. ::; ~-: 2\ f 'J~ I' , . \'1--)''::- I, .;:l", .', 1\, """'.x .,' '~,,,,-.~.:.~!l!ir""'\ '," 1~1ZD~"-":'~<' ,I ' '. I, , I ' ~ NAME (Pleas~, print) '-JJr~!l~f,;d ..~ jt? lWi OiC\itt II (f(t( [ ~ We, the following people, have signed lhis petition in supp,)rt of the Family Fun Center f Sports and Recwation Complex pioposed for the Lower Sweetwacer Valley area in the City 0" Chula Vista Address / t,:C: ~ '" ,~ ". I~-~b'i{ ~,~2nature /1 ',' ,xil ( , ~;"J ""I ". (.~. ,. / . 'i, 4/' ..,r-;/ - . ,,'f" --'T.J:~}' f"- "..... <;. " _ , '\ ",'/'! f'"~,, ,:' r ~~\ '':...--. ~d/ - ( (-"" ~.,7", .,./) _ . ; u_...~~ ( !! ~~,(_ x,' J t/'\, '.._.,- . J 10l~_:' <; / (_,~_ ,i ~ifl-~ *.1) )-.4VQ c'-- :) (j;~/ /~~h,- ) (Fi;l~ 'A . , " ~ lL r Lr ) ;::Y~~ ~, ~ _ i\,. }'-,:'".......' "'i.., ) cU " ,\ 1 lJ-' It! ;';':;'. ..........;.. .....,;. ',~,.,...".,.".... NAME (Please print) ..5.l~-/ A: Ale _p. .:k 1>>1 We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista '.,:.. ... ,-, .,~. .-'''.' .. ...-, ...' .:.;.,... ~,.n'."" ..'u ., ~:o- -.oN ~ Address Signature -- n~~ ~,f;~ LI(,~~ ~ ~~<'.(7 ft:~~ - , oC 'J- -A.. "-nk ~IC-il~ '-{ I:::> I .'/;. !f;-..2C, /i :,,:;:.:::.:.:=:; We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista .,':':.:.~: ,:;:::,....... ~..._.:::::::....,:., .... . .;~.........:...::,~ ....'''~..- ~ .::...::......::~. , ""- NAME (Please print) Address J)Dhj',Q- (~-=.aICIfOLC- 'J o 1~--27o Signature (! .rJ/J - '. . n .~ )U...JU.-. i1/LCIc ~ ~/l-."'~./J ,,-; ~~ ~ ~ 1,/ :.:~~:.:- We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista ~". x~ x .,:';.;::,.,'.... ,.,.~..;~.:........ .,~,,::-::,.~'x,-:~. .-:.~..:.' .. ;-". .. ""'~ .. S". :-:.'. ..;.;. .::~:::::;-.~......,..... '''.'~..' .' .... '. ~ ,.'~ ""'" ".-:-:. -:~" ,~ . ,:,., :'<~'" .' ..~.w.:..'<< ~;;-~ .-,,:~.::::w...'.<., ,::-~ .: NAME (Please print) Address Signature 8.- T~L~ " /~ .... -- I - cL I' 1._ ~ a 13KAr-l<D6l\J WR~Ht . rOM'(\ c:; .p II ~. (g--271 1<1 NAME (Please print) \ ~/--)' . "Y:./ , .;JIk- .......c;;- .......-.- ~_.~ / /c021 L.t/~ ~ >--Cu.!': ~' ______,____"___ .__.__._._.______u.,"._ ."_._'''___~__,__._.._.___ We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address '1 1'6-,271- Signature ., ~/;I /JJ1dt' ;lwlA ~~ ~"v ~l ,L(' U' L '1 / - /0 . / tt~ .,' G. Ii"'- c--J-'--o. ~ .---J. c..~ Ki.''.S 1-<""1'1.:.5 ~. ,/ ~ A::~~~,-- ~ -c-~" '"L /'id{~ 'f(f#k . f1. !. Lc-'-{(~ ~~, IV NAME (Please print) :J~; ~~~_ \=-ue(' 1\ c= "Vl'Y'>()..LA~ ~ M0~ ~'<., 1Yl.t~,- U I 5~ rno,rt I~ 81~...> c;,0-0rl'e.~ mc..r1J' P- 5ClAlCkz We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address J.. o " ~ c ~ , lo~-273 Signature C1 U!J1 j}.l) , > --~/ . . . . .-..._~~ ~ /.-;;:;;r ~ t I r1!:A rY),q~, IVE..:L- iN rr\ o:;i:;7-<., D ~ ~ 'ffi;~i~ '~~ \f\~ ~~ i.J-.O:r....tA..:'\C, f\'1::l~ ~~~.,O 15' We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista ~ NAME (r'lease print) Qa~J-~~C( vt J [ ~~(, I~t D~J:t Lu i,<;.--1b.y':Q- .) Addrc;ss l.\.-< \ c. ,""- <;;~~ - ~pD~71cOITfl ' t ".,..~.~ vii V u ~ __ ~ i3/?uO ~ ' ..::w. ~ V\ \'J., \) ; C<e..Y\ ~c..... 'r't.t!!l~~;' vJ(}8-{J~LJ. SA/vti) > PfA'ZL : 51;vhs P;': I U _..::.....k-___---,- ,_r" ., J0 Jd-l14-{-yJ '0 .\ If) 1 ~ oft; ~~~4J! &l.'A"/U7/A./~ Vlm/CSbA! _te r~ t1\V\c', !?? l1(;-( \ t') ~, t" b Jh( \ 0, \( 0-.\<\\ C\ f!< \ D. , '. ~"~'~d>'~""""'-2~t:.r.:.-: ,-". ~. ".~~ ,/ ') ~', ~-I c' ,AM IL h""~A lCw{;J; '-\/' .././f'Yl X) r \, \--- e-r;v~ - 11-~71; Is \.-\1 \'-- NAME (Please print) AI/yJ'fJn J]a/vyct /YJ/C~JYJM[';.J~ 'a7U-t~~ v'Ju : " la L ; /bt,;i 1. tJ, /~.- J~V\..Q G--a \e \ , I [,0rdir f ~~~~ -~u~ MC-f++ u,. We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address - . p !:>~ I J ~yj I~ - ~ 7~ IL/ Signature 2 j J/ j/l/I J-/ ?AJc/A /rr I/c...^- , -i I ?:-c!;p~ ~,.~;:::_:~~~;:'~"--~-~: "- .~ / ' ~~ -~~~ ~ NAME (Please print) (.(..- ~ s't\ '<'0. rortJ. We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address iUl. (~( ( ,l -- /'D - -2.76 ~ Signature ~~ I I :i/Clj~// /' ~,(leltf)d (;, &uOOl\' - :::V\ v.1f1/b ~rvv- 9.haJ /<1 NAME (Please print) We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address (J Signature . ,..,; :/ '" "~) ~ /,JO / 1'6-"<11 '\u I~ NAME (Please print) flksfer (h4 ve ? Je r \ ,f A/~ ;'r'u1{1.-,., ~. oJ k~~t:t\, We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address \ ~ ~ ~ ~tff ~(t\^'>,~:-,.> J ' ;/~ ~, (b/~ Yet..- ~e. r-O /. ,4tz..i" <:..-/1, - G-A - ~ I~ - ~ cg-O ;,/ NAME (Please print) ER~ -"&' ~ {VV\ s. Cle '-<.--. ----.Jo.5e I [PfE/CO)o fttXC/1/" We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address r. , o I g~ -< ~ I Signature ~::;;:; 1C-- Jt~~' - ~ ~y '::: c~ }p1M-f 0,1.. .L, ~ iM..e""--,d,, , "+ M' l 1-t>1A~ Ie( NAME (Please print) !<N.EN GRIZZLE ',(flIR-O t3.ft:t'2' <J J' ,) i> '. e s: G., v-"^ pi \:) ~dflU<:.yD S~~ We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address 6 , . L / !),. V .V v Ig . ~ ~ L 1 ~ Signature ~a ~f:t.-~ ;f- r7 .--/ ~. FJ'~' --- _ 9 ~ 0. ,^-~Si-.,;;> ~.) 'LiclMJtlJ{avA 1"7 '.7 ,) i/ NAME (Please print) .I:M' P fi-(/1 We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chura Vista Address Signature ~it~ f/ ~<3/// ~M L/J-/ I ;U',:.Iffi Ght3t f1 eI./ '" ~&q GbaPLvr- rYYljJ~A (;'btthCJ m# JM (2heJ f'L r ?N4-~h~jJl~ ~ 1-/. 7~(J) J$ -<? '33 ~-rL ~ t /t;; Iy ~-. ....../ AME (Please print) C lJ? cufaJ 0r 1? ()~:E;o.#\. Cl We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address f 1~~~<g4 '- - lU- ~~ ~D~J ~ I/tffJIL v ~~~ J1"fll1A _ &,/YY7A.J _ WJ!1f~ CL H . We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista NAME (Please print) tJcL/ );; ..J ~.eA VRd Pr~ Address '\. )mt 711t3 It- ~%"S ~~ L ,t{/'. - -~~~ ,:::t '0>4 {J. ! 1'-( NAME (Please print) -& a C'f We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address I l,c.., I r I~ ..2~G Signature ~<EY,..'- A. ~ n :A~~ It( .....:. .'W.. :,......;... . ....."0'"....,. ..:<~ ". <..... ...~.... ~<Y'\ eoJ'"\<>iZ ;:'.r/!/\1 bL~ . 'f-rl W~/lJ 0c 'JAIJ1\.e (~o{)(Zlb C We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address t (; ? ~. ~'y\L~ E' ;;( --t. 1?f-~Z7 - I Signature )lR/lU -J.. 'Or. ^'" ,,- ..R ( ,- (i.<€"'fLtf.c..'/ ~~. 0~ 0Ilc-CO .It oz J'-/ NAME (Please print) -----:-- ' I~~'e..- ~.r \~ ~ \ e In It AR~ ~\~U\"\ I&- 1M ~ ~~"-' Vt-/!,n'5 t We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center I Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address ~ v 11> - -< <5<6 Signature y:~~ t.'t' Af\~~ t. \' ~ WE6 1'\\j t~ \ ~. .. (-_1. ! ~, '.\ _'0~"i 0.. ~ --\J k)~ Je~ 0<- 14 NAME (Please print) A'('-l,hvor Y,f A llrz) ,1' ~~ ~f\CJC\ ~Q 10 \e~ ~e. N N (,C^1 e 2. d2~pc.~ rY. (\'("".~ - .J.e .s e ,. V<~YJ1 b n d~DJrJ~' tiL. ~ We, the foilowing people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address F 1$-281 ~- ~ 7c(~~ ~M~ ~'~J.<-- ~~ ,/ ~'" ~W~ f /'-( We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista NAME (Please print) Address ~ ~ ,J I.~..W~-\. ~.". .?-v...--. '\ -- 0.. WH C} LlM, w t1~ 1<t--~lO ./ I Signature 1t?R ~10Ub +'\,W'o) N-ft.:VA LDr~ ~ ~ ~ \'I1lc ftw. 0.) I{ NAME (Please print) We, the folloVfing people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / . Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address ^ \....-- eyl t ~ /<{ - .2 i J Signature 1-' ; ; \) v i~eJL' ',-(~ t{J'If~.' u~" ~~~ ~~~" ~5?(f LUO--,- J If ,J '-' }:;~,~: .... We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista .::::.~~:~; -.::::::: :::,:;, ~";-'~-. , ", , ' ,~, .'.<'. ..-.,}, .',.....: .".....:"...,.'..... -.'<' .. ~.'^ NAME (Please print) Address "" '17Qma C~\i5+~ctI) ~{ PcJ rO ~~ ~gr #r' 11/1/1 5~-- .)~~...,..,~:" ..... . Signature ~r-<#'\~ ~/11~ (\ (\ I ":~;t~~~0~~~CI Ii If () e"'.,..a> -c . \'\' CG\. ~ ,~ ~:3 jJa ;rd U~ /':5 - ;( c;c it! .....; U NAME (Please print) We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista ...,....~..:. . '~.' ".U.", ".;:::.;.,.' ':.:(.. "' ^ ,.,._ ~.. u "^:: " ::;;::o.,..?, ~ tl Address Signature L~ ~ k \-0 n- \ /",-... ,.. ~ --''b~... rc... :r s- /VI CA. e.- ( '& ~ 1/70 "^ r' / /~~tC<- rC<.- (0 ,^ ... Vr:-A ,1.1 ..... l:. ~ ...In'11,''''l\...... Lll.., .~ (~^ I L c... L trJ (j~ JA' ,A-~ 'L,*..-"'D., If. ~ IU~ A :h~ ;P&:1=- < c: \.- ~~ c:: "dC"~e~ , J A~ /g- /2~3 / ~~f? ~ -.- -- -----~ - - -- ~ ""'- ""'" ""'- CllY OF CHUIA VISTA City Council Agenda July 26, 1994, 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista Mayor Tim Nader, Mayor City Council Robert P. Fox Shirley A. Horton Leonard M. Moore Jerry R. Rindone City Manager John D. Goss City Attorney Bruce M. Boogaard City Clerk Beverly A. Authelet Council meets on the first calendar Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. and on the second, third, and fourth calendar Tuesdays at 6:00 p.lII. Regular Tuesday City Council meetings are replayed at7p.m.l'kdnesday on: II II' COX Cable Otannd 24 , Otula VISta Cable Otannel47 City 01 Qmla VISta, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CA 91910 (619) 691-5041 /'6--204 WELCOME TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Chula Vista City Council welcomes you and encourages your continued interest and involvement in the City's decision-making process. Copies of reports, resolutions, and ordinances considered by the City Council are available at the City Clerk's Office, and a reference copy is available in the lobby outside the Council Chamber before and during the Council meeting. ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL If you wish to speak to the City Council on any item listed on the Council agenda, please fill out a green or pink Request to Speak fornl 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 on the item; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation) . If you wish to speak to the City Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not an item listed on the Agenda, please fill out a yellow Request to Speak During Oral Communications form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. The Mayor will call you to the microphone at the appropriate time if you have filled out a Request to Speak form. At that time, please approach the lectern, clearly state your name and address, and proceed to make your comments. The timer in front of the Mayor will indicate how much time you have remaining to speak. VIDEOTAPING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS The regular Tuesday City Council meetings are videotaped and replayed on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. on Cox Cable Channel 24 and Chula Vista Cable Channel 47. Videotape copies (VHS) of the Tuesday Council meetings are available for check-out on the Thursday following the meeting at the Chula Vista Public Library, 365 "F" Street. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodation to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. l<l- ,21 s Tuesday, July 26, 1994 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building Re~!Ular Meeting of the Citv of Chuta Vista Citv Council CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Fox _, Horton _, Moore _, Rindone _' and Mayor Nader _' 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of Office: International Friendsbip Commission - Lawrence Breitfelder. b. Presentation of $5,000 to the Chula Vista Youth Coalition by Elite Racing, Inc. Mark McMillin of McMillin Companies is presenting a cbeck in the amount of $5,000 to the Chula Vista Youth Coalition. Sunny Shy, from the City, and Scott Mosher, of the Boys and Girls Club, will be accepting the cbeck on behalf of the Chula Vista Youth Coalition. Continued from the meeting of 7/19/94. >II'" ... ...... Effective April 1, 1994, Ihere have been new amendmenls 10 Ihe Brown Acl. The City Council musl now reconvene inlo open session 10 report any ./i!1!l1 actions laken in closed session and 10 adjourn Ihe meeting. Because oflhe cosl involved, Ihere will be no videotaping oflhe reconvened portion oflhe meeting. However, final actions reported wU/ be recorded in Ihe minules which will be available in Ihe City Clerk's Office. ***...* CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5 through 17) The slaff recommendations regarding Ihe following items lisled under the Consenl Calendar wU/ be enacled by the Council by one motion withoul discussion unless a CouncUmember, a member of the public or City slaff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. 1/ you wish to speak on one of these ilems, please fill oul a "Request 10 Speak Fonn" available in Ihe lobby and submit ilto Ihe City Clerk prior 10 the meeting. (Complele Ihe green fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complele Ihe pink fonn 10 speak in opposition 10 the slaff recommendation.) Ilems pulled from Ihe Consenl Calendar wU/ be discussed after Board and Commission Recommendations and Action Ilems. Ilems pulled by Ihe public wU/ be Ihe firsl items of business. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Claims against the City: Claimant Number 1 - Michael Anderson and Claimant Number 2 - Derrick O'Neal, c/o Donald Wayne Russell, Attorney at Law, 209 Third Avenue, Suite 6, Chula Vista, CA 91910; Claimant Number 3 - Tamara Van Tuinen, c/o William J. Ward, Esq., Tanya R. Tice, Esq., Law Offices of William J. Ward, 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 230, San Diego, CA 92122. It is recommended that the claims be denied. Ii -~c;h Agenda -2- July 26, 1994 6. ORDINANCE 2596 AMENDING SECTIONS 13.14.100 AND 13.14.150 OF THE MUNiCIPAL CODE RELATING TO SEWAGE PUMP STATION CHARGES AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 2461 AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 2181, 2286, AND 2477 TO DISSOLVE SPECIAL SEWER SERVICE RATE AREAS (second read;n!! and adoDtion) - On 5/17/94. Council approved Policy Number 570-03, Sewage Pump Station Financing Policy. The Policy provides that all existing Sewer Service Rate Areas, which provide for the financing of maintenance and operation costs of public sewage pump stations by property owners, be modified as of 7/1/94. Ordinances 2181, 2286, 2477, and Resolutions 6833 and 8028 must be repealed and Ordinance 2481, all of which established Special Sewer Service Rate Areas, must be amended to comply with the Policy. The Master Fee Schedule and Municipal Code need to be updated to reflect the provisions stated in the Policy. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works) 7. ORDINANCE 2597 AMENDING SECTIONS 14.04.010, 14.06.010, 14.08.030, 14.08.090, 14.08.140, 14.08.170, 14.10.010, AND 14.14.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, REPEALING SECTION 14.06.030 OF THE MUNiCIPAL CODE, REPEALING CHAPTER 14.18 OF THE MUNiCIPAL CODE AND ADDING CHAPTER 14.20 "STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL" TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, ALL RELATING TO REGULATION OF POLLUTANTS IN STORM WATER DISCHARGES AND TO WASTING WATER (second read;nl! and adoDtion) - The Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 and California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number 90-42 require the enactment of codes, laws, and ordinances to ensure the implementation of Federally mandated storm water and urban runoff pollution control programs. The proposed ordinance accomplishes thatlask by making it unlawful for any person to discharge pollutants to the City's storm water conveyance system. In addition, on 6111/91 the Storm Drain Fee and Fund were established to fund implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program. Council directed staff to include, as part of its annual review of the Storm DraiD Fee, options for levying and collecting fines against individuals that violate discharge regulations in lieu of continual increases in the fees. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works) 8. RESOLUTION 17577 PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A CITY -WIDE RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR BOTH THE ACTIVE AND INACTIVE SYSTEMS, INCLUDING RETENTION SCHEDULES AND PROCEDURES, AND AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS - In June 1991, Council approved a CIP Project for a City-wide Records Management Program. Included in the project was the hiring of a consultant to assist in the design of a records program. Since that time, the program has been developed with input from all departments. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Clerk) 9. RESOLUTION 17578 ADOPTING NEW CITY INVESTMENT POLICY AND GUIDELINES - The City's Investment Policy provides guidance for the prudent investment of temporarily idle cash. Amendment to the existing policy is sought to allow investment in the County Treasury in accordance with California Government Code 53684 and to eliminate the annual reporting requirement, since monthly reports are regularly submitted. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance) 1<3 - ..2~ 1 Agenda -3- July 26, 1994 10. RESOLUTION 17579 ACCEYfING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR FIVE VEHICLE EXHAUST EXTRICATION SYSTEMS - Bids have heen received for the purchase and installation of exhaust extrication systems at Fire Stations 2, 3, 4, and 5 pursuant to the previously-approved Capital Improvement Program projects. Due to current economic conditions, all bids received were lower than anticipated, generating some significant savings. A portion of the savings is proposed to be applied to the exhaust extrication system at Fire Station I which is in need of upgrade. Staff recommends approval of the resolution accepting bids and awarding the contract to Comfort Zone Air Conditioning & Heating Service, Inc. (Director of Finance and Fire Chief) II. RESOLUTION 17580 AUTHORIZING A TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE ON AUGUST 13, 1994 FOR A COMMUNITY FAIR SPONSORED BY THE OTAY COMMITTEE - The Otay Committee is requesting the temporary street closure of a section of Albany Avenue on 8/13/94 to allow them to expand the scope of their activities during their Annual Community Fair. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 12. RESOLUTION 17581 ALLOWING CLOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE FROM "E" TO "G" STREETS FOR THE 1994 THIRD A VENUE ARTS & CRAFTS FESTIVAL ON AUGUST 14, 1994, WAIVING SIDEWALK SALES ORDINANCE, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE FEES FOR THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIA TION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN EVENT - The Downtown Business Association (DBA) is requesting permission to close Third Avenue between "E" and fiG" Streets in order to conduct the 1994 Arts and Crafts Festival on Sunday, 8/14/94, from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. It will be the fourtb annual festival that the DBA successfully conducts in the downtown area. The festivities for the event will include live entertainment along with approximately 100 arts and crafts and food booths. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) 13. RESOLUTION 17582 APPROVING AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS COMMUNITY GROUPS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS On 5/24/94, Council approved $271,800 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for 24 social service programs, $72,500 for four community development programs and $58,000 for the Fair Housing Council, Human Services Council, and Regional Task Force on Homeless programs. The U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) requires a written agreement between the City and each suh-recipient of CDBG funds. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) 14. RESOLUTION 17583 AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXERCISE THE CITY'S RIGHT TO TAKE OVER AND UTILIZE A PORTION OF CAMINO BISCAY FROM RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY TO EAST OF DISCOVERY SCHOOL - McMillin Company, in the process of developing the subdivision around the new Discovery Elementary School, have built roadways near the school that are essential to the arrival and departure of school buses, private cars, deliveries, and emergency vehicles. The vehicles are using streets which have not been accepted into the public system for maintenance and there is a concern over the liability. The .Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. provides a method for the City to take over the use of the streets before their final acceptance. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) /~-~i&' Agenda -4- July 26, 1994 IS. RESOLUTION 17584 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TRANSIT BUSES ON COOPERATIVE BID - The Fiscal Year 1994/95 Transit Division budget provides for the purchase of two (2) transit buses. The City is able to obtain the buses via a County of San Diego bid. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 16. RESOLUTION 17585 APPROVING UNIFORM FARE STRUCTURE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT SERVICES - The agreement incorporates three major cooperative functions among transit operators under the Metropolitan Transit Development Board jurisdiction: cash fare structure; transfer procedures; and, regional passes, including revenue distribution. The primary changes to the Fiscal Year 1994/95 agreement are price increases for some regional passes. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 17. RESOLUTION 17586 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO TRANSIT CORPORATION (SDTC) - The amendment to the agreement for Fiscal Year (FY) 1994/95 continues Chula Vista Transit's participation in regionalttansit information service at a cost of $21,541, a 5.6% decrease from the FY 1993/94 cost of $22,766. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submit II to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink fonn to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. 18. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF ISSUE PAPER ADDRESSING RANGE OF LAND USES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING OF 68 ACRES IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY - On 2/15/94, Council directed staff to prepare a draft General Plan Amendment addressing a range of alternative land uses that could be considered for a General Plan Amendment of the 68 acre Lower Sweetwater Valley "Special Study Area." Staff recommends Council: (I) accept the Lower Sweetwater Valley General Plan Amendment Issue Paper, and direct staff to coordinate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report analyzing the five alternatives contained therein, subject to any additions, deletions or changes to the alternatives requested by Council: and, (2) direct staff to continue to work with area residents and the City's consulting engineer to refine the open space assessment district concept described in the feasibility study. (Director of Planning) /3 - -2 ~ '1 Agenda 19. PUBLIC HEARING -5- July 26, 1994 CONSIDERING TESTIMONY ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONE 8 IN OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 20 FOR RANCHO DEL REY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE OF A DESILTING BASIN - A desilting basin was built by McMillin Development in City open space off-site of Rancho del Rey land to trap silt which washed down form the upstream development. After maintenance by McMillin for five years, the City will have to maintain the basin. Formation of Zone 8 within Open Space District 20 will provide financing for the maintenance. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 7/19/94. RESOLUTION 17587 ESTABLISHING ZONE 8 WITHIN OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NUMBER 20, CONFIRMING THE REPORT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND LEVYING THE FIRST YEAR ASSESSMENTS AT $0 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 20. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING TESTIMONY ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONE E WITHIN EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, FOR THE PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE OF TELEGRAPH CANYON CHANNEL - On 5/24/94, Council declared the intention to establish Zone E within EastLake Maintenance District Number One (ELMD1) to provide for the maintenance of Telegraph Canyon channel. The public hearing will consider testimony for assessing benefitting properties within EastLake Maintenance District Number One for their pro rata share of the costs. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 7/19/94. RESOLUTION 17588 ESTABLISHING ZONE E WITHIN EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, CONFIRMING THE REPORT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND LEVYING THE FIRST YEAR ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees. None submitted. /7- 30-0 Agenda -6- July 26, 1994 ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discusswns and deliberations by the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individuaUy by the Council and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" fonn available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes. 21. RESOLUTION 17589 AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT RECORDS - The Personnel Department is requesting authorization to destroy expired and obsolete records. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Personnel) 22. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES - An oral report will be given by staff. A. ORAL REPORT REGARDING LEGAL REMEDIES TO PROPOSED JPA RATE STRUCTURE 23. REPORT UPDATE ON CLEAN WATER PROGRAM ISSUES - An oral report will be given by staff. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by CouncUmembers. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual. OTHER BUSINESS 24. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTCSI a. Scheduling of meetings. 25. MAYOR'S REPORTCSI a. Ratification of appointment: William Virchis - Cultural Arts Commission. b. RESOLUTION 17590 OPPOSING ANY DELAY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIMARY TREATMENT PHASE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TREATMENT PLANT AND DEMANDING TIIAT THE LOCAL CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB DROP ITS OPPOSITION TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MECHANICAL PRIMARY TREATMENT PHASE AND ENTER INTO A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION (IBWC) AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) FOR FUTURE STUDY OF ADVANCED INTEGRATED PONDING SYSTEMS FOR SECONDARY AND TERTIARY TREATMENT PURPOSES l)f - 3(j , Agenda -7- July 26, 1994 26. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers Horton/Rindone a. Consideration of "4-0" Rule for Chula Vista. CLOSED SESSION Unless the City AI/orney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are permiJted by low to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Council is ndvised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is required by low to return to open session, issue any reports of JiM1 action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of lime laken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, reports of final action taken, and atljournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be availoble in the City Clerk's Office. 27. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 . Christopher vs. the City of Chula Vista. . Hummell vs. the City of Chula Vista. . City of Chula Vista vs. the County of San Diego and Aptec. . EPA vs. th~ City San Diego, Chula Vista amicus party discussion, instructions to attorneys. 2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 . City vs. Solid Waste Management JPA (discriminatory rate structure). 28. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 . Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA), Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA), and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 29. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to the Regular City Council Meeting on August 2, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. /o~3o?- REGULAR PUBLIC MEETINGS OF CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSION Name of Commission Dale Time Location Aging 2nd Wed 3:00 p.m. Norman Cntr Conf Rm Appeals & Advisors 2nd Mon 5:00 p.m. PSB Conf Rm I Bayfront Conservancy Trust 4th Tues 1:30 p.m. NIC every other month Charter Review As Chair/Council Calls As Noticed Child Care 3rd Tues 7:00 p.m. Pk & Rec Conf Rm City Council 1st Tues 4:00 p.m. Council Chamber 2nd,3rd.4th Tuos 6:00 p.m. Council Chambor Civil Service 2nd Tburs 5:30 p.m. Pk & Roc Conf Rm Crime Prevention 4th Tuos 10:00 a.m. PSB Conf Rm 2&3 May. July. Oct 6:30 p.m. Cultural Arts 2nd Tues 5:00 p.m. Pk & Rec Conf Rm Design Review 2nd & 4th Mon 4:30 p.m. PSB Conf Rm 2&3 Economic Development IstWod 12:00 Noon PSB Conf Rm 2&3 Ethics As Chair Calls Council Conf Rm Growth Management Oversight As Chair Calls PSB Conf Rm 2&3 Housing Advisory 4th Wod 3:30 p.m. PSB Conf Rm 2&3 Human Relations 2nd Wod 5:00 p. m. Council Conf Rm Interagency Water Task Force As Chair Calls Council Cont" Rm International Friendship 4th Mon 4:00 p.m. Fire Dept Train Rm Library Board of Trust""s 4th Wod 3:00 p.m. Lib ConI' Rm I Mobilehome Rent Review As Chair Calls Council Chamber Montgomory Planning 1st Wed 7:00 p.m. Laudorbach Cntr 3rd Wed 6:00 p.m. PSB Conf Rm 2&3 Otay Valloy Road Project 2nd & 4th Mon 9:00 a. m. PSB ConI' Rm 3 Parks & Recreation 3rd Thurs 6:30 p.m. PSB Conf Rm 2&3 Planning 2nd & 4th Wed 7:00 p.m. Council Chambor 3rd Wed 5:00 p.m. PSB ConI' Rm 2&3 Redevelopment Agency 1st Tuos after Council mtg Council Chambor 3rd Tues alior Cooneil mtg Council Chamber Resource Conservation 2nd & 4th Mon 6:00 p.m. PSB ConI' Rm 1 Safety 2nd Thurs 7:00 p. m. Council Chamber Southwest Project Area 1st Mon 4:40 p.m. PSB ConI' Rm I Town Centre Project Area 1st & 3rd Thurs 8:30 a.m. PSB Conf Rm 2&3 Youth 2nd Moo 6:30 p.m. Pk & Rec Conf Rm It i,; sim:erely hoped IbId 1m,; illf'onuuliull is helpful ;uul IImt ~'uur visit to this lUt'dinj;: has been pleaS~ult Wid iufonllati\'t!-. Should )'OU dt'Sire ,uldililllUlI illl'onlll.lliou l.lbnut CuulU.'il .wlions or Cit), bmiilless. ple.lse call the Onice of Iht" Cil)' Clerk ,II 691-50"1 during rea:::uhlr workilla:; hours (8:00 a.lU. through 5:00 p.IU.. Munda)' Ihruua:;h Frid'I)'~ a 3 1'6 ~ ~ 3/8/94 L ~[ (6 7i/ GOVERNMENT CODE SECllONS PERMfITING CLOSED SESSIONS GC 54966.7 The Oty Council or Redevelopment Agency may hold a closed session with an applicant and the applicant's attorney for a license or a license renewal where the applicant has a criminal record and the Council determines that it is necessary to discuss and determine whether the applicant is sufficiently rehabilitated. GC 54956.8 The Oty Council or Redevelopment Agency may hold a closed session with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property to give instructions to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease if, prior to the closed session, the City Council holds an open and public session in which it identifies the real property and the persons with whom the negotiators may negotiate (the City Council members may be City authorized negotiators). GC 54956.9 The City Council or Redevelopment Agency may hold a closed session to confer with or receive advice from its legal counsel regarding pending litigation when discussion in open session concerning those matters would prejudice the position of the City in the litigation, and they have received the advice of its City Attorney that it would be in the City's best interest to conduct the discussion in closed session. Under this section, a controversy is considered to be pending litigation when there has been a formal initiation of an adjudicatory proceeding; or, when the City Council has formed the opinion that, based on advice from its legal counsel, there is significant exposure to litigation against the local agency; or, the City is deciding whether or not to initiate litigation. GC 54956.95 The City Council or Redevelopment Agency may hold a closed session if the City is a member of a joint powers agency formed for purposes of insurance pooling to discuss a claim for the payment of tort liability losses, public liability losses or worker's compensation liability incurred or to be incurred by the joint powers agency or the City which is a member thereof. GC 54957 The City Councilor Redevelopment Agency may hold a closed session on matters posing a threat to the security of public buildings, or a threat to the public's right of access to public services or public facilities. The City Council or Redevelopment Agency may also hold, under the authority of this section, a closed session to consider appointment, employment evaluation of performance, dismissal of a public employee, or to hear complaints or charges brought against such employee by another person or employee unless such employee requests a public hearing. For the purposes of this section, employee does not include an elected official and does not include appointed officials except for the non-elective positions of City Manger, City Attorney, a department head or other similar administrative officer of the local agency, chief engineer, legal counsel, assessor, treasurer, among others. Any action taken in executive session to appoint, employ, or dismiss a public employee arising out of any closed session of the legislative body shall be publicly reported at the public meeting during which the closed session is held or at the next public meeting and shall report any roll call vote thereon. GC 54957.6 A City Council or Redevelopment Agency may hold a closed session with the City's designated representatives regarding the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of its represented and unrepresented employees if the closed session is held for the purpose of reviewing its position and instructing the City's designated representatives. Such closed sessions may take place prior to and during labor negotiations. A City Council may also meet with a state conciliator who has intervened in any labor dispute. A City Council may also hold closed sessions with its designated representatives on mandatory subjects within the scope of representation of its represented employees. 1-0~2'1tt /Y-3oLj ..' .....:-:...:-,., '."'..,. . ..,.:~".:.-'''-'.' >" ..,. ....-.,.. "'..~, ... . ..............,., '...... ~~....... ';/.~ NAME (Please print) ( 'E mj~ sf-rCLiW5 ?t{1er~ !!i~ DUd ~ }~JU)E L '-.-. -, ( \ . \,.. . t We, the following people, have signed this petition in support of the Family Fun Center / Sports and Recreation Complex proposed for the Lower Sweetwater Valley area in the City of Chula Vista Address .~.. ..;.:.;....: z.... .,.... .......... ..~^ <,'.' ....w., .'-", . r.~..~~. ...:::., Signature ~~ ( ILL " . /J y-. '0 r-Lvwc / U ~. ;w:c- R /j!fLJtiL.~ 'L~ l , _ . /dCL.: ( -- \ / .. /<{,-3CS /