HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/04/23 Agenda Packet
"I df.'l"'!~r"" .~~~ -'I' k " ,
~1.,;\.J \; UH'_~Cr re!l:), Y Of re!"."E'V t;"J3~ l !',m
ert::'!O\'8'~~ by ti',u 0+ C'~:J::; \;"i3"'2 ;!l '~:':a
Tuesday, April 23, 1991
6:00 PM
G:;'i"~G .,:.,-i ';:hD ei',-,- r'~,.-,: :-:1.! n..;,o ~ :';;~:: ,':: j
t:~i::: i-:-:: ,~',-i ,:00 ;';;:'- 1 L:" ; .~\ [~~
;J;~i~:j';4-;~I-\~~"~:_:~,;:L:::.~~L~i2'~:~:_"
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
Regular MeetinS( of the City of Chula Vista City Council
CALLED TO ORDER
1.
CAll. THE ROll:
Councilmembers Malcolm _, Nader -' Rindone _ and Mayor Pro
Tempore Moore _'
2. PLEDGE OF AlLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 21, April 9, and April 16, 1991
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Proclaiming the month of April 1991 as "Miniature Rose Month", The proclamation will be
presenred to Ms. Susan O'Brien, Co-Owner of the Tiny Petals Nursery.
b. Proclaiming the week of May 5-11, 1991 as "Youth Week". The proclamation will be
presented to Richard Cannon, Exalted Ruler of Elks Lodge #2011.
c. Proclaiming the week of April 22-26, 1991 as "National Secretaries Week"
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 18)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the
Council by one motion without discussion unless a Counci/member, a member of the public or City stoff requests
that the i1em be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to
Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff
recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Public Hearings and Oral
Communications. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNlCATIONS:
a. Claims Against the City: Claimant No.1: L. R. Hubbard, c/o Denis Long, Esq., Attorney
at Law, 550 West "C" Street, Suite 900, San Diego, CA 92101. Due to remote liability on
the part of the City, the City Attorney, Daley & Heft, City claims administrators, Carl Warren
& Company, and Risk Management recommend the claims filed by L. R. Hubbard
Construction Company be denied.
b. Letter requesting Public Hearing on the matter of ordinance number 10.80.010 requiring
removal of family vehicles from vacant lot - Raul Valdivia, 157 Carner Street, Chula Vista,
CA.
AGENDA
2
April 23, 1991
6. ORDINANCE 2452A AMENDING CHAPTERS 19.04 AND 19.48 OF TIiE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO TIiE PROVISION OF COMMUNI1Y PURPOSE FACIUTIES
[second readmit and adoption). Staff recommends Council place ordinance
on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning)
7. ORDINANCE 2453 AMENDING SECTIONS 2.28.020, 2.28.040, AND 2.28.050 OF CHAPTER
2.28 RELATING TO TIiE BOARD OF ETHICS [second readmit and
adoption) - At the April 4, 1991 Board of Ethics meeting, the Board voted
unanimously to make changes to various sections of Chapter 2.28 relating
to the application of the Ethics Code, unfair and equal treatment section
and specific prohibitions contained in the Unethical Conduct section.
Board recommends that Council place ordinance on second reading and
adoption.
8. ORDINANCE 2454 AMENDING CHAPTER 9.20 TO PRlMARILY TO PRECLUDE SALE OR
POSSESSION OF FELT TIP MARKERS BY MINORS, AND TO CHANGE TIiE
DESIGNATION OF GRAFFITI-TYPE CRIMES FROM INFRACTIONS TO
EITHER INFRACTIONS OR MISDEMEANORS [first readinst) Staff
recommends Council place ordinance on first reading. (City Attorney)
9. RESOLUTION 16136 ACCEPTING SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH COUNIY OF SAN DIEGO FOR
GRANT FUNDS TO ESTABUSH A MODEL OFFiCE RECYCUNG PROGRAM
AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - In the Fall, City was notified
of a $15,000 grant award. However, due to County delays no TAP grant
service agreements were delivered until the end of March. Staff has
reviewed the service agreement and filed it with the County in order to
begin the process for receipt of monies for program start up. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (City Manager) 4/5's vote
required.
10. RESOLUTION 16137 AMENDING FY 1990/91 BUDGET TO UPGRADE (1) SECRETARY
POSmON TO ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY IN TIiE CI1Y CLERK'S
OFFiCE - The 91/92 Budget proposed by the City Clerk requested an
upgrade of the Secretary position to Administrative Secretary. While that
reclassification was being considered, the incumbent resigned effective
April 11, 1991. This situation left the City Clerk with two alternatives: (I)
leave the position vacant until the effective date of the reclassification, July
1, 1991; or (2) request an upgrade and revision of the budget so that this
position may be filled at the Administrative Secretary level immediately.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution to fill vacancy with an
Administrative Secretary. (Director of Personnel and City Clerk)
11. RESOLUTION 16138 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF
ASPHALT PAVER AND TRAILER - Bids were received and opened for the
purchase of one asphalt paver and trailer approved in the FY 90-91
Equipment Replacement Budget. Four bids were received. The paver will
be used in Public Works operations. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Finance)
AGENDA
3
April 23, 1991
12. RESOLUTION 16139 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACf FOR PURCHASE OF CAB
AND CHASSIS TRUCK AND STEP/VAN TRUCK - Bids were received and
opened for the purchase of two trucks approved in the FY 90-91 Equipment
Replacement Budget. Five bids were received. The truck will be used in
Public Works operations. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Finance)
13. RESOLUTION 16140 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACf FOR PURCHASE OF
FRom-END LOADER - Bids were received and opened for the purchase of
one front-end loader approved in the FY 90-91 Equipment Replacement
Budget. Two bids were received. The equipment will be used by Public
Works. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance)
14. RESOLUTION 16141 APPROVING ADDITIONAL RESIDENfIAL CONSTRUCTION TAX (RCT)
CREDITS FOR DISCOVERY PARK IMPROVEMENTS - Rancho del Rey
Partnership has submitted a request for $552,124.21 in the RCT credit for
the construction of Discovery Park. Staff recommends that Council approve
the resolution for an additional $114,124.21 in RCT credit for expenditures
eligible for credit. (Director of Parks & Recreation)
15. RESOLUTION 16142 APPROVING AGREEMENT Willi mE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO -
Agreement between Chula Vista and San Diego County relative to the
provision of Emergency Medical Technician-Paramedic and Emergency
Medical T echnicianlPublic Safety-Defibrillation Services. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Fire Chief)
16. RESOLUTION 16143 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACf TO SIGNAL
MAINfENANCE, INC. FOR INSTALLATION OF BICYCLE DETECTION
LOOPS AT VARIOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS IN mE CIlY OF
CHULA VISTA - On March 12, 1991, the Director of Public Works received
sealed bids for the installation of bicycle detection loops at various
locations in the City of Chula Vista. Bids were received from 11 qualified
electrical contractors. Staff recommends that Council approve the
resolution accepting the bids and awarding the contract to Signal
Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $17,358. (Director of Public Works)
17. RESOLUTION 16144 QillTCLAlMING WATER SERVICE EASEMENT TO OWNERS OF mE
PROPERlY AT 1250 TIIIRD AVENUE AND AUTIIORIZING MAYOR TO
SIGN DEED - Prior to its annexation to the City, the property which is now
Lauderbach Park obtained its water service from the water main located in
Third Avenue. This necessitated the granting of an easement through the
property adjacent to the east. Since that time, however, the water service
has been relocated to the Oxford Street side of the property. The subject
easement is no longer needed and may be quitclaimed back to the owners.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
AGENDA
4
April 23, 1991
18. RESOLUTION 16145 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITIi DOMINY AND ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECfS FOR ARCHITECfURAL DESIGN SERVICES REQUIRED FOR
TIlE RANCHO DEL REY FIRE 1RAINING TOWER LOCATED AT H STREET
AND PASEO RANCHERO - The Engineering Division sent requests for
letters of interest and statement of qualifications for professional
architectural design services for the Rancho del Rey Fire Training Tower.
Four firms responded and after evaluation of the qualifications by a
selection committee, three firms were selected for interviews. Based on the
analysis of the proposals and interviews, the selection committee made up
of Engineering, Fire, and Administration staff recommends that the contract
for design of the Rancho del Rey Fire Training Tower be awarded to
Dominy and Associates. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The follawing items have been advertised and/or posted as publii: hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak
to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the stJIjf recom.mendJltion; complete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the stJIjf recommendntion.) Comments are limited to five milwtes per individual.
The meeting will adjourn to a joint Council/Redeve1opment Agency meeting to discuss the following:
19.
PUBUC HEARING
A
RESOLUTION 1165
CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 52 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF 245,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AT 850
LAGOON DRIVE - COUNCIL ITEM - Public hearing to consider a Coastal
Development Permit for the construction of a 245,000 square foot office
building on 850 Lagoon Drive. In addition, Council will consider
certification of environmental documents and adoption of a statement of
overriding consideration and mitigation monitoring program. Staff
recommends Council hold public hearing, approve Coastal Development
Permit, certify environmental documents, adopt statement of overriding
consideration and mitigation monitoring program. (Director of Community
Development) Continued from the meeting of 04/16/91.
APPROVING OWNER PARTI<JPATION AGREEMENT BF/OP NUMBER 03
WITH ROHR INDUSTRIES TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 850
LAGOON DRIVE, CERTIFYING EIR-90-10 AND ADDENDUM THERETO,
ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND
APPROPRIATING $150,000 TO TIlE BAYFRONT FINE ARTS ACCOUNT -
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM - This item does not require a public
hearing, but is related to the public hearing. Resolution to approve an
Owner Participation Agreement with Rohr Industries for the construction
of a 245,000 square foot office building on 850 Lagoon Drive. In addition,
the resolution will certify environmental documents and adopt a statement
of overriding consideration and mitigation monitoring program. Staff
recommends that Council certify environmental documents, adopt
statement of overriding consideration and mitigation monitoring program,
AGENDA
5
April 23, 1991
and approve the Owner Participation Agreement. Continued from the
meeting of 04/16/91. 4/5's vote required.
B. RESOLUTION 16135 CERTIFYING E1R 90-10 AND ADDENDUM lHERETO, ADOPTING CEQA
FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,
ADOPTING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, ADOPTING FINDINGS
FOR A HElGHf AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, ENTERING INTO
A PARKING AGREEMENT WITH ROHR INDUSTRIES AND FINDING ROHR
INDUSTRIES PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 245,000 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE BUILDING IS CONSISTENT WITH TIlE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND APPROVING ISSUANCE OF COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 52
The joint Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting will adjourn and the Council meeting will reconvene.
20. PUBlJC HEARING MATTERS RELATED TO ADOPTION OF TIlE CITY'S GROWIH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - The Growth Management Program and
implementing ordinances will create a comprehensive system to manage
future growth by directing and phasing development in order to guarantee
the timely provision of public facilities and services. The ordinance to
establish the Growth Management Oversight Commission will replace the
original resolution adopted by Council in 1987. (Director of Planning)
Continued from the meeting of April 9, 1991.
A. ORDINANCE 2448 AMENDING TITLE 19 OF TIlE CHULA VISTA ZONING CODE BY ADDING
CHAPTER 19.09 FOR TIlE PURPOSE OF MANAGING TIlE CITY'S GROWIH
(first readinl!")
B. RESOLUTION 16101 ADOPTING TIlE GROWIH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
C. ORDINANCE 2447 ADDING CHAPTER 2.40 TO TIlE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO CREATION OF TIlE GROWIH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHf
COMMISSION (first readinl!") - The ordinance does not require a public
hearing but is related to the above items. (City Attorney) Continued from
the meeting of April 9, 1991.
21. PUBlJC HEARING AMENDING TIlE CHULA VISTA MASTER FEE SCHEDULE RELATED TO
PARKLAND ACQUISITION FEES AND PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEES -
Said fees have not been adjusted for three years. Costs for acquiring land
and developing parks have increased steadily, necessitating the proposed
increase in fees charged to developers for said City park acquisition and
development. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Parks and Recreation) Continued from the meeting of April 2, 1991.
RESOLUTION 16146 APPROVING AN INCREASE IN PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT
FEES - Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and
Recreation)
AGENDA
6
April 23, 1991
ORAL COMMUNlCATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Cowu:iI 011 any subjea matter within the Cowu:iI'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 spea/<, prease give your 1IIl1tIe and address
for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
ACTION ITEMS
"The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the
Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out
a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public
comments are limited to five minutes."
22. ORDINANCE 2451 ADDING CHAPTER 2.31 AND AMENDING CHAPTER 9.50 OF TIlE CHULA
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MOBILE HOME PARKS RENT
REVIEW COMMISSION (first readimtl . At the present time, the City has
a rent arbitration ordinance which provides a mechanism for park residents
to appeal a rent increase when the increase exceeds the percentage
increase of the Consumer Price Index for any twelve month period. The
recommended Municipal Code changes address issues relating to the
efficacy of the ordinance. (Director of Community Development)
Continued from the meeting of 04/16/91.
23. RESOLUTION 16147 ADOPTING A REVISED COUNCIL POUCY FOR TIlE INSTAlJ.ATION OF
AlJ.rWAY STOP SIGNS - The City Council at its August 14, 1990 meeting,
during discussion of the Oleander Avenue and East Oxford Street traffic
problem indicated a need to modify the existing all.way stop policy to
allow more emphasis on school age pedestrian activity areas. In response
to this concern, staff has prepared a revision of the City's all.way stop
policy that provides greater emphasis on pedestrian activity areas. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
24. REPORT ON TRAFFIC CONCERNS FOR OLEANDER AVENUE BETWEEN EAST
PALOMAR STREET AND EAST ORANGE AVENUE . Residents in the area
of Oleander Avenue between East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue
have requested that measures be taken to reduce vehicular speeds on
Oleander Avenue. Staff recommends Council approve the installation of
additional 25 mph speed limit signs and additional of 25 mph pavement
markings adjacent to the speed limit signs on Oleander Avenue. (Director
of Public Works)
AGENDA
7
April 23, 1991
PUBUC RELEASE OF TI-IE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT OF TI-IE CITY
ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH TI-IE
ENACfMENT OF A TRENCH FEE MORATORIUM - Staff recommends
Council defer release of confidential reports of the City Attorney relating
to a trench fee prohibition bearing meeting dates of January 15, 1991 and
March 21,1991 for a period of four months unless Council reconsiders the
issue prior thereto, and the meantime advise the public that in those
prohibition on the ability of a developer to impose fees for occupancy of
main utility trenches involved legal risks for which the City should be
adequately indemnified. (City Attorney)
25.
REPORT
26.
REPORT
ON PROPOSAlS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT
4400 BLOCK OF BONITA ROAD - This report is regarding proposals for
development of a three-acre parcel adjacent to the Municipal Golf Course.
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to bring forward an
exclusive negotiation agreement with Joelen Enterprises for hotel
development on the site. (Director of Community Development)
Continued from the meeting of 04/16/91.
OTI-IER BUSINESS
27. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: None
28. ITEMS PUlLED FROM TI-IE CONSENT CALENDAR - This is the time the City Council will discuss items
which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public
will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers. Public comments are limited to five minutes
per individual.
29. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTCS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
30. MAYOR'S REPORTCS)
a. Ratification of Appointments to Bayfront Subcommittee
b. RESOLUTION 16148 REQUESTING COMMISSIONERS OF SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT
DISTRICT APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR IT 1991-92 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECIS AND ESTABUSH A STRATEGIC
PLANNING COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP A FULL S-YEAR CIP
PROGRAM - 4/S', vote required.
c. ORDINANCE 24SS AMENDING VARIOUS SUBSECTION OF SECTION 2.48.200 OF
TI-IE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE VOTING MEMBERS OF TI-IE
MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE TO BE
RESIDENTS OF TI-IE MONTGOMERY AREA (first readinl!:)
AGENDA
8
April 23, 1991
31. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Malcolm:
a. Legislative Communication:
Legislation Prohibiting Release of Names of Rape Victims both on State and Local Levels
b. Legislative Analysis:
1. Requires Council Action
SB 716 (Killea) - San Diego/Coronado Bridge: Tolls. Staff recommends Council
support.
n. Addressed bv Lei!islative Proi!tam thus Requires no Council Action
5B 1155 (Bergeson) - Redevelopment: Special Supplemental Revenue. Staff
recommends oppose.
AB 315 (Friedman) - Redevelopment: Low and Moderate Income Housing. Staff
recommends oppose.
AB 1865 (Houser) - Redevelopment: Sales and Used Tax. Staff recommends
oppose.
5CA 11 (Morgan) - General Obligation Bonds - Staff recommends support.
5B 82 (Kopp) - Property Tax: Revenue Increase to Cities by Closing Loophole for
Business Properties that Change Ownership. Staff recommends support.
5B 445 (Deddeh) - Cost Recovery for Removal of Asbestos in Public Buildings. Staff
recommends support.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Pendergraft versus City of Chula
Vista, et al.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Alicia Flores versus City of Chula
Vista, et al.
Approve an appointment by the City Manager in accordance with Section 500(a) of the Chula Vista
Charter
The meeting will adjourn (closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting/Work Session on
April 25, 1991 at 4:00 PM in the City Council Conference Room.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM
44
MEETING DATE 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE: Proclamation - proclaiming the Month of April 1991 as
"MINIATURE ROSE MONTH"
SUBMITTED BY: Mayor pro
Tempore MO~f(4/5THS VOTE:
The proclamation declaring the month of April 1991 as "MINIATURE ROSE
MONTH" will be presented by Mayor pro Tempore Moore to Ms. Susan O'Brien,
Co-Owner of the Tiny Petals Nursery.
YES
NOXX
fa-!
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM 4- h
MEETING DATE 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE: Proclamation - Proclaiming the Week of May 5-11, 1991 as
"YOUTH WEEK"
SUBMITTED BY: Mayor pro Tempore MO~ (4/STHS VOTE: YES_ NO~
The proclamation declaring the week of May 5 through May 11, 1991 as
"YOUTH WEEK" will be presented by Mayor pro Tempore Leonard Moore to
Mr. Richard Cannon, Exalted Ruler of the Elks Lodge #2011.
4b-l
April 19, 1991
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss, City Manager~
City Council Meeting of April 23, 1991
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for
Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 23, 1991.
Written Communications are as follows:
the regular City
Comments regarding
5a. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FILED BY L. R.
HUBBARD BE DENIED.
5b. This is a letter from Raul Valdivia, 157 Caruer Street, regarding
a notice he received from the City to remove vehicles from his property.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS MATTER BE REFERRED TO STAFF FOR PROCESSING
THROUGH THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS AT THEIR MAY 13 MEETING.
JDG:mab/51
,-
-~-_..-"-==----
I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 4/?3/91
ITEM TITLE:
Claims Against the City
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of personnel~~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___ No-X-)
REVIEWED BY: ci ty Manager 6/~",
.. j
A:: ,
Claimant No.1: L. R. Hubbard Construction Company
c/o Denis Long, Esq.
Haasis, Pope & Correll
Attorneys at Law
550 West "c" street, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
On February 4, 1991, a claim was filed against the city of Chula
Vista, and an amended claim was filed on April II, 1991, by representatives
of L. R. Hubbard Construction Company for indemnity in connection with
litigation brought against L. R. Hubbard Construction Company and the City
of Chula Vista. The lawsuits were filed by survivors and relatives of the
occupants of an automobile involved in a tractor/bulldozer collision on April
17, 1990 on Otay Lakes Road.
This claim and amended claim was filed in connection with litigation
brought by Cass Construction Company, served on L. R. Hubbard Construction
Company on January 10, 1991.
Claims against the City were previously
were either denied by operation of law on July
the city Council on August 14, 1990.
filed by the plaintiffs and
16, 1990, or were denied by
Due to remote liability on the
Heft, our claims administrators, Carl
recommend these claims filed by L.
denied.
part of the city, our counsel, Daley &
Warren & Company, and Risk Management
R. Hubbard Construction Company be
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the claim and amended claim.
J
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
5/1-1
i
f
t
t
,
t
I
t
I
r
,
.
.
5h
,
~
RECEIVED
""9l Ilf:R 18 A9 :31
A pr(JTY 01' .cHLlll.AiJiST A
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City Attorney: Bruce Boogaard
I request/~publiC hearing on the matter of ordinance number
10.80.010 which, according to Chula Vista Code Enforcement.
requir~~~~~ to remove family vehicles from my own vacant
property. I oppose to this notice of intention to abate and
remove these vehicles. If there is not another way to keep these
vehicles on my land. I would like to request that the R-1 zoning
of my 1 and be changed to e emn.~l e i 5.1 lOA "I...A.~4,,"..I.
t
t
I
I
I
J . r, I. '
L ,'- U!\,.tS'l-IV", ,
It... ...
ib'5' P.J.... R...J (L.t 10)
(I.,.vl.. \J(~~" Co.. ql~ II
(APN O~-OJO @)
L+ lD
Thank You
Raul Valdivia
1?~ VJ.
L-U,- n 2' 'i
'-/;r ' ~
tltf'I'~
Ravl J~ Ill~I'~
V;b.t-...
Sf.
c..
(I fI/
ph~"t :l/1')0-0?33
4.f~
Cl..vl"
c..l..u,....
WRITTEN' COtAMUN!CATIONS
~-j;
.---
~
~\
~. --M. - LSY.' ":.'J:":~
~l. /"" I
~ ,.-'. /
. ~ "'~~.-'--
56-1
''':-..,
~'i~~. "
l'E-
.- ...
.. =
...
<
.
.
.
.
u
,
1
.
~
M
I
z
~
.
o
~
.
o
;l
~~ ~
1IlJ> J>
ovov
i\j- .....
~~ ~
o
I
I
~o
0,.,
0,.,
0;0
r-ov
J>J>~
~;o
z~
ov () ,
J>:z;
~c:
~r-
J>
S
en
....
J>
@) . .
- (
,~ i 11.11
18r.
s(!) IW
3 . I .
@".. .0;;
. ~!;; r
.4 aCjE"
i..-
..
~ .
. .
........ .
.
.@
5 .
,(D
"6
'661. t
.
@
(i)
7
@
1 ~ 8
9
@
1.37 /I/:.
,
!ED
o
..... ~
~ ..
. .. "
.~
L......J. ,"",
Q,n~."_
~
AR..c......
a"""nflLS Q,.~t. -to( A..
z. 0" ~
o..-.."'jc. +.. J.-"JvS!..~
........
'I' ....i_
....
.
,
II
~i ED ~
,. '~
5b-Z
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item _if.....
Meeting Date 4/16/91
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCA-91-04; Consideration of proposed amendments to
Chapters 19.04 and 19.48 of the Municipal Code relating to the provision
of community purpose facilities
SUBMITTED BY:
Ordinance 2452 Amending Chapters 19.04 and 19.48
Director of Planning ~
REVIEWED BY:
"
City Manager t
(4/5tbs Vote: Yes_No.1O
BACKGROUND
In 1989, the City Council directed the formation of a Church Task Force, and requested that this
task force examine the appropriate amount of land for religious facilities in new development
projects in the eastern portion of the City.
In August, 1990, Council expanded the purpose of the task force to include all community
purpose facilities, which aside from non-secular (religious) facilities, included other secular
facilities (i.e.; boys clubs, girls clubs, YMCA, etc.). A report was then submitted to the City
Council by the Task Force which included recommendations.
In September, 1990, Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance which would assure that
adequate land be set aside for community purpose facilities within master planned communities.
No guidelines currently exists through policy or Municipal Code to provide for these land uses
within the PC (planned Community) zone.
Council also directed staff to review recommendations contained in the Community Purpose
Facilities Task Force report and coordinate workshops involving representatives from the
construction industry, major landowners, social service providers, and the Task Force. Three
workshops were held between November and January to discuss the issues and to acquire any
additional data toward formulation of the proposed zoning text amendment.
On February 5, 1991, Council referred the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for their
review and recommendations.
.('-L
Page 2, Item ~ ~
Meeting Date 4/16/91
RECOMMENDATION: That Council
1. Adopt Negative Declaration, 15-91-17.
2. Adopt the proposed Municipal Code amendments per the attached Planning Commission
Resolution PCA-91-4;
3. Refer the issue of the adequacy of daycare facilities in new developments to the Child
Care Commission and staff for review and recommendations.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Human Services Council
Representatives of the City's Human Services Council have been consulted and have attended
three workshops conducted by staff prior to the public hearing on the proposed ordinance by the
Planning Commission (see Exhibit B).
Planninl! Commission
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed item on March 13, 1991, and
recommended the following:
1. The City Council adopt the proposed Municipal Code amendments with the following
revisions:
a. Revise the definition of community purpose facility to read:
"Community purpose facility" means a structure for assembly, as well as
ancillary uses such as a parking lot, within a planned community including
but not limited to those which serve the following types of purposes:"
(with list to follow).
b. Revise item no. 2 in the list of purposes to read:
"Social and human service activities, such as Alcoholics
Anonymous"
l. -2-
Page 3, Item _ ~
Meeting Date 4/16/91
DISCUSSION:
Present Reeulations or Standards
The City presently requires that all of the community purpose facilities (as define' in attached
Planning Commission Resolution PCA-9l-4) obtain a conditional use permit for lowting in any
zone. The uses are considered "unclassified uses" in the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 19.54 in
the Municipal Code).
The eastern portion of the City is predominantly zoned P-C (planned Community) and the means
for implementing development within the P-C zone is through a SPA plan.
No criteria presently exists within the P-C zone standards (Chapter 19.48 of the Municipal Code)
for the required provision of land use acreage for community purpose facilities.
Most of the undeveloped area east of 1-805 consists of large land holdings, and, consequently,
development of this property has and will result in large master planned communities. Planning
for these communities will result in the predesignation of land uses under the P-C zone. Unless
an amendment to an approved master planned community is processed through the Planning
Commission and City Council, the approved land use designations will remain in place
indefinitely. Major projects processed to date have provided land area for non-secular facilities,
although not based on a needs analysis. If secular as well as non-secular community purpose
facilities are not planned for in our expanding community, it will be very difficult for these land
uses, which are essential parts of the community fabric, to locate in the future.
Reeulations/Standards of Other Jurisdictions
The Planning Department contacted 17 cities within San Diego County to acquire information
on similar type land uses or land use designations. There were no other cities in the County that
have combined land uses into this type of designation and there has been a lack of retrievable
information on existing facilities. All 17 cities either did not compile data on community
purpose facilities uses or were unable to quantify their data. What staff has discovered is that
the City of Chula Vista appears to be pioneering in the area of requiring provisions for
community purpose facilities in master planned communities.
The Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the American Planning Association (APA) have been
contacted through nationwide computer library links for any information that could help in
addressing this issue, but neither major planning organization has been able to provide helpful
information.
lo-3
Page 4, Item _' 1....-
Meeting Date 4/16/91
ANALYSIS
Definition of Community Puroose Facilities
.Community purpose facility" means a structure for assembly, as well as ancillary uses such as
a parking lot, within a planned community including but not limited to those which serve the
following types of purposes:.
1. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other similar organizations;
2. Social and human service activities, such as Alcoholics Anonymous
3. Services for homeless;
4. Services for military personnel during the holidays;
5. Senior care and recreation;
6. Worship, spiritual growth and development, and teaching of traditional family values;
7. Daycare facilities that are ancillary to any of the above.
8. Private schools that are ancillary to any of the above.
The uses that make up the general defmition of community purpose facilities were derived
through City Council direction.
Staff has excluded daycare facilities that are not ancillary to the above listed community purpose
facilities. It is clear that the entire issue of adequacy of daycare facilities is one which requires
separate analysis and recommendation. Staff recommends that the City Council refer the overall
issue of daycare facilities to the City's Child Care Commission and staff to look independently
at daycare needs. Consideration should be given to the analysis and recommended policies on
this issue which have been developed as part of the Otay Ranch planning program; in addition,
input should be sought from the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission.
Following this review, staff would return to the City Council with recommendations on how
these facilities might be assured within new master planned communities.
.. ,~~
Page 5, Item ~
Meeting Date 4/16/91
Prooosed Ordinance
Staffis recommending that Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code be amended to include community
purpose facilities within the P-C zone (see attached Planning Commission Resolution PCA-91-4).
The following rationale has been used for determining the appropriate acreage requirement (see
Exhibit A for calculations):
Non-Secular Community Purpose Facilities
A determination was first made of the number of Chula Vista residents that regularly
attend worship services (29.8%1 of 134,000 = 39,932).
A survey, by members of the Community Purpose Facilities Task Force, was conducted
to determine how many Chula Vista residents regularly attend worship services and what
percentage of those attend the peak service on the peak day. This figure (54.9%f was
then compared to the estimated worship attendance figure for the City to determine
citywide attendance at the peak service on the peak day (54.9% of 39,932 = 21,925).
An analysis consisting of the optimum size sanctuary, ancillary school facilities, parking
and setbacks that could occur on 1 acre of land was conducted by the Task Force. The
maximum number of sanctuary attendees on 1 acre was determined to be 14Q3.
The appropriate acreage necessary to accommodate the estimated Chula Vista worship
attendees is then determined (21,925 + 140 = 157 acres).
Secular Facilities
From information provided by the Chula Vista Human Services Council, staff determined
that 30 acres of secular community purpose facility acreage is currently needed for the
existing city (see Exhibit B for calculations).
Staff compiled existing secular community purpose facility acreage figures from the
City's land use inventory. A total of 46 acres, which included 19.05 acres of private
school land, was found to exist. In examining this private school acreage, it was
I Reference Community Purpose Facility Task Force report.
2 Reference Community Purpose Facility Task Force survey.
3 Reference Community Purpose Facility Task Force report.
d.-S
Page 6, Item ~
Meeting Date 4/16/91
determined that nearly all the acreage was presently attached to existing non-secular
facilities and functions as weekday school space for children and adults as well as
"Sunday School"-type space in conjunction with the adjacent non-secular facilities. Since
this type of acreage has been accounted for in the non-secular facilities calculations, the
actual existing secular acreage totals 29 acres. The figure of 30 acres will be used in
staffs calculations.
Determinin~ Acreal!e Factor
The estimated acreage for secular and non-secular community purpose facilities was then
determined to be 187 acres (30 + 157 = 187). When this figure is compared to the total
City population, a factor of 1.39 acres per 1,000 people was determined as the required
acreage factor (187 + [134,000 + 1,000] = 1.39 acres).
Implementation of Ordinance
At the time of submittal of a SPA plan, the California Department of Finance (DOF)
figures for estimated household size will be applied to the number of anticipated dwelling
types to determine an estimated population (by thousands). This figure will then be
multiplied times the acreage factor of 1.39 to determine the total acres required for the
project. Staff will then work with the developer to determine the most appropriate
location(s). The proposed ordinance also provides for a reduction in required acreage
if it can be assured that there are provisions for rental space for community purpose
facilities.
Recent planned community projects processed within the City have designated property
for non-secular use. The proposed ordinance will provide a consistent means of
determining the appropriate amount of land to be reserved for each project for not only
non-secular but secular social service land uses.
Letters From the Public
Attached to this report are letters from the public which were received prior to the public
hearing and recommendation of the Planning Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
(CPP .A\I3)
\o-L
ORDINANCE NO. 2452 A
Revised 4/18/91
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
CHAPTERS 19.04 AND 19.48 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF COMMUNITY PURPOSE
FACILITIES
The city Council of the City of Chula vista does ordain as
follows:
SECTION I: That Section 19.04.055 is hereby added to
Chapter 19.04 (Definitions) of the Chula vista Municipal Code to
read as follows:
Sec. 19.04.055 Community purpose facility.
"Community purpose facility" means a structure for
assembly, as well as ancillary uses such as a parking lot,
within a planned community including but not limited to
those which serve the following types of purposes:
A. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other similar
organizations;
B. Social and human service activities, such as Alcoholics
Anonymous;
C. Services for homeless;
D. services for military personnel during the holidays;
E. Senior care and recreation;
F. Worship, spiritual growth and development, and teaching
of traditional family values;
G. Day care facilities that are ancillary to any of the
above;
H. Private schools that are ancillary to any of the above.
SECTION II: That section 19.48.020 of Chapter 19.48
(Planned Community Zone) is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 19.48.020 Regulations generally-Minimum acreage -
Ownership restrictions.
The following regulations shall apply in all P-C zones
cpf4.wp
April 18, 1991
Revised Community Purpose Facility
Page 1
'-1
and all development shall be subject to other provisions of
this chapter, except that where conflict in regulation
occurs, the regulations specified in this section shall
apply:
A. P-C zones may be established on parcels of land which
are suitable for, and of sufficient size to be planned
and developed in a manner consistent with the purposes
of this chapter and the objectives of this division.
No P-C zone shall include less than fifty acres of
contiguous lands;
B. All land in each P-C zone, or approved section thereof,
shall be held in one ownership or under unified control
unless otherwise authorized by the planning commission.
For the purposes of this chapter, the written consent
or agreement of all owners in a P-C zone to the
proposed general development plan and general
development schedule shall be deemed to indicate
unified control.
C. All land in each P-C zone, or any section thereof,
shall be subject to the requirement that adequate land
be designated for "community purpose facilities," as
defined in section 19.04.055. A total of 1.39 acres of
net usable land (including setbacks) per 1,000
population shall be designated for such facilities in
any planned community, and shall be so designated in
the sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plants) for each
planned community. This total acreage requirement may
be reduced only if the City Council determines, in
conjunction with its adoption of a SPA Plan, that a
lesser amount of land is needed, based on availability
of shared parking with other facilities, or other
community purpose facilities that are guaranteed to be
made available to the community. Any shared parking
arrangements pursuant to this section shall be
guaranteed regardless of any future changes in
occupancy of facilities.
SECTION III: That section 19.48.040 of Chapter 19.48 of the
Chula vista Municipal Code is amended as follows:
Sec. 19.48.040 Application-General development plan
required-Contents required.
A. The application shall include a general development
plan which shall consist of a plan diagram and text.
The application shall be accompanied by a fee as set
forth in the master fee schedule of the city. The plan
cpf4.wp
April 18, 1991
Revised Community Purpose Facility
Page 2
{,-f
diagram shall show the following:
1. The topographic character of the land;
2. Any major grading intended;
3. The general location of all existing and proposed
uses of the land;
4. The approximate location of all traffic ways;
except those solely serving abutting uses;
5. Any public uses, such as schools, parks,
playgrounds, open space and undisturbed natural
land; and,
6. The approximate location of different residential
densities of dwelling types.
B. The application shall include a text which indicates:
1. Description of the project, including the
boundaries and names of proposed sectional
planning areas;
2. The anticipated sequential development of each
section of the development for which specific uses
are intended or for which sectional planning area
plans will be submitted;
3. The approximate area of each sectional planning
area of the development and the area of each
separate land use;
4. For residential development or residential areas
of any P-C zone development:
a.
The approximate number of dwelling units
proposed by type of dwelling. This may be
stated as a range with maximum and minimum
number of units of each type,
b.
The approximate total population anticipated
in the entire development and in each
sectional planning area. This may be stated
as a range with a maximum and minimum number
of persons,
c.
The general criteria relating to height, open
space, and building coverage,
cpf4.wp
April 18, 1991
Revised Community Purpose Facility
Page 3
t-f
d. The number of dwelling units per gross acre
proposed for each sectional planning area of
the development,
e. The approximate land area and number of sites
proposed for public use of each type,
f. Where appropriate, the approximate retail
sales area space in square feet and gross
area in acres proposed for commercial
development with standards of off-street
parking and landscaping and circulation for
vehicles and pedestrians;
5. For commercial or industrial areas of any proposed
P-C zone:
a. Types of uses proposed in the entire area and
each sectional planning area thereof,
b. Anticipated employment in the entire
development and in each sectional planning
area thereof. This may be stated as a range,
c. Methods proposed to control or limit
dangerous or objectionable elements, if any,
which may be caused or emitted by proposed
uses. Such dangerous or objectionable
elements may include fire, explosion, noise
or vibration, smoke, dust, odor, or other
form of air pollution, heat, cold, dampness,
electric or other disturbance, glare, liquid
or solid refuse or waste or other substance,
condition or element which might adversely
affect the surrounding area,
d. The approximate standards of height, open
space, buffering, landscaping, pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, off-street parking and
loading proposed for the intended structures
or uses;
6. For institutional, recreational or other
nonresidential uses of any P-C zone:
a. Approximate types of uses proposed in the
entire area and each sectional planning area
thereof,
b.
Significant applicable information with
cpf4.wp
April 18, 1991
Revised Community Purpose Facility
Page 4
~*
respect to enrollment, residence, employment,
patients, attendance, and other pertinent
social or economic characteristics of
development,
c. The approximate standards of height, open
space, buffering, landscaping, pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, off-street parking and
loading, proposed for the intended structures
or uses.
d. Determination of the amount of acreage required to
be designated for "community purpose facilities"
pursuant to Section 19.48.101 (c).
SECTION IV: That Section 19.48.090 of Chapter 19.48 of the
Chula vista Municipal Code is amended to read:
Sec. 19.48.090
Sectional planning areas and sectional
planning area plans- Requirements and
content.
A. All P-C zones shall be divided into sectional planning
areas. These areas of subcommunities shall be depicted
on the plan diagram of the general development plan of
a P-C zone, and shall be addressed in the text thereof.
B. Sectional planning areas shall be composed of
identifiable planning units, within which common
services and facilities, a strong internal unity, and
an integrated pattern of land use, circulation, and
towns cape planning are readily achievable. Where
practicable, sectional planning areas shall have
discernible physical boundaries.
C. Prior to any development within a sectional planning
area, the developer shall submit a sectional planning
area plan, accompanied by the requisite filing fee as
presently designated, or as may in the future be
amended, in the master fee schedule, and a completed,
official application, to the planning commission for
public hearing, consideration, and recommendatory
action, unless such sectional planning area plans are
not required by the text of an adopted general
development plan. The sectional planning area plan
shall include the following site utilization plan and
documents.
1.
A site utilization plan of the sectional planning
area at a scale of one inch equals two hundred
cpf4.wp
April 18, 1991
Revised Community Purpose Facility
Page 5
~-1L
cpf4.wp
April 18, 1991
feet minimum or as determined by the director of
planning. The plan shall extend a minimum of
three hundred feet beyond the boundaries of the
sectional planning area and show the following:
a. The boundaries of the sectional planning
area;
b. North arrow and scale;
c. Preliminary grading (including slope ratios
and spot elevations where appropriate);
d. Existing and proposed streets (This shall
include all public and private streets as
well as their approximate grades and typical
widths. The names of the existing streets
shall be indicated);
e. Existing easements (identify);
f. Existing and proposed riding and hiking
trails;
g. Existing and proposed bicycle routes;
h. Pedestrian walks;
i. Permanent physical features (i.e., water
towers, transmission towers, drainage
channels, etc.);
j. Land uses (include the acreage of each) for:
i. Parks,
ii. Open space,
iii. Schools (indicate type),
iv. Public and quasi-public facilities
(include type),
v. Residential:
Dwelling type (i.e., single family,
duplex, attached, etc.)
Lot lines
Lot size
Revised Community purpose Facility
Page 6
,~z
cpf4.wp
April 18, 1991
Number of units (indicate density for
each dwelling type)
Parking (covered or open parking and
parking ratio)
Typical floor plans and site plans at a
minimum scale of one inch equals twenty
feet. (The site plan shall include
sufficient detail of adjacent
development to determine the
relationship of driveways, landscaping,
walks, buildings, etc.)
The building elevations of each type of
structure (including exterior colors and
materials)
vi. Commercial:
Location and proposed use of each
structure;
The building elevations and floor plans
of each structure (include exterior
colors and materials);
Retail floor area (square footage);
Landscaped areas;
Circulation (vehicular and pedestrian);
Off-street parking (standards and
ratio);
vii. Industrial:
Location and proposed use of each
structure;
The building elevations and floor plans
of each structure (include exterior
colors and materials);
Retail floor area (square footage)
Landscaped areas
Circulation (vehicular and pedestrian)
Off-street parking (standards and ratio)
viii. Communitv Purpose Facilities:
Location and acreage of sites, in
conformance with section 19.48.020C.
A specific listing of types of uses to
Revised Community Purpose Facility
Page 7
'~3
be included in this category, which are
compatible with the permitted uses in
the planned community.
As to any land uses desiqnated on the
sectional planninq area plan for use as
community purpose facilities:
(a) Conditional Interim Uses Permitted
After 5 Years. The city Council. upon
receiyinq the advice and recommendation
of the Planninq Commission. may. after
five (5) years of non-use as a community
purpose facility after the issuance of
the first certificate of occupancy on a
structure in SPA Plan areas. in
accordance with the procedures for
issuance of conditional use permits
contained in Chapter 19.14 of this Code.
conditionallY permit interim. non-
permanent. non-residential uses which
are not community purpose facilitv uses
that Council finds (i) the interim use
to be compatible with the surroundinq
land uses (ii) that the community
purpose facility use is not imminently
likelY: and (iii) that denial of an
interim use would constitute a further
hardship to the landowner. If an
interim use is permitted by the City
Council. it shall in no event be
permitted for lonqer than 5 years. and
shall be terminable within said 5 year
period upon one year's advance notice of
intent to terminate said conditional use
permit bY the city Council. City
Council shall qive such one year notice
upon beinq advised of a sale or lease bY
the owner to a purchaser or tenant for
use as a community purpose facility.
(b) Reyiew bY city Council. For each
approved sectional planninq area plan on
which is desiqnated one or more
community purpose facility uses. city
Council shall review said plan annually
for the purpose of determininq the
actual market interest in the purchase
or lease of land so desiqnated and the
marketinq activity associated therewith.
cpf4.wp
April 18, 1991
Revised Community Purpose Facility
Page 8
,~
2. Development standards (i.e., permitted land uses,
lot coverage, height and bulk requirements, signs,
etc.) for each land use area and designation.
3. Development to occur in phases shall be so
indicated on the plan. A skeletal plan shall be
prepared for those areas indicated for future
development. The skeletal plan shall indicate
circulation, building locations, preliminary
grading, areas devoted to landscaping, density and
parking. The submission of each subsequent phase
will require a new application and a fee as
presently designated, or as may in the future be
amended, in the master fee schedule, for a
modification of a sectional planning area plan,
together with the required detail plans.
CECTION T/I TRis orainanse shall Be revietlCEi annually by the
city Ce~neil to evaluate tRe applieations of its provisions.
SECTION VII This ordinance shall take effect and be in full
force on the thirtieth day from its ado ion.
Presented by
Robert A. Leiter,
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Booga r ,
City Attorney
cpf4.wp
April 18, 1991
Revised community Purpose Facility
Page 9
~..1 S
TIllS PAGE BlANK
(,-1'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
ITEM TITLE
ORdI~Q.W\CC. :t'ls'l
Adding Section 9.20.045 to the Chula Vista Municipal
prohibiting the sale and possession of felt tip markers.
MeetingDate 4/23/91
Code
SUBMITTED BY
City Attorney ~
REVIEWED BY
City Manager!
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No_XJ
The proposed ordinance is in response to a Council request of April 16, 1991. Staff has
addressed the referral by proposing the attached ordinance which makes it a unlawful to sell or
furnish felt tip markers to minors, places strict limitations upon the possession of such markers
by minors and more accurately defines spray paint containers.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the ordinance as proposed.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
Graffiti generally falls into one of two types: gang related or "artistic." Gang related is for the
purposes of posting turf boundaries and communicating threats amongst gang members. The
"artists" simply desire to place their "mark" in highly visible, difficult access places. Both
forms seem to be on the rise in Chula Vista and county-wide. Indelible felt tip markers are the
instruments of choice for persons engaging in the defacement of glass, and other, surfaces on
public and private property.
The ordinance proposes the following: one, that it be unlawful to sell or furnish indelible felt-tip
markers, or similar implements which, at the tips widest point, are in excess of 1/8th inch
without a parent or other lawfully designated custodian present; and two, that it be unlawful for
a minor to possess such markers. The only exception provided to the possession clause is made
for students, in transit to or from school, where he/she is enrolled in a course which has as a
written requirement to use felt tip markers.
7-1
Page 2
Item ~
MeetingDate 4/23/91
Staff has attached, for your review and comment, a draft which would further amend this same
ordinance. The draft amendment mandates the locked display and storage of the subject felt tip
markers and aerosol paint cans, and, provides for civil responsibility on the part of parents or
businesses failing to comply with the ordinance's several provisions. Staff will be meeting with
local business leaders on Thursday, April 25th, to discuss the topic of graffiti in general. These
display, storage and responsibility amendments, presented for information only today, will be
distributed to Chula Vista's business community prior to the meeting of April 25th to elicit
feedback and recommendations for the ordinance's further improvement.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
cr-z.
lhi.s
C)l'cl It; -" (
_ LI~\t(J tD f~1t rip Ma~uS -
5' -I t; orG ill tfk~ A ~el\Jt< Pb-J:b.-t- e.wp+ t~i!. (hi-
- IlII\l:x.po.:Js ft..e.- V'~Gkt5 at 1'>1111dt"S 'R tAf('Y t.elt f;,a rn~('!cer)
ORDINANCE NO. "f'l, ~ -f!rhl fA. JD (, $lk
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 9.20 TO
PRIMARILY TO PRECLUDE SALE OR POSSESSION OF
FELT TIP MARKERS BY MINORS, AND TO CHANGE THE
DESIGNATION OF GRAFFITI-TYPE CRIMES FROM
INFRACTIONS TO EITHER INFRACTIONS OR
MISDEMEANORS.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 9.20.020 "Definitions" of Chapter 9.20
"Property Defacement" is hereby amended to read as follows:
"9.20.020 Definitions.
A. "Deface", as used in this Chapter, means the
intentional altering by physical, mechanical or chemical
means of the physical shape, dimension, contour or
appearance of property. (Ord. 1924, Sec. 1 (part), 1980).
B. "Aerosol paint container" means any aerosol
container, regardless of the material from which it made,
which is adapted or made for the purpose of spraring paint
or other substance capable of defacing property. (Ord.
____, Sec. 1, 1991)
C.
similar
greater
that is
"Felt Tip marker" means any indelible marker or
implement with a tip which, at its broadest point is
than one-eighth (1/8th)2 inch, containing an ink
not water-soluble. (Ord. ____, Sec. 1, 1991)
section 2. section 9.20.040 of Chapter 9.20 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 9.20.040 Prohibition of sale, possession, display for
purposes of sale, and storage of aerosol
paint containers.
A. Sale or Furnishing to Minors. It shall be unlawful
for any person, other than a parent or legal guardian, to
sell, exchange, give, loan, or otherwise furnish, or cause
or permit to be sold, exchanged, given, loaned, or otherwise
1. Adapted from R & T Code section 7287.
2. Note that National City's ordinance uses "four millimeters".
graf4.wp
April 21, 1991
Revised Amendment to Grafitti Ordinance
Page 1
i -("
furnished, any aerosol paint container to any person under
the age of eighteen years without the consent of the parent
or other lawfully designated custodian of the person, which
consent shall be given in person.
B. Possession. It shall be unlawful for any person
under the age of eighteen years to have in his or her
possession any aerosol paint container while upon public
property or upon private property without the consent of the
owner of such private property whose consent shall be as to
the person's presence while in the possession with a aerosol
paint container."
section 3. A new section, to be numbered section 9.20.045,
is hereby added to Chapter 9.20 "Property Defacement", which
section shall read as follows:
"9.20.045. Prohibition of sale, possession and display of
felt tip markers.
A. Sale or Furnishing To Minors. It shall be unlawful
for any person, other than a parent or other legal guardian,
to sell, exchange, give, loan, or other furnish, or cause or
permit to be sold, exchanged, given, loaned, or otherwise
furnished, any felt tip marker to any person under the age
of eighteen years without the consent of the parent or other
lawfully designated custodian of the person, which consent
shall be given in person.
B. Possession by Minors. It shall be unlawful for any
person under the age of eighteen years to have in his or her
possession any felt tip marker while upon public property or
upon private property without the consent of the owner of
such private property, except 111 while attending, or
travelling to or from a school at which the person is
enrolled, if the person is participating in a class at said
school which has, as a written requirement of said class,
the need to use felt tip markers: or (21 while workinq at.
or travellinq to or from a iob site at which the nerson is
emnloved. if the nerson is emnloved in a iob which has. as a
requirement of said iob. the need to use felt tin markers.
Section 3. section 9.20.050 "Penalties for violation of
chapter." is hereby amended to read as follows:
"9.20.050. Penalties for violation of chapter.
v
A. criminal Penalties. Any and all violations of this
chapter shall be punishable either as an infraction or a
misdemeanor, at the discretion of the City Attorney. In
addition to said penalty provided for the violation of a
graf4.wp
April 21, 1991
Revised Amendment to Grafitti Ordinance
Page 2
f"'-1-
section of this chapter, a violator shall be required to pay
for the costs for repairing any dama~es to property caused
by that violator's unlawful conduct. It is further
understood that financial parental responsibility for any
acts of vandalism shall be strictly enforced.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Sid Morris,
Deputy city Manager
Bruce M. Boogaard,
City Attorney
3. This language is similar to Penal Code Section 594 for
grafitti vandalism. Damages for illegal sale or possession are
not expected to be significant.
graf4.wp
April 21, 1991
Revised Amendment to Grafitti Ordinance
Page 3
8'8
x' ,:
Discussion Draft--Wrongful Display and storage
Not for Adoption on April 23rd, 1991
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 9.20 TO
PRIMARILY TO PRECLUDE SALE OR POSSESSION OF
FELT TIP MARKERS BY MINORS, AND TO CHANGE THE
DESIGNATION OF GRAFFITI-TYPE CRIMES FROM
INFRACTIONS TO MISDEMEANORS.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 9.20.020 "Definitions" of Chapter 9.20
"Property Defacement" is hereby amended to read as follows:
"9.20.020 Definitions.
A. "Deface", as used in this Chapter, means the
intentional altering by physical, mechanical or chemical
means of the physical shape, dimension, contour or
appearance of property. (Ord. 1924, Sec. 1 (part), 1980).
B. "Aerosol paint container" means any aerosol
container, regardless of the material from which it made,
which is adapted or made for the purpose of spraring paint
or other substance capable of defacing property. (Ord.
____, Sec. 1, 1991)
C.
similar
greater
that is
"Felt Tip marker" means any indelible marker or
implement with a tip which, at its broadest point is
than one-eighth (1/8th)2 inch, containing an ink
not water-soluble. (Ord. ____, Sec. 1, 1991)
Section 2. Section 9.20.040 of Chapter 9.20 of the Chula
vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 9.20.040 Prohibition of sale, possession, display for
purposes of sale, and storage of aerosol
paint containers .
A. Sale or Furnishing to Minors. It shall be unlawful
for any person, other than a parent or legal guardian, to
sell, exchange, give, loan, or otherwise furnish, or cause
1. Adapted from R & T Code Section 7287.
2. Note that National City's ordinance uses "four millimeters".
graf5.wp
April 22, 1991
Amendment to Graffiti Ordinance
Page 1
<6 ... c;
or permit to be sold, exchanged, given, loaned,or otherwise
furnished, any aerosol paint container to any person under
the age of eighteen years without the consent of the parent
or other lawfully designated custodian of the person, which
consent shall be given in person.
B. Possession. It shall be unlawful for any' person
under the age of eighteen years to have in his or her
possession any aerosol paint container while upon public
property or upon private property without the consent of the
owner of such private property whose consent shall be as to
the person's presence while in the possession with a aerosol
paint container."
C. Displav for the Purposes of Sale. No person. firm
or entity enqaqed in a commercial enterprise ("Seller")
shall display anv aerosol paint container for sale. trade or
exchanqe. nor shall store any aerosol paint container
pendinq displav for sale or pendinq sale. except in a
completelY enclosed cabinet or other storaqe device which
shall be permanentlY affixed to a buildinq or buildinq
structure. and which shall. at all times except durinq
access by authorized representatives. remain securelv
locked. 3
D. Wronqful Storaqe of Aerosol Paint Containers. No
person shall store any aerosol paint container except in
either (1) a completely enclosed room which shall. at all
times except durinq access bv the owner or an authorized
adult representative of the owner. remain securelY locked:
or (2) in a completely enclosed cabinet or other storaqe
device which shall be permanent Iv affixed to a buildinq or
buildinq structure. and which shall. at all times except
durinq access bY the owner or an authorized adult
representative of the owner. remain securelY locked.
Section 3. A new section, to be numbered Section 9.20.045,
is hereby added to Chapter 9.20 "Property Defacement", which
section shall read as follows:
"9.20.045. Prohibition of sale, possession and display of
felt tip markers.
A. Sale or Furnishing To Minors. It shall be unlawful
for any person, other than a parent or other legal guardian,
to sell, exchange, give, loan, or other furnish, or cause or
permit to be sold, exchanged, given, loaned, or otherwise
3. This idea was obtained through Officer Dan Hollian, Chula
vista Police Department.
graf5.wp
April 22, 1991
Amendment to Graffiti Ordinance
Page 2
~-IO
furnished, any felt tip marker to any person under the age
of eighteen years without the consent of the parent or other
lawfully designated custodian of the person, which consent
shall be given in person.
B. Possession by Minors. It shall be unlawful for any
person under the age of eighteen years to have in his or her
possession any felt tip marker while upon public property or
upon private property without the consent of the owner of
such private property, except while attending, or travelling
to or from a school at which the person is enrolled, if the
person is participating in a class at said school which has,
as a written requirement of said class, the need to use felt
tip markers.
C. Displav for the Purposes of Sale. No person. firm
or entitv enqaqed in a commercial enterprise ("Seller")
shall displav any felt tip marker for sale. trade or
exchanae. nor shall store any felt tip marker pendina
display for sale or pendinq sale. except in a completelY
enclosed cabinet or other storaae device which shall be
permanentlY affixed to a buildinq or buildinq structure. and
which shall. at all times except durina access bY authorized
representatives. remain securely locked."
D. Wronqful Storaqe of Felt Tip Markers. No person
shall store any felt tip marker except in either (1) a
completely enclosed room which shall. at all times except
durinq access bY the owner or an authorized adult
representative of the owner. remain securelY locked: or (2)
in a completelY enclosed cabinet or other storaqe device
which shall be permanently affixed to a buildina or buildina
structure. and which shall. at all times except durina
access bY the owner or an authorized adult representative of
the owner. remain securelY locked.
Section 3. Section 9.20.050 "Penalties for violation of
chapter." is hereby amended to read as follows:
"9.20.050. Penalties for violation of chapter.
A. Criminal Penalties. Any and all violations of this
chapter shall be punishable either as an infraction or a
misdemeanor, at the discretion of the city Attorney. 4 It
is further understood that financial parental responsibility
for any acts of vandalism shall be strictly enforced.
4. This language is similar to Penal Code Section 594 for
graffiti vandalism. Damages for illegal sale or possession are
not expected to be significant.
graf5.wp
April 22, 1991
Amendment to Graffiti Ordinance
Page 3
8-1/
B. Parental civil Responsibilitv for Damaaes. Anv
parent or other leaal auardian who consents to. permits. or
otherwise knowinalv allows her or his child under the aae of
eiahteen to possess an aerosol paint container or a felt tip
marker shall be personal Iv liable for any and all costs to
any person incurred bv any party in connection with the
repair of any property caused bv said child. and for all
attorney's fees and court costs incurred in connection with
the civil prosecution of any claim for damaaes.
C. civil Responsibilitv for Damaaes Wronaful Displav
or Storaae. Anv person who displays or stores an aerosol
spray container or felt tip marker in violation of the
provisions of this chapter shall be persona I Iv liable for
any and all costs incurred bv any party in connection with
the repair of any property caused bv a minor who shall use
such aerosol spray container or felt tip marker in violation
of the provisions of California Penal Code Section 594. and
for all attorney's fees and court costs incurred in
connection with the civil prosecution of any claim for
damaaes.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
graf5.wp
April 22, 1991
Amendment to Graffiti Ordinance
Page 4
Z-/~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution Je.t31o accepting a Service Agreement with the
County of San Di ego for Grant Funds to estab 1 ish a Mode 1
Office Recycling Program and Appropriating Funds Therefor.
Conservation Coordinator ~
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager t~&,
kr'
4/5ths Vote:Yes-K-No___
BACKGROUND
Last Spring, staff developed a proposal for an in-house, multi-material Model
Office Recycling Project for the City and Council authorized a $20,000 grant
application from the San Diego County Recycling Technical Assistance Program
(TAP) for program funding. In the Fall, the City was notified of a $15,000 grant
award. However, due to County de 1 ays no TAP grant servi ce agreements were
delivered until the end of march.
Staff has reviewed the service agreement and filed it with the County in order
to begin the process for receipt of monies for program start up. Council is now
being asked to review this report and adopt the resolution for the Office
Recycling Program to begin. A copy of the service agreement is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Due to the time sensitivity in appropriating
funds so that containers and other materials can be purchased, the Resource
Conservation Commission has not yet been advised of the office recycl ing program.
The chair of the Commission reviewed this report and the resolution and felt that
a presentation before the Commission at a later time would be satisfactory. Staff
will present the program to the Commission at their meeting of April 22, and
provide Council with a brief written report of the Commission's comments at this
meeting.
DISCUSSION
The $15,000 award is to be allocated as follows:
In-house Staff Educational Materials (printing)
$2,500
$2,000
$10,500
In-house recycling containers, labels, supplies
Model Outreach Program
Total Grant Monies Awarded
$15,000
'1-1
In-house Office Recvclinq Proqram
The development of this office recycling program is already underway. A meeting
was held with representatives from all Departments on Monday, April 8, to begin
making preparations for implementation of the office recycling program. These
Department "recyc 1 ing representat i ves" wi 11 meet on a month ly bas i s to discuss
program logistics. Employee awareness materials are also being developed.
Prior to program start-up, all staff will attend a training session that will
provide an overview of "how to" participate in the office recycling program, as
well as information on source reduction. Program training materials will be
provided to all staff, posted in all Departments and next to copy machines.
"Desk-top" containers will be given to staff for deposit of office paper.
Centralized recycling bins (20-30 gallon) will be placed in each Department
(approximately 1-3 per Department) for the collection of paper. Staff will empty
their desk-top containers into these central ized recycl ing bins. Beverage
container recycling bins will be placed in employee lounges, and in other
centralized locations throughout the Civic Center, including areas utilized by
the public.
The Urban Corps of San Diego has received a TAP grant award that will be used to
provide collection services for the City's program for one year. Once per week
Urban Corps staff will collect the recyclable materials from the centralized
Department and Center locations. It is anticipated that the in-house program
would begin operation within two months and is funded for one year.
Office Recvclinq Outreach Proqram
The outreach portion of the program will entail formation and distribution of a
manual to assist Chula Vista businesses in developing and implementing office
recyc 1 ing programs. Staff wou 1 d a 1 so pro v i de techn i ca 1 ass i stance to loca 1
businesses in the formation of their recycling programs. Several local medium to
large sized businesses will be specifically targeted for assistance in developing
their own in-house programs. These programs can then be monitored to determine
the success of the operations, and applicability to other area businesses.
Materials Sales
Monies received from the sale of the collected recyclables will be split 50/50
with the Urban Corps of San Diego. It is anticipated that the monies received
will be minimal. A monitoring system will be established with the Urban Corps to
assure proper accounting of all sale receipts. Funds from the sale of the
recyclables will be evaluated on a quarterly basis to determine if the 50/50
split is satisfactory to both parties.
FISCAL IMPACT: None as a result of this action. All costs of the program will
be fully covered by the Technical Assistance Program grant. The City's required
"matching funds" for this grant are provided by a percentage of the Conservation
Coordinator's time. Continued funding of this program beyond the one year TAP
provisions will be reviewed as part of the next budget cycle.
q-2
RESOLUTION NO. 1..t-13/,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR GRANT FUNDS TO
ESTABLISH A MODEL OFFICE RECYCLING PROGRAM AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, staff developed a proposal for an in-house,
multi-material Model Office Recycling Project for the City; and
WHEREAS, Council authorized staff
Diego County Recycling Technical Assistance
of $20,000 in order to fund this program; and
to apply
Program
for
(TAP)
a San
Grant
WHEREAS, in the fall, the City was notified of a
grant award but due to County delays no TAP grant
agreements were delivered until the end of last month; and
$15,000
service
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the service agreement and
filed it with the County in order to begin the process for
receipt of monies for program start up.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept a Service Agreement
with the County of San Diego for Grant Funds to establish a Model
Office Recycling Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $15,000 is hereby
appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund
and transferred to the following accounts:
Acct. 100-220-5201
Acct. 100-220-5212
Acct. 100-220-5301
(110,500)
( 2,500)
( 2,000)
?lIe
o form by
Presented by
~
Athena ra
Coordinator
8771a
Bruce M. Boog a d, City Attorney
~.31 q-1
THIS PAGE BLANK
~-4
Page 1 of 19
SERVICE AGREEMENT
GRANT AWARD No.
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this ____ day of ,
~, by and between the County of San Diego, a political
subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called
"COUNTY," and the firm of citv of Chula vista hereinafter called
"CONTRACTOR."
R E C I TAL S:
WHEREAS, the County, by action of Supervisors Item 88 on January
30, 1990, authorized the Director of Purchasing and Contracting,
pursuant to Article XXIII, Section 401 of the Administrative Code,
to award contracts.
WHEREAS, the County desires such services to be provided in
acccrdance with the County's Request for Grant Application
No. 00213 and dated Februarv 27. 1990, and the Contractor's
responses thereto and dated June 14. 1990, and as amended by this
agreement and whereas the Contractor agrees to provide the services
subject to the following additional conditions.
WHEREAS, Contractor is specially trained and possesses certain
skills, experience, education, and competency to perform special
services; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, and
mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, it is agreed
between the parties hereto that the following exhibits are hereby
incorporated by reference:
EXHIBIT
TITLE
A
B
C
D
E
General Terms and Conditions
Fiscal Agreement
Reporting Requirements
Program Budget
Scope of Work and Attachments
IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE COUNTY AND THE CONTRACTOR have executed this
Agreement to be effective: 1-1-91.
BY:
COUNTY:
BY:
JAMES G. TAPP, Director
Purchasing and Contracting
TITLE:
CJ,S
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
2l.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
3l.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEFINITIONS .....
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION . . .
CONDUCT OF CONTRACTOR .
PROHIBITED CONTRACTS .
TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT
TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE . .
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
NOTICE . . . .
DISPUTES . . . .
CHANGES . . .
SEVERABILITY .
HOLD HARMLESS
GOVERNING LAW
EOUIPMENT ACOUIRED BY GRANT FUNDING.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR EOUIPMENT
EOUIPMENT MAINTENANCE . . . . .
EOUIPMENT OWNERSHIP . . . . . .
EOUIPMENT USAGE . . . . . . . .
AUDIT AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS . . . . . . . .
LICENSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PERMITS. NOTICES. FEES AND LAWS . . . . . . .
AIR. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL. HEALTH AND SAFETY
FINDINGS CONFIDENTIAL . . . . . . . . . . . .
PUBLICATION. REPRODUCTION AND USE OF MATERIAL
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR . . . . .
SUBCONTRACT FOR WORK OR SERVICES
OTHER INCORPORATED AGREEMENTS
AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . .
TERMS OF AGREEMENT . . . . . .
DRUG & ALCOHOL FREE WORK PLACE . . . . . . . .
COMPENSATION OF CONTRACTOR
WITHHOLDING OF PAYMENT
DISALLOWANCE . . . .
FULL COMPENSATION
PARTIAL PERFORMANCE
INSURANCE .
RETENTION . . . . .
.
., .
. '
. .
.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
"
q-~
.'
Page 2 of 19
~
.
3
3
3/4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
9/10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12/13
14
14
. 15
. 15
. 15
15/16
. 16
.
.
.
"
Page 3 of 19
"
EXHIBIT A
GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
1.1 "County" shall mean the county of San Diego.
1.2 "Offeror" shall mean any person, firm, partnership, or
corporation submitting a grant proposal to the County in response
to the County of San Diego's grant solicitation.
1.3 "Contractor" shall mean the offeror whose proposal is
accepted by Agency and who has entered into an agreement with
Agency to provide the equipment and services described herein.
1.4 "Vendor" shall mean the same as Contractor.
1.5 "Major Equipment" shall include, but is not limited to,
movable personal property of relatively permanent nature, having
a useful life of three years or longer, and of significant value,
$300 or over.
1. 6 "Minor Equipment" shall include all items not defined in
paragraph 1.5 above that is under $300 in value and having a
useful life of less than three years.
1.7 Where questions arise pertaining to the classification of
equipment as major or minor, the county of San Diego
Administrative Manual, Item 0050-02-1 shall control.
2. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Each vendor, where the cumulative total of purchases ordered are
$10,000 or more during a calendar year, shall comply with the
Affirmative Action Program for Vendors as set forth in Article IIIk
(commencing at Section 84) of the San Diego County Administrative
Code, which program is incorporated herein by reference. A copy of
this Affirmative Action Program will be furnished upon request by
the County of San Diego Contract Compliance Office, 1600 Pacific
Highway, Room 208, San Diego, CA 92101.
The County of San Diego, as a matter of policy, encourages the
participation of small, minority, and women owned businesses.
3 . CONDUCT OF CONTRACTOR
3.1 The Contractor agrees to inform the County of all the
Contractor's interests, if any, which are or which the Contractor
believes to be incompatible with any interests of the County.
'1.7
,
Page 4 of 19
3.2 The Contractor shall not, under circumstances which might
reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to influence the
recipient in the conduct of his duties, accept any gratuity or
special favor from individuals or organizations with whom the
Contractor is doing business or proposing to do business, in
accomplishing the work under the contract.
3.3 The Contractor shall not use for personal gain or make other
improper use of privileged information which is acquired in
connection with his employment. In this connection, the term
"privileged information" includes, but is not limited to,
unpublished information relating to technological and scientific
development; medical, personnel, or security records of the
individuals; anticipated materials requirements or pricing
actions; and knowledge of selections of contractors or
subcontractors in advance of official announcement.
3.4 The Contractor or employees thereof shall not offer
gratuity, favors, entertainment directly or indirectly to
employees.
gifts,
County
4. PROHIBITED CONTRACTS
Section 67 of the San Diego County Administrative Code provides
that the County shall not contract with, and shall reject any bid
or proposal submitted by the person or entities specified below,
unless the Board of Supervisors finds that special circumstances
exist which justify the approval of such contract:
4.1 Persons employed by the County or of public agencies for
which the Board of Supervisors is the governing body;
4.2 PrOfit-making firms or businesses in which
described in sub-section (a) of code serve as
principals, partners, or major shareholders;
4.3 Persons who, within the immediately preceding twelve (12)
months came within the provisions of the above sub-section and
who (1) were employed in positions of substantial responsibility
in the area of service to be performed by the contract, or (2)
participated in any way in developing the contract or its service
specifications; and
employees
officers,
4.4 Profi t-making firms or businesses in which the former
employees described in sub-section 16.3 of code serve as
officers, principals, partners, or major shareholders.
With the affixing of a signature to your response to this solici-
tation, offeror certifies that the above provisions of the Code
have been complied with, and that any exception will cause any
Cf-i
Page 5 of 19
ensuing contract to be invalid.
5. TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT
The County may, by written notice of default to the vendor,
terminate any the Contractor in whole or in part should the vendor
fail to make satisfactory progress, fail to perform within time
specified therein or fail to perform in strict conformance to
specifications and requirements set forth therein. In the event of
such termination, the County reserves the right to purchase or
obtain the supplies or services elsewhere, and the defaulting
vendor shall be liable for the difference between the prices set
forth in the terminated order and the actual cost thereof to the
County. The prevailing market price shall be considered the fair
repurchase price.
5.~ If, after notice of termination of this contract under the
provisions of this clause, it is determined for any reason that
the Contractor was not in default under this provisions of this
clause, the rights and obligations of the parties shall, if the
contract contains a clause providing for termination for
convenience of the County, be the same as if the notice of
termination had been issued pursuant to such clause.
5.2 The rights and remedies of County provided in this article
shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights
and remedies provided by law or under resulting order.
6. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE
The County may, by written notice stating the extent and effective
date, terminate this contract for convenience in whole or in part,
at any time. The County shall pay the vendor as full compensation
for performance until such termination:
6.1 The unit or pro rata price for the delivered and accepted
portion.
6.2 A reasonable amount, as costs of termination, not otherwise
recoverable from other sources by the vendor as approved by the
County, with respect to the unperformed or unaccepted portion of
the services, provided compensation hereunder shall in no event
exceed the total price.
6.3 In no event shall the County be liable for any loss of
profits on the resulting order or portion thereof so terminated.
6.4 The rights and remedies of County provided in this article
shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights
and remedies provided by law or under resulting order.
Cf-'j
.
Page 6 of 19
..
7. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
The Director of Purchasing and Contracting is the designated
Contracting Officer and is the only County official authorized to
make any changes to this agreement.
The County has designated the following individual as the Contract
Administrator:
Frank Espinoza, Recycling Specialist II
The Contract Administrator will chair contractor progress meetings
and will coordinate the County I s contract administrative
functions. The Contract Administrator is designated to receive and
approve Contractor invoices for payment, audit and inspect
records, inspect contractor services, and provide other technical
guidance as required. The Contract Administrator is not authorized
to change any terms and conditions of the Contract. Changes to the
scope of work will be made only by the Board of Supervisors and/or
the Contracting Officer issuing a properly executed Change Order
modification.
8. NOTICE
Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to
this Agreement may be personally served on the other party by the
party giving such notice, or may be served by certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following
address:
County of San Diego
5555 Overland Avenue MS 0383
San Diego, CA 92123
Attention: Frank Espinoza,
Recycling Specialist II
9. DISPUTES
9.1 Except as otherwise provided in this contract, any dispute
concerning a question of fact arising under this contract which
is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the
Contracting Officer who shall furnish the decision to the
Contractor in writing. The decision of the Contracting Officer
shall be final and conclusive unless determined by the court of
competent jurisdiction to have been fraudulent or capricious, or
arbitrary, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad
faith. The Contractor shall proceed diligently with the
performance of the contract pending the Contracting Officer's
decision.
9.2 The "Disputes" clause does not preclude consideration of
legal questions in connection with decisions provided for in
paragraph (A) above. Nothing in this contract shall be construed
Cj,111
.'
Page 7 of 19
as making final the decision of any administrative official,
representative, or board on a question of law.
10. CHANGES
The Contracting Officer may at any time, by written order, make
changes within the general scope of this contract, in the
definition of services to be performed, and the time (i.e., hours
of the day, days of the week, etc.) and place of performance
thereof. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the
cost of, or the time required for the performance of any part of
the work under this contract, whether changed or not changed by any
such order, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the contract
price or delivery schedule, or both, and the contract shall be
modified in writing accordingly. Any claim by the Contractor for
adjustment under this clause must be asserted within 30 days from
the .date of receipt by the Contractor of the notification of
change; provided however, that the Contracting Officer, if he
decides that the facts justify such action, may receive and act
upon any such claim asserted at any time prior to final payment
under this contract. Where the cost of property made obsolete or
excess as a result of a change is included in the Contractor 's
claim for adjustment, the Contracting Officer shall have the right
to prescribe the manner of disposition of such property. Failure to
agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute concerning a question of
fact within the meaning of the clause of this contract entitled
"Disputes". However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the
Contractor from proceeding with the contract as changed.
11. SEVERABILITY
Should any part of this agreement be held to be invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall be
considered as the whole agreement and be binding on the contracting
parties.
12. HOLD HARMLESS
The Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the
County against any and all loss, damage, liability, claim, demand,
suit or cause of action resulting from injury or harm to any person
or property arising out of or in any way connected with the
performance of work under this contract, excepting only such injury
or harm as may be caused solely and exclusively by the fault or
negligence of the County.
13. GOVERNING LAW
This contract shall be construed and interpreted according to the
laws of the State of California.
'1.11.
.
Page 8 of 19
'.
14. EOUIPMENT ACOUIRED BY GRANT FUNDING
All major and minor equipment acquired through grant funds under
this Agreement by the Contractor, and all replacements thereof,
shall remain in possession of Contractor in accordance with the
provisions of this agreement. All such equipment will be plainly
marked and otherwise adequately identified by Contractor as "For
use in the San Diego County Technical Program" and, at Contractor's
expense, be safely stored separate and apart from Contractor's
equipment wherever practicable. Contractor shall keep grant
acquired equipment fr~e of all liens, claims, encumbrances and
interests of third parties. Contractor will not substitute any of
its equipment for any grant acquired equipment nor deliver or make
available to any third party any such equipment or goods acquired
through any grant funds, nor use any such equipment, except in
performance of this Agreement. All such equipment, while in
Contractor's custody or control, will be held at Contractor's risk
and kept insured by Contractor, at its expense, in an amount equal
to the equipment replacement cost, with loss payable to the County.
If directed by the County, at completion of this contract by
Contractor, or upon the written request of County at any time,
Contractor will prepare all such equipment for shipment and deliver
equipment to the County in the same condition as originally
received by Contractor, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Any
such equipment acquired through grant funds which for any reason,
is not to be delivered to or accepted by County will be retained by
Contractor unless otherwise directed by County in writing. County
shall have the right, at all reasonable times, upon prior request,
to enter Contractor's premises to inspect any and all grant
acquired equipment.
15. RESPONSIBILITY FOR EOUIPMENT
County shall not be responsible nor be held liable for any damage
to person or property resulting from the use, misuse, or failure of
any equipment by Contractor, its agents, employees, third party
independent contractors, or permissive users, even though such
equipment be furnished, rented or loaned to CONTRACTOR by COUNTY.
The acceptance or use of any such equipment by CONTRACTOR or
CONTRACTOR'S employee shall be construed to mean that CONTRACTOR
accepts full responsibility for and agrees to exonerate, indemnify
and hold harmless COUNTY from and against any and all claims for
any damage whatsoever resulting from the use, misuse, or failure of
such equipment, whether such damage be to the employee or property
of CONTRACTOR, COUNTY, or of other persons. Equipment includes,
but is not limited to motor vehicles of any kind, material, tools,
or other things.
q~12
Page 9 of 19
16. EOUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
The Contractor must provide, at its expense, preventative
maintenance and repair contracts or service contracts on all
equipment under its direct control. Such contracts may be provided
by the Contractor itself or by reputable companies generally known
to have such expertise.
The Contractor shall submit a plan to the Contract Administrator as
to how this requirement will be met for the County's review and
approval prior to contract execution. The Contractor is to
maintain a separate current record on maintenance and repairs for
each piece of equipment and to provide a written report and
relevant documentation on a quarterly basis as to any preventative
maintenance/repairs performed on each piece of equipment. A copy
of the quarterly preventative maintenance and repair report must be
provided to the Contract Administrator.
17. EOUIPMENT OWNERSHIP
The County reserves the right to reclaim equipment that has been
acquired with grant contract funds which is no longer in service or
on a project which is not completed or is terminated. All motor
vehicles are to be registered in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 6300 et seg. with the County of San Diego named as the
lien holder.
18. EOUIPMENT USAGE
Use of grant acquired equipment shall be only for projects which
are specifically stated in Scope of Work. The equipment is not to
be used for any other programs unless specifically authorized in
writing by the Contract Administrator. Major equipment must remain
in the specified use for three years, unless such change in use is
authorized in writing by County. Contractor will pay County for
remaining value of equipment if this is not fulfilled.
19. AUDIT AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS
19.1 General. The County shall have the audit and inspection
rights described in this section.
19.2 Cost or oricina data. The Contracting Officer or his
representatives who are employees of the County or its agent
shall have the right to examine all books, records, documents and
other data of the Contractor related to the negotiation pricing
or performance of such contract, change or modification, for the
purpose of evaluating the accuracy, completeness and currency of
the cost or pricing data submitted.
q-13
.
nr
Page 10 of 19
I
J
I
19.3 Availabilitv. The materials described above shall be made
available at the office of the Conitractor, at all reasonable
times, for inspection, audit or reproduction, until the
expiration of 3 years from the date of final payment under this
contract, or by (1) and (2) below:
19.3.1 If this contract is completely or partially ter-
minated, the records relating tp the work terminated shall
be made available for a period of three years from the date
of any resulting final settlement.
19.3.2 Records which relate to appeals under the
"Disputes" clause of this contract, or litigation or the
settlement of claims arising out of the performance of this
contract, shall be made available until such appeals,
litigation, or claims have been disposed of, or three years
after contract completion, whichever is longer.
19.4 The Contractor shall insert a clause containing all the
provisions of this entire clause in all subcontracts hereunder
except altered as necessary for proper identification of the con-
tracting parties and the contracting officer under the County's
prime contract.
20. LICENSING
Attention is directed to the prov~s~ons of Chapter 9 of Division 3
of the California Business and Professions Code concerning the
licensing of contractors. All offerors and contractors shall be
licensed, where required, in accordance with the laws of the State
of California and any offeror or contractor not so licensed may be
subject to the penalties imposed by such laws.
21. PERMITS. NOTICES. FEES AND LAWS
The Contractor shall, at its own expense, obtain all permits and
licenses, give all notices, pay all fees, and otherwise comply with
all State and Federal statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations
pertaining to work and to the preservation of the public health and
safety.
22. AIR. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL. HEALTH AND SAFETY
Contractor shall comply with all State and Federal air and water
pollution control, health and safety statutes, ordinances, rules
and regulations which apply to the work performed under this
contract.
'1..1 tf
Page 11 of 19
23. FINDINGS CONFIDENTIAL
Any reports, information, data, etc., given to or prepared or
assembled by the Contractor under this Agreement which the County
requests to be kept as confidential shall not be made available or
disclosed to any individual or organization by the Contractor
without the prior written approval of the County.
24. PUBLICATION. REPRODUCTION AND USE OF MATERIAL
No material produced, in whole or in part, under this Agreement
shall be subject to copyright in the united States or in any other
country. The County shall have unrestricted authority to publish,
disclose, distribute and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any
reports, data or other materials prepared under this Agreement.
All reports, data and other materials prepared under this Agreement
shall be the property of the County upon termination or completion
of this Agreement.
25. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is agreed that CONTRACTOR shall perform as an independent
contractor under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR is, for all purposes
arising out of this Agreement, an independent contractor, and shall
not be deemed an employee of COUNTY. It is expressly understood
and agreed that CONTRACTOR shall in no event be entitled to any
benefits to which permanent COUNTY employees are entitled,
including, but not limited to, overtime, any retirement benefits,
workers' compensation benefits, and leave benefits.
26. SUBCONTRACT FOR WORK OR SERVICES
No contract shall be made by the Contractor with any party for
furnishing any of the work or services herein contained without the
prior written approval of the Contract Administrator; but this
provision shall not require the approval of contracts of employment
between the Contractor its own personnel assigned for services
thereunder, or for parties named in proposal and agreed to in any
resulting contract.
Contractors are reminded that it is the County's policy to
encourage the participation of minority business enterprises. This
includes assurance that, if available, minority firms are
solicited, or where feasible, dividing the requirement into smaller
units for the purpose of providing for greater minority
participation, or the establishment delivery and payment schedules
which will facilitate participation by minority businesses.
'1.15
.
Page 12 of 19
27.
OTHER INCORPORATED AGREEMENTS
The following documents are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full:
27.1 The San Diego County's Request for Grant Proposals RFG
No. 00213.
27.2 Contractor's response to RFG No. 00213.
In the event of conflict
incorporated agreements or
control.
between this Agreement and the
documents, this Agreement shall
In the event of conflict between two agreements and/or documents,
the lowest numbered agreement or document shall control.
28. AGREEMENT
This Agreement (including the agreements and documents incorporated
by reference in Section 27) constitutes the entire agreement, and
the County with respect to the equipment and services and
supercedes all other additional communications, both written and
oral.
Both parties by their authorized signatures, acknowledge that they
have read, understood and agree to all the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
29. TERMS OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the effective date set
forth above and continue for one year during which time CONTRACTOR
shall perform the services described herein and those described in
the incorporated exhibits.
30. DRUG & ALCOHOL-FREE WORK PLACE
The County of San Diego, in recognition of individual rights to
work in a safe, healthful and productive work place, has adopted a
requirement for a drug and alcohol free work place, County of San
Diego Drug and Alcohol Use Policy C-25. This policy provides that
all County employed Contractors and Contractor employees shall
assist in meeting this requirement.
30.1 As a material condition of this agreement, the Contractor
agrees that the Contractor and the Contractor employees, while
Q-1L.
Page 13 of 19
performing service for the County, on County property, or while
using County equipment:
30.1.1 Shall not be in any way impaired because of being
under the influence of alcohol or a drug.
30.1.2 Shall not possess an open container of alcohol or
consume alcohol or possess or be under the influence of an
illegal drug.
30.1.3 Shall not sell, offer, or provide alcohol or a drug
to another person.
Item 37.1. 3 shall not be applicable to a Contractor or
Contractor employee who, as part of the performance of
normal job duties and responsibilities prescribes or
administers medically prescribed drugs.
30.2 The Contractor shall inform all employees that are
performing service for the County on County property or using
County equipment, of the County objective of a safe, healthful
and productive work place and the prohibition of drug or alcohol
use or impairment from same while performing such service for the
County.
30.3 The County may Terminate for Default or Breach this
Agreement and any other Agreement the Contractor has with the
County, if the Contractor, or Contractor employees are determined
by the Contracting Officer not to be in compliance with the
condition of 37.1 above.
q~11
.
Page 14 of 19
EXHIBIT B
FISCAL AGREEMENT
31. COMPENSATION OF CONTRACTOR
31.1 COUNTY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR a total sum not to exceed
($15,000) for services performed during the term of this
Agreement in accord with the Method of Payment stipulated
in Exhibits B & D. This amount is to be allocated to
individual line item expenditures as shown in the Program
Budget (EXHIBIT D).
31.2 PERIODIC REIMBURSEMENT LIMITS
Periodic reimbursement shall at no time exceed 110 per cent
of the pro-rata portion of the amount stipulated in
Exhibit D for the expired portion of the contract term.
31.3 REIMBURSEMENT BY CLAIM FOR EOUIPMENT
In consideration for major and minor equipment acquired by
Contractor to perform under this agreement, COUNTY will pay
CONTRACTOR by reimbursing CONTRACTOR for such equipment
acquired and for actual expenses of the equipment as stated
on each invoice. The amount of each invoice submitted by
the Contractor is subject to a determination of fair and
reasonable price by the Contract Administrator.
31.4 REIMBURSEMENT FOR LABOR
The County and the Contractor agree that the reimbursement
of approved labor shall be at labor wage rate/rates
contained in Section D. COUNTY reimbursement will be
monthly in arrears upon presentation by CONTRACTOR of a
properly executed claim certifying to the extent of
performance under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR's claim must
conform to Program Budget (EXHIBIT D) and will be subject
to approval by COUNTY's Administrator prior to payment.
The CONTRACTOR will immediately provide supporting
documentation (copy of time cards, etc.) when requested by
the County.
32. WITHHOLDING OF PAYMENT
COUNTY may withhold final payment until final reports required
under this Agreement are received and approved by COUNTY. COUNTY
may also withhold payment where CONTRACTOR is in non-compliance
with this Agreement.
'f. ti
Page 15 of 19
33. DISALLOWANCE
In the event CONTRACTOR claims and receives payment from COUNTY for
a service, reimbursement for which is later disallowed by the
COUNTY, CONTRACTOR shall then promptly refund the disallowed amount
to COUNTY upon request. At its option, the COUNTY may offset the
amount disallowed from any payment due or to become due to the
CONTRACTOR under this Agreement or another agreement. Similarly,
a disallowed agreement may be offset against the Agreement.
34. FULL COMPENSATION
Pending any cost adjustments, each claim so approved and paid shall
constitute full and complete compensation to CONTRACTOR for the
period covered by the claim. It is expressly understood and agreed
that this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of CONTRACTOR
and COUNTY and in no event shall CONTRACTOR be entitled to any
compensation, benefits, reimbursements or ancillary services other
than as herein expressly provided.
35. PARTIAL PERFORMANCE
In the event less than all services are performed in a proper and
timely manner, CONTRACTOR shall be paid only the reasonable value
of the services performed during the payment period as determined
by COUNTY'S ADMINISTRATOR.
36. INSURANCE
Before commencement of the work, CONTRACTOR shall submit insurance
policies or a Certificate of Insurance evidencing that CONTRACTOR
has obtained for the period of the contract, from an insurer
authorized to do business in the State of California, insurance in
the following forms of coverage and minimum amounts specified.
36.1 A policy of Worker's Compensation insurance covering all
employees of Contractor.
36.2 Comprehensive General Liability Insurance of:
(al $ 500,000 Bodily Injury - per person;
(bl $ 1,000,000 Bodily Injury - each occurrence;
(cl $ 100,000 Property Damage
OR
In lieu of (al, (bl, and (cl, $ 1,000,000 combined single limit
bodily injury and property damage.
36.3 Automobile liability insurance in an amount not less than
q-19
.
Page 16 of 19
one million ($1,000,000)
property damage.
36.4 The CONTRACTOR assures the COUNTY it will not cancel any of
the above insurance coverage required by this Agreement during
the term of this Agreement. Contractor shall also seek and
obtain an agreement with its insurer notifying the County 30 days
in advance of any cancellation of the applicable insurance
policy.
combined single limit bodily injury
36.5 All insurance policies shall name the COUNTY of San Diego
as "an additional insured."
37. RETENTION
The CONTRACTOR shall retain all financial records and
administrative documents, in accordance with Paragraph 19, Audit
and Inspection of records relative to the Agreement, in accordance
with applicable COUNTY, State, and Federal statutes, regulations,
ordinances and policies. All such records shall be returned to the
COUNTY should CONTRACTOR become defunct or close doing business,
prior to limitations set forth in such statutes.
q.2.0 / q.);1..
Page 17 of 19
EXHIBIT C
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
'1,21
TIllS PAGE BLANK
q..Z2-
REPORTING REQUIRBHENTS
INVOICING
The County intends to make payments on qrant eligible items and
activities upon receipt of monthly invoices and quarterly reports
(as required) by the grantees. Grantees should attach all necessary
receipts and other expenditure documentation with their invoices.
County reimbursement to a qrantee will be made on submitted
invoices. The county will withhold 10 percent of the total grant
award until successful completion of all quarterly, and final
reports.
PROJECT MONITORING
Over the course of the one-year contract, qrantees will be required
to submit four quarterly reports. In addition, the County requires
grantees to submit a final report at the end of the one-year qrant
term.
The purpose of these reports is to monitor grantee scheduling,
implementation, and operation of the funded programs. Material
collection data will be kept current for a five-year period and will
be available on request if needed for County planning and analysis
purposes.
Quarterlv proaress ReDorts
The grantee shall submit four (4) quarterly progress reports by the
15th day of the month following the calendar quarter. These reports
should include the following:
1. A summary of program milestones for each quarter. Data should
include qrantee's ability to conform to project schedule and
percent completion of each task. Any deviation from oriqinal
goals and objectives should be highlighted, as well as any
difficulties encountered during the reporting period. Reasons
for such difficulties or deviations should also be reported as
well as any remedial action taken.
2. A report of expenditures for the reported quarter.
A statement of activities anticipated during the
reporting period including a description of
operations and materials to be used or evaluated.
4. A statement that the project is, or is not, on ~chedule, and
any pertinent trends or interim findings.
3.
subsequent
equipment,
5. Data on the tonnaqe of recyclable materials collected, by..type.
6. The number of participants (also participation rates for
residential programs only). .The methodology for obtaining this
information will be included with the data.
7. An overall assessment of program effectiveness based on the
objectives set forth in the scope of work.
9..z "3
8.
Number of staff and subcontractor hours used to complete the
'project, noting the number of hours that each task required.
Copies of all promotional materials produced for this project.
A detailed report on the project's effectiveness and the
feasibility for continued operation.
9.
10.
Final ReDort
The scope of work must provide for the development of a final report
submitted to the County within thirty (30) days after the grant
termination date. The final report shall include the following:
1. Table of Contents.
2. A summary of activities performed and objectives achieved as
they relate to the project scope of work. The summary shall
include the total amounts expended on the project and other
measurable results (e.g., tons of recyclables collected, by
type, and material sales revenues earned).
3. Any findings, conclusions or recommendations for follow-up or
ongoing activities that might result from successful completion
of this project.
4. A statement, if applicable, of future public and/or private
support to maintain or further develop the project.
5. A request for final payment.
6. A consolidated list of subcontractors, funded by the grant (in
part or whole). Include the name, address, concise statement
of work performed, time period, and value of each.
7. A summary of project failures or shortcomings, reasons and
necessary remedial activities.
Review comments shall be prepared and transmitted by the County to
the Grantee within seven (7) working days of receipt of.the draft
version of the Final Report. After inco;rporating the County's
comments, the Grantee shall submit to the Grant Manager five (5)
copies of the Final Report no later than thirty (30) days after
receipt of the County's comments.
The County reserves the right to use and reproduce all reports and
data produced and delivered pursuant to this. Agreement, and reserves
the right to authorize others to use or reproduce such material.
Failure. to comply with the reporting requirements specified above
may result in termination of this Agreement or suspension of any' or
all outstanding.payment requests until such a time.as the Grantee
has satisfactorily completed the reporting provisions.
\ATAPII\RPTREQ
q..Z4/ q.JS
Page 18 of 19
EXHIBIT 0
PROJECT BUDGET
q~zS
Recycling Technical Assistance Program
Exhibit D
Project Funding Budget
city of Chula vista - Office Paper Recycling
Public Awareness ~. L<9\'\\o.."I'ri'J out,,\)
Materials & Supplies
Start up Salaries
) ~~
l>) I '()'\.~~ 0~~
CCNTRCT 27-Dec-90
q,Z~ fq')1
Item
Funding
$2,500
$2,000
$10,500 )
Total
Award
$15,000
CAVl~
;11-~
Page 6
Page 19 of 19
EXHIBIT E
SCOPE OF WORK
q.Z7
CONTRACTOR NAME: City of Chula Vista
.
SCOPE OJ' WORK
PROJECT TITLE: Chula vista Civic Center Recycling
The above named project is to be completed as a result of the award
of this grant and shall be conducted in accordance with the
following parameters:
1. Grantee will administer recycling program in Chula Vista civic
Center.
2. Grantee or subcontractor will collect, process and market
recyclables.
3. Grantee will provide recycling service for city offices in the
Chula Vista civic Center. Materials collected will include
the following: high grade office paper, aluminum, glass and
cardboard.
4. Gr.antee will establish a Commercial Outreach Program aimed at
local businesses.
5. Grantee shall monitor and document program participation
rates, number of participants, and tonnage of material
collected by material type on a monthly basis, by route. The
methodology for obtaining this information will be included
with the data.
6. Before implementation of the program, Grantee shall send an
informational brochure to every office scheduled to
participate in the program. The purpose of the brochure will
be to promote the program to the employees in the targeted
area. The brochure will contain the following information:
a. The projected start date of the program;
b. Proposed collection schedules;
c. The materials to be placed in the recycling
containers;
d. A summary of how the program operates; and
e. Information highlighting the advantages of
recycling.
All materials, news releases, brochures, and publications, written
by the Grantee and released under this project, and as part of this
agreement, must be submitted to the Grant Manager for Department of
Public Works approval prior to reproduction or distribution.
All materials designed, reproduced, distributed under this Contract
Agreement must contain a statement acknowledging funding by the San
Diego county Department of Public works, Division of Solid Waste.
ANY CHANGES TO THE SCOPE OF WORK MUST RAVE PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE
GMNT MANAGER.
acopes\cityev
q,z.g
1ttf
Information Item
DATE: April 23, 1991
TO:
VIA:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
John Goss, City Manage~
Athena Lee Bradley, Conservation Coordinator ~
FROM:
RE: Office Recycling Program
As discussed in the report to Council regarding the City's Office Recycling
Program, staff was to brief the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) on the
program and provide Council with a brief written update regarding the
Commission's comments. However, because of the cancellation of the scheduled RCC
meeting for April 22, staff was unable to present the program to the Commission.
Again, due to the time sensitivity of the program start-up needs, including
ordering containers and printing materials, staff is requesting that Council
adopt the reso 1 ut ion accept i ng the grant funds for the Offi ce Recyc 1 ing Program.
The Chair and staff for RCC have reviewed the report and resolution. The
resolution and a description of the program will be mailed to all RCC members,
and staff will present the program at the next scheduled meeting of the
Commission, on May 6. This will allow RCC members to have input into the
formation of the program and development of staff educational materials.
An Information Report will be given to Council following the May 6 RCC meeting
in order to provide Council with the comments members may have regarding the
Office Recycling Program.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM ..to
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION
MEETING DATE APRIL 23. 1991
Amending FY 1990/91 Budget to upgrade (1)
Secretary position to Administrative
Secretary in the City Clerk's Office.
REVIEWED BY:
CITY CLERK ~
DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL
CITY MANAG ER\,;,
(/"
(4/Sth Vote: Yes___ NO~)
SUBMITTED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve modification of the 1990/91 Budget to
upgrade the Secretary position in the City Clerk's Office to Administrative
Secretary.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION: The 1991/92 Budget proposed by the City Clerk requested an upgrade
of the Secretary position for next fiscal year. While that reclassification was
being considered, the incumbent resigned effective April II, 1991 as a result of
a family move. This awkward situation left the City Clerk with two alternatives:
(1) leave the position vacant until the effective date of the reclassification,
July I, 1991; or (2) request an upgrade and revision of the budget so that this
position may be filled at the Administrative Secretary level immediately. Since
there was sufficient justification to support such an upgrade, the latter was the
preferred course of action.
In the justification presented to the City Manager for the upgrade, the City
Clerk cited several major functions in the department that would benefit
significantly by a reclassification of the Secretary position to Administrative
Secretary. The first is the minute taking responsibility of the department.
This is a primary responsibility deserving and receiving the full attention of
those in the office who can take and transcribe minutes. The stumbling block has
always been that of the four individuals in the office, the City Clerk and Deputy
City Clerk are the only classifications that provide for that ability. With the
increasing number of Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings and the growth and
refocus on the essential management and administrative responsibilities of the
department, it has become more and more difficult to fulfill these minute-
producing duties in a timely manner. When this is coupled with expected use of
earned vacation, sick leave and holidays, the department routinely finds itself
at a loss in meeting the needs of the Council. The upgrade of the Secretary
position to Administrative Secretary would carry with it the acceptance of those
duties by the incumbent, thereby filling in the team and easing the burden in
those areas currently placed on the City Clerk and Deputy City Clerk.
Additional advantages of an Administrative Secretary over the Secretary position
is real i zed in performi ng the day-to-day work of the department.
10-L
ITEM
.11)
MEETING DATE
APRIL 23. 1991
Administrative Secretary is, in most departments, the highest level department
secretary and is able and expected to produce a higher quality of work, answer
the more difficult questions posed by staff and the public and assist in the more
time-sensitive projects such as the records management project. However, the
ultimate advantage of upgrading this position is that it will provide the much
needed ass i stance and support of the City Cl erk and Deputy Ci ty Cl erk in
producing minutes for the City Council and Redevelopment Agency.
Since this position is vacant, it will be filled by open, competitive
examination. This reclassification is supported by the Chula Vista Employees
Association as it provides potential growth for its members.
The reason for the 4/5ths vote requirement is that the City Council controls, by
budget, the number and compensation of all positions (Charter Section 501.). Any
amendment to the budget after its adoption must be adopted by the affirmative
vote of at least four members (Section 1005.).
FISCAL IMPACT: For the remainder of fiscal year 1990/91 $612. For a full
fiscal year $3,667.
A:\ADMINSEC.CLK
1 ()-z
RESOLUTION No.~(,,131
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING FY 1990/91 BUDGET TO
UPGRADE ONE SECRETARY POSITION TO
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY IN THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Clerk's proposed 1991/92 budget
requests an upgrade of the Secretary position for the next fiscal
year; and
WHEREAS, while that
considered, the incumbent resigned
result of a family move; and
reclassifications
effective April 11,
was being
1991 as a
WHEREAS, the City Clerk is requesting an upgrade and
revision of the budget so that this position may be filled at the
Administrative Secretary level immediately.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the FY 1990/91 budget
to upgrade one Secretary posi tion to Administrati ve Secretary in
the City Clerk's office.
Presented by
I
"'~t
y Attorney
Candy Boshell, Director of
Personnel
8778a
ruce M. Boogaard,
1 ()- :3
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1L
Meeting Date 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE: Resolution J'131 Accepting bids and awarding contract
for Asphalt Paver and Trailer
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance oI~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~e~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-x-)
-t"J
Bids were received and opened at 3:00 p.m. on April 12, 1991, in the office of
the Purchas i ng Agent for the purchase of one asphalt paver and trail er for
transporting the paver. The paver will be used by the Publ ic Works Street
Division.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the bids and award the contract to
Hawthorne Machinery Co.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Bids were advertised and mailed to prospective vendors with the following bids
received.
Trade-In
Bidder Bid Price Sales Tax Allowance Amount
Great West Equipment Co. $32,319.00 $2,262.33 -$2,750.00 $31,831.33
San Jose, CA
Hawthorne Machinery Co. 33,979.60 2,378.57 -2,500.00 33,858.17
San Diego, CA
Terry Equipment Co. 32,135.00 2,249.45 0 34,384.45
Fontana, CA
Nixon-Egli Equipment Co. 40,870.00 2,860.90 -2,500.00 41,230.90
Santa Fe Springs, CA
The low bid of Great West Equipment on the Mauldin Model 690E Paver does not
meet specifications on a major component of the unit, the screed. The screed
is the component of the paver that lays the asphalt, compacts and smooths the
surface. The majority of the streets in the City are 36' wide.
Specifications required a 9' screed with variable widths from 3' to 12' in 3'
increments to cover the width of our streets. Specifications required a
paving depth of 0'-8", 3" crown adjustment and 3" valley adjustment based on
City application requirements. The Mauldin 690E Paver provides an 8' screed,
paving depth of 0"-6", 2" crown adjustment and 2" valley adjustment.
11.-1
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Specifications required the screed height adjustments to be electrically
controlled from either right or left side of the machine for safety and
efficiency. The Mauldin 690E screed heights are manual and the operator has
to make adjustments on each side. The screed vibration was specified with a
frequency of 3450 vi brat i on per mi nute (VPM) for a better appl i cat i on of the
material. The Mauldin frequency is 2,200 VPM.
The second low bid of Hawthorne Machinery meets specifications and it is the
recommendation of the Deputy Director of Publ ic Works/Operations that this
unit be purchased.
FISCAL IMPACT: The equipment is budgeted in the Equipment Replacement
Fund. Sufficient funds are provided for the purchase.
WPC 0279U
11-2
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT PAVER
AND TRAILER
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the following four bids were received and opened at 3: 00
p.m. on the 12th day of April, 1991, in the office of the Purchasing Agent of
the City of Chula Vista for asphalt paver and trailer:
Trade-In
Bidder Bid Price Sales Tax Allowance Amount
Great West Equipment Co. $32,319.00 $2,262.33 -$2,750.00 $31,831.33
San Jose, CA
Hawthorne Machinery Co. 33,979.60 2,378.57 -2,500.00 33,858.17
San Diego, CA
Terry Equipment Co. 32,135.00 2,249.45 0 34,384.45
Fontana, CA
Nixon-Egli Equipment Co. 40,870.00 2,860.90 -2,500.00 41,230.90
Santa Fe Springs, CA
WHEREAS, the low bid of Great West Equipment on the Mauldin Model 690E
Paver does not meet specifications on a major component of the unit, the
screed and specifications required a 9' screed with variable widths from 9' to
12' in 3' increments to cover the width of our streets; and
WHEREAS, the second low bid of
specifications and it is the recommendation of
Works/Operations that this unit be purchased.
Hawthorne Machinery meets
the Deputy Director of Public
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby accept said four bids, and does hereby award the
contract for said asphalt paver and trailer to Hawthorne Machinery Co. in the
amount of $33,858.17 to be completed in accordance with the specifications as
approved by the Deputy Director of Public works/Operations of the City of
Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista be,
and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for and on
behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by
rm by
~
Lyman Christopher, Director of
Finance
8781a
Bruce M. Boogaar
ity Attorney
11-3
THIS PAGE BLANK
11..- ct
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution l'1?li
for trucks
Accepting bids and awarding contract
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance If,
REVIEWED BY: City Manager 6'j:
,fe'-
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~)
Bids were received and opened at 10:00 a.m. on April 12, 1991, in the office
of the Purchasing Agent for the purchase of the below listed trucks:
Item
1
.!lll
1
DescriDtion
DeDartment
PW - Trees Div.
2
1
Cab & chassis truck with 12 cubic
yard chip box
Chassis with step/van body
PW - Sewers Div.
RECOMMENDATION:
Item I: That Council award bid to Westrux International.
Item 2: That Council award bid to C&M Chevrolet Co.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Bids were advertised and mailed to prospective vendors with the following bids
received.
Item I - Cab & Chassis with 12-cubic vard ChiD Box
Trade-In
Bidder Unit Price Sales Tax Allowance Amount
Westrux International $33,614.00 $2,352.98 -$2,000 $33.966.98
San Diego
Fuller Ford 35,525.00 2,486.75 -1,500 36,511. 75
Chula Vi sta
Lakeside Chevrolet 36,014.00 2,520.98 -850 37,684.98
Sun City
The low bid of Westrux International meets specifications and is acceptable to
the Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations.
12.1
Page 2, Item 12.
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Item 2 - Chassis with Steo Van/Bod v
Trade-In
Bidder Unit Pri ce Sales Tax Allowance Amount
C&M Chevrolet $21,166.50 $1,481. 66 -$1,000 $21.648.17
San Diego
lakeside Chevrolet 22,289.00 1,560.23 -750 23,099.23
Sun City
Full er Ford 26,060.00 1,824.20 -1,300 26,584.20
Chula Vista
The low bid of C&M Chevrolet meets specifications and is acceptable to the
Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations.
FISCAL IMPACT: The trucks are budgeted in the Equi pment Replacement Fund.
Sufficient funds are provided for the purchase.
WPC 0278U
12-Z
RESOLUTION NO. 1 ,tj'l
RESOLUTIOO OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF muLA VISTA
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR TRUCKS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, bids were received and opened at 10:00 a.m. on April 12,
1991, in the office of the Purchasing Agent for the purchase of the below
listed trucks:
Item Qty Description Department
1 1 Cab & chassis truck with 12 cubic PW - Trees Div.
yard chip box
2 1 Chassis with step/van body PW - Sewers Div.
Item 1 - Cab & Chassis with 12-cubic yard Chip Box
Trade-In
Bidder Unit Price Sales Tax Allowance Amount
Westrux International $33,614.00 $2,352.98 -$2,000 $33,966.98
San Diego
Fuller Ford 35,525.00 2,486.75 -1,500 36,511. 75
Chula Vista
Lakeside Chevrolet 36,014.00 2,520.98 -850 37,684.98
Sun City
WHEREAS, the low bid of Westrux International meets specifications
and is acceptable to the Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations.
Item 2 - Chassis with Step Van/Body
Trade-In
Bidder Unit Price Sales Tax Allowance Amount
C&M Chevrolet $21,166.50 $1,481. 66 -$1,000 $21,648.17
San Diego
Lakeside Chevrolet 22,289.00 1,560.23 -750 23,099.23
Sun City
Fuller Ford 26,060.00 1,824.20 -1,300 26,584.20
Chula Vista
-1-
1.2-3
WHEREAS, the low bid of C&M Chevrolet meets specifications and is
acceptable to the Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby accept said bids, and does hereby award the contract
for Item 1 - Cab & Chassis with l2-cubic Yard Chip Box to Westrux
International in the amount of $33,966.98 and for Item 2 - Chassis with step
Van/Body to C&M Chevrolet in the amount of $21,648.17 to be completed in
accordance with the specifications as approved by the Deputy Director of
Public Works/Operations of the City of Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the
and he is hereby authorized and directed
behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Mayor of the City of Chula vista be,
to execute said contracts for and on
Presented by
dr om:y
ty Attorney
Lyman Christoper, Director of
Finance
8779a
-2-
J.z...Lj.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 13
Meeting Date 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE: Resolution 1.l.t4tl Accepting bids and awarding contract
for purchase of front end loader
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager0~& (4/5the Vote: Yes_No..lL)
-t"
Bids were received and opened at 11:00 a.m. on April 12, 1991, in the Office
of the Purchasing Agent for the purchase of one front end loader. The loader
will be used by the Public Works Department.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept bids and award the contract to
Hawthorne Machinery Company.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Bids were advertised and mailed to prospective vendors with the following bids
received.
Trade-In
Bidder Unit Price Sales Tax All owance Amount
Scott Machinery Co. 72,845.00 5,099.15 -13,900.00 63,264.71
San Di ego
Hawthorne Machinery 85,209.80 5,964.69 -12,000.00 79,174.49
San Diego
The low bid of Scott Machi nery Company, a John Deere Model 444E Loader does
not meet specifications. Bid specifications were written for a heavy duty
Loader that would be productive, rel iable and durable for the work being
performed. Past experi ence with in-house equi pment needed for street
reconstruction shows the value and longevity of a heavy duty unit.
Bid specifications reqUired a diesel engine with a minimum 318 cubic inch
diesel engine. This size engine will provide more torque required for faster
ope rat i on of the hydraul i c system and 1 i ft i ng capaci ties. The add i t i ona 1
horse power provides better roadability with the ability to accelerate
faster. The John Deere 444E engine is 276 cubic inch. The smaller engine
would be able to perform the job requirements for a while but the wear an tear
on overworking the smaller engine would create downtime and shorten the 1 ife
of the equipment.
Speci fi cat ion requi red a three- speed power shi ft automat i c transmi ssi on for
better effi c i ency and equi pment productivity. The torque loads are spaced
more evenly through the gear sets. The John Deere 444E is equipped with a two
speed transmission.
.13-1
Page 2, Item 1.3
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Ai r brakes were speci fi ed due to the fact that they are more rel i abl e, 1 ast
longer and are easier to replace when needed. The safety lock feature on air
brakes provides the locking of the brakes automatically when braking abil ity
lost. The John Deere 444E comes equipped with hydraulic brakes.
The Loader bid by Scott Machinery is a medium duty unit that does not meet
specifications and is not expected to have the life of a heavy duty unit. The
second low bid of Hawthorne Machinery, a Caterpillar Model IT18S Loader meet
specifications and it is the recommendation of the Deputy Director of Publ ic
Works/Operations that the Loader be purchased.
FISCAL IMPACT: The loader is budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund.
Sufficient funds are provided for the purchase.
WPC 0277U
13-Z
13
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHOLA VISTA
ACCEPrING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF
FRONT END LOADER
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the following two bids were received and opened at 11:00
a.m. on the 12th day of April, 1991, in the office of the Purchasing Agent of
the City of Chula vista for purchase of a front end loader:
Trade-In
Bidder Unit Price Sales Tax Allowance Amount
Scott Machinery Co. 72,845.00 5,099.15 -13,900.00 63,264.71
San Diego
Hawthorne Machinery 85,209.80 5,964.69 -12,000.00 79,174.49
San Diego
WHEREAS, the low bid of Scott Machinery Company, a John Deere Model
444E loader does not meet specifications in that specifications were written
for a heavy duty Loader required for the work being performed; and
WHEREAS, the Loader bid by Scott Machinery Co. is a smaller unit than
the City's requirements; and
WHEREAS, the second low bid of Hawthorne Machinery, a Caterpillar
Model IT18B Loader meet specifications and it is the recommendation of the
Deputy Director of Public works/Operations that the Loader be purchased.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby accept said two bids, and does hereby award the
contract for said front end loader to Hawthorne Machinery Co. in the amount of
$79,174.49 to be completed in accordance with the specifications as approved
by the Deputy Director of Public works/Operations of the City of Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista be,
and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for and on
behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Lyman Christopher, Director of
Finance
8782a
Presented by
. ty Attorney
1. '3 ~3
THIS PAGE BLANK
13-;
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 14
ITEM TITLE:
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Resolution tt,t41 Approving additional Residential
Construction Tax (RCT) credits fPJ Discovery Park Improvements
Di rector of Parks and Recreation/I'
City Manager ~ l~G (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..lL)
~"
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Rancho Del Rey Partnership has submitted a request for $552,124.21 in the RCT
credit for the construction of Discovery Park.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve an additional $114,124.21 in RCT
credit for expenditures eligible for credit.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Rancho del Rey SPA (Sectional Planning Area) I Plan, approved by the
Council on December 15, 1987, included conceptual plans for the development of
a turn key community park. The conceptual plan included an understanding that
the developer would construct the park and dedicate it to the City as part of
the Phase 3 development.
In the approved SPA plan, the developer was responsible for preparing the park
master plan; grading the site; installing the parking lot, play area, turf,
landscaping, irrigation, fine art feature, two lighted softball fields, the
soccer field and staging area. In addition, although not part of the SPA
plan, the developer designed and constructed a restroom facility.
In return for the design and development of this park, the City Council
approved a waiver of all Park and Acqui sit i on and Development (PAD) fees,
estimated at $600,000, and Residential Construction Tax (RCT) credit in the
amount of $358,000 for development of the parking lot and two lighted softball
fields/soccer fields.
The City was responsible for constructing an additional softball field, and
recreat ion buil di ng. However, the Department recommended that the City have
the developer construct and light the third ballfield and give additional RCT
credit for this cost. The City Council on August 23, 1988, adopted Resolution
No. 13749 approving the concept master plan for the Rancho del Rey Community
Park and Resolution No. 13750 authorizing additional Residential Construction
Tax (RCT) credit for third ballfield (Exhibit "A").
The concept plan called for development of three night-lighted softball
fields, with soccer field overlays, a jogging trail surrounding the park,
picnic areas, two tot lot areas, restrooms, parking, a community monument/fine
art feature, a hiking and equestrian staging area, and connection to the
t 4.-1
Page 2, Item Jt~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
hiking/equestrian trail. The eastern end of the park was to have dense
1 andscape screen; ng and nat; ve 1 and scapi ng to di scourage act; ve recreat; ona 1
activities in close proximity to the Eucalyptus Ridge area. The plan also
allowed space for the future construction of a recreation center/gymnasium.
On March 16, 1991, Discovery Park was officially dedicated and open to the
community. Rancho del Rey Partnership has submitted a request for additional
RCT credit beyond the $438,000 previously approved by Council Resolution No.
13749. The actual credit to be given for the improvement area was to be based
on the actual construction cost as per agreement approved by Council on
January 19, 1989, Resolution #13917 (Exhibit "B").
The original RCT credits requested by the developer was $689,457, which
included the cost of the comfort station. Negotiations between staff and the
developer on the improvement items further reduce the eligible RCT credits to
$552,124.41 (Exhibit "C").
Summary of Approved RCT Credits
1. December 15, 1987............................................. .$358,000
2. August 23, 1988................................................ 80,000
Total RCT Approved
$438,000
3. Actual cost of construction for RCT eligible improvements.......552,124.21
4. Additional RCT credits required.................................114,124.21
----------
----------
FISCAL IMPACT: By previous Council action, an estimated $600,000 in PAD
fees were waived for this project and $438,000 RCT credit allowed. An
additional $114,124.21 RCT credit will be required for the actual cost of
construction work authorized by Council.
WPC 1638R
.14..2
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
CHULA VISTA APPROVING
CONSTRUCTION TAX (RCT)
PARK IMPROVEMENTS
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL
CREDITS FOR DISCOVERY
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does he~eby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan, approved by the
Council on December 15, 1987, included conceptual plans for the
development of a turn key community park; and
WHEREAS, in the approved SPA plan, the developer was
responsible for preparing the park master plan; grading the site;
installing the parking lot, play area, turf, landscaping,
irrigation, fine art feature, two lighted softball fields, the
soccer field and staging area and although not part of the SPA
plan, the developer designed and constructed a restroom facility;
and
WHEREAS, in return for the design and development of this
park, the City Council approved a waiver of all Park and
Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees, estimated at $600,000, and
Residential Construction Tax (RCT) credit in the amount of $358,000
for development of the parking lot and two lighted softball
fields/soccer fields; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 1991, Discovery Park was officially
dedicated to the community and Rancho del Rey partnership has
submitted a request for additional RCT credit beyond the $438,000
previously approved by Council Resolution 13749; and
WHEREAS, the actual credit to be given for the improvement
area was to be based on the actual construction cost as per
agreement approved by Council on January 19, 1989, Resolution
#13917; and
WHEREAS, the or ig inal RCT credi ts requested by the
developer was $689,457, which included the cost of the comfort
station, however, negotiations between staff and the developer on
the improvement i terns further reduce the eligible RCT credits to
$552,124.41.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE
the City of Chula Vista
$114,124.21 in Residential
Discovery Park improvements.
IT RESOLVED that the City
does hereby approve an
Construction Tax (RCT)
Council of
additional
credi t for
M. Boo a rd, City Attorney
Presented by
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
8784a
t4~3
THIS PAGE BLANK
1../1.,1
Exhibit A
;
RESOLUTION NO.
13749
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR
RANCHO DEL REY COMMUNITY PARK
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Rancho del ReySPA(Sectional Planning
Area) : 'I Pla'n, approved by:: -the Council on December 15, 1987,
includes plans for the development of a 34-acre community park,
and ,,'
WHEREAS, a conceptual plan was included in
wi th the understanding tha t the developer would
park and dedicate it to the City as part of
development, and
the SPA Plan,
construct the
the Phase 3
WHEREAS, McMillin Development, Inc. hired the landscape
architectural firm of ONA to design the park, with input from the
community and City staff, and
WHEREAS, the plan calls for development of three
night-lighted softball fields, one soccer field, a jogging trail
surrounding the park, picnic area, tot lot area, restrooms,
parking, a community monument/fine art feature, a hiking and
equestrian staging area, and connection to the hiking/equestrian
trail, and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission approved
the concept plan at its April 27, 1988 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the concept master
plan for Rancho del Rey Community Park.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~b ~ ."./_
Manuel A. MOllinedo, Director
of Parks and Recreation
4562a
1. 4-5
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
23rd
day of
August
19 88 ,by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES;
NAYES;
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Counei 1 mentlers
Counei 1 members
Counc i 1 mentle rs
Council members
Nader, Cox, Moore, McCandliss
None
None
Malcolm
~f!~~~V.t,
ATTEST ~~ o:U",r
t::/ City Cler
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) 55.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA I
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY !hat the above and foregoing is a full, true and COIrect copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 13749
,..,.. ,...,..""'"
I,...\,,-vvv
,ond that the same has not been amended or repeoled.
~~~r
t/ City Clerk..
1. 4.. ,
.
..
(
(
,
,
RESOLUTION NO. 13750
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION TAX CREDIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
THE CITY OF
RESIDENTIAL
BALLFIELD
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
Area) I
includes
and
WHEREAS, the Rancho del Rey SPA (Sectional Planning
Plan, approved by the Council on December 15, 1987,
plans for the development of a 34-acre community park,
WHEREAS, as approved in the SPA plan, the developer is
responsible for preparing the master plan; grading the site;
installing the parking lot, play area, turf, landcaping,
irrigation, fine art feature, two lighted softball fields, the
soccer field and the staging area, and
WHEREAS, according to the SPA plan, the City would be
responsible for constructing the additional softball field and
recreation bUilding, and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the developer construct
and light the third ballfield and be given Residential
Construction Tax credit for the additional cost, and
WHEREAS, it
developer install the
other two fields, and
would be cost effective to have the
field since they will be constructing the
WHEREAS, the
approximately $80,000.
IWOUld
be
additional
RCT
credit
NOW, THEREFORE, BE
the City of Chula Vista
Construction Tax credi t in
construction.
IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
does approve additional Residential
the amount of $80,000 for ballfield
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~~~_.
~t:7 .~
Manuel A. MOllinedo, Director
of Parks and Recreation
~f).
D. Rlchard Rudolf,
City Attorney.
4563a
.'
1.4-1
(
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHlA..A VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 23rd
19 88, by the following vote, to-wit:
day of
August
AYES; Coune i 1 rnemers Nader, Cox, Moore, McCandliss
NAYES: Couneilmemers None
ABSTAIN: Counei lmemers None
ABSENT: Counei lmemers Malcolm
~f !.:'~a.b V."
ATTEST ~~~
,:9' City Clerk
(
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
)
) 55.
)
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, aTY CLERK of the City of Chulo Vista, California,
I
. ,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct COpy of
RESOLUTION NO. 13750
,and that the same has not been amended or repealed.
l.
fiH'':'''2rc.&:~~,,-
,-
r,.. ,..,..'"
\,..\,,0 VVV
J4-1
..
(
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
5
Meeting Date 8/23/88
ITEM TITLE: al Resolution/~ 7'(1 Approving the concept plan for Rancho
del Rey Community Park
b) Resolution;l~)7~(? Approving additional Residential
Construction Tax credit for ballfield construction
.~ ~ MI'"
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and Recreation
City Manager F'1~
The Rancho del Rey SPA (Sectional Planning Area) I Plan, approved by the
Council on December 15, 1987, includes plans for the development of 34-acre
community park. A conceptual plan was included in the SPA Plan, with the
understanding that the developer would construct the park and dedicate it to
the City as part of the Phase 3 development. McMillin Development, Inc. hired
the landscape architectural firm of ONA to design the park, with input from
the community and City staff.
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes____No_X_1
(
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolutions approving the
concept master plan for the Rancho del Rey Community Park and additional
Residential Construction Tax (RCT) credit for ballfield construction.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission
approved the concept plan at its April 27, 1988, meeting.
DISCUSSION:
i
for the community
and res i dents of
Attached to the resolution is a copy of the schematic design
park. The plan was developed with input from City staff
Eucalyptus Ridge.
The plan calls for development of three night-lighted softball fields, one
soccer field, a j09ging trail surrounding the park, picnic areas, tot lot
area, restrooms, parking, a community monument/fine art feature, a ~iking and
equestrian staging area, and connection to the hiking/equestrian trail. The
eastern end of the park will have dense landscape screening and native
landscaping to discourage active recreational activities in close proximity to
the Eucalyptus Ridge area. The plan also allows space for the future
construction of a recreation center/gymnasium.
As approved in the SPA plan, the developer is responsible for preparing the
master plan; grading the site; installing the parking lot, play area, turf,
landscaping, irrigation, fine art feature, two lighted softball fields, the
soccer field and staging area. In addition, although not part of the SPA
plan, the developer will design and construct the restroom facility.
l
1..4,9
<
(
Page 2, Item 5
Meeting Date ~~j/~~
In return for the desi gn and development of thi spark, the Ci ty Council
approved a waiver of all Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees,
estimated at $600,000, and Residential Construction Tax (RCT) credit in the
;~o~nt of $358,000 for development of the parking lot and two lighted softball
fields/soccer fields. .
According to the SPA plan, the City would be responsible for constructing the
additional softball field, and recreation building. However, staff recommends
that the City have the developer construct and light the third ballfield and
give RCT credit for this additional cost. It makes sense to have the
developer install the field since the company would already be constructing
two of them. The additional credit would be approximately $80,000, which is
the estimated cost of the third lighted ballfield. Credit will be based on
the actual construction cost.
i
'.
Upon approval of the concept master plan, the landscape architect will begin
development of construction documents for the improvements for which the
cit!vt!iull"r" is responsible. During this stage, detailed plans for the play
equi pment will be presented to the Parks and Recreati on Commi ssi on for its
approval.
The grading for the park site will begin next month. It is anticipated that
construction will begin in February or March of 1989 and be completed by
February 1990, with turnover to the City by February 1991.
FISCAL IMPACT: 8y previous Council action, the PAD fees, estimated to be
$600,000, were waived for this project in exchange for grading the site;
installing the irrigation systems, turf, landscaping, tot lots and picnic
areas. In addition, Council also approved giving RCT credit for development
of the parking lot and bal1fields/soccer fields. The estimated cost of those
improvements is $358,000. If Council grants addi ti onal RCT credi t for the
third ballfield, an additional $80,000 would be credited. Th'e actual credit
amount will be dependent on the actual construction cost. . The cost to the
developer for these park improvements is estimated at $2 million, not
inclUding the land value, and the dollar amount of the waivers and credits is
estimated to be $1.4 million.
WPC 1059R
t q,~JtJ
~.-1:~4'_H' .d
the City C,)uncil of
ChUI~.I3' :~fornia
Dated 3 8'
l
Exhi bit B
cNMIJIY/7Y p.g.;t.
RESOLUTION NO.
(
13917
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AND RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP TO CONSTRUCT A THIRD
LIGHTED SOFTBALL FIELD IN RANCHO DEL REY COMMUNITY PARK
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
The City Council of the City of Chu1a Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Chu1a Vista that that certain agreement between THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, and RANCHO DEL REY
PARTNERSHIP, to construct a third lighted softball field in Rancho
del Rey Community Park
dated the 10th day of January , 1989, a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein, the same as though fUlly
set forth herein be, and the same is hereby approved.
(
!
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chu1a Vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to
execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chu1a
Vista.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
0374a
on, City Attorney ,
~ ~4 >......//"- ~_
Manuel A. Mo11inedo, Director
of Parks and Recreation
J.. 4, Jt
;
,
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHUlA VISTA. CALIFORNIA. this 10th day of January
19' 89
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSTAIN:
, by the fol/owing vote, to_it:
Counc i 1 members Moore. McCandliss, Nader. Cox, Malcolm'
Counc i 1 members None
Counci lmembers None
Councilmernbers None
ABSENT:
ATTEST
M~C"~ crtv;",
~~~r
tf/ City Clerk
('
". STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) s s.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA }
! .'
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ. CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full. true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 13917
,and that the same has not been amended or repealed
DATED
;Lit... I 9--; ! q J?
~17l~
P City Clerk
:L 4-12-
.
"
I
,
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into this 10th day
1989, by and between THE CITY OF CHULAVISTA,
corporation ("City") and RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP,
. general partnership ("Developer") with reference to
set forth below.
of January ,
a municipal
a California
the Recitals
RECITALS
A. The Rancho Del Rey SPA-I Public Facilities and Financing
Plan ("Financing Plan") was adopted by the City on December 15,
1987 pursuant to Resolution No. 13392.
B. The Financing Plan requires the Developer to prepare a
Concept Master Plan and to construct a 34 acre community park
("Park") with two lighted softball fields.
C. The City approved the Concept Master Plan for the Park
( on August 23, 1988 pursuant to Resolution No. 13749, which calls
, for the construction of three lighted softball fields.
D. Developer shall receive, pursuant to Chapter 2 of the
Financing Plan, a waiver of the Park Acquisition and Development
Fees for the preparation of the Concept Master Plan and a credit
to the Residential Construction Tax ("RCT") in an amount equal to
the actual cost of constructing the parking lot and the two lighted
softball fields.
E. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Resolution No.
13750 approved by the City on August 23, 1988.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the Recitals set forth above and
in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained the
parties agree as follows:
1. In addition to the two lighted softball fields to be
installed by the Developer under the Financing Plan, the Developer
agrees to install and construct a third lighted softball field
within the Park. The installation and construction of the
additional lighted softball field shall be in accordance with the
Concept Master Plan.
"
10/20/88
-1-
t1--13
,;
(
2. The City shall give Developer an additional RCT credit
in an amount equal to the actual cost of installing and
constructing the third lighted softball field identified in
paragraph 1, above, of approximately $80,000.00.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a municipal corporation
By An /1. ('~
Approved as
on ~ day
to form and legality
of IMU'? ' 1988.
~,
i
(
RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP,
a California general partnership
BY:
McMILLIN COMMUNITIES, INC.,
a California corporation,
formerly known as McMillin
Financial, Inc., a
General Partner
BY:
By K~~.
By 9J ~/ii1
HOME CAPITAL CORPORATION,
a California corporation
General Partner
By 'iif:-. //! r-2
, .
J
O~<.
10/20/88
jJlltf
Exhibit C
RANCHO DEL REY COMMUNITY PARK
R.C.T. CREDIT ITEMS
REVISED MARCH 27, 1990
THE FOLLOWING ARE ACTUAL FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
I. HARDSCAPE: PARKING LOT
A. A.C. PAVING 36,999 S.F. 1.725 $63,823.28
B. 6" CONCRETE CURB 1,180 L.F. 10.44 $12,319.20
C. 6" CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 896 L.F. 11.97 $10,725.12
D. 6" CONCRETE SWALE & CROSS GUTTER 2,108 S.F. 5.40 $11,383.20
E. CONCRETE WALK 8,321 S.F. 2.42 $20,136.82
F. PAINT STRIPPING, ETC. INCLUDED INCLUDED
G. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE (WEST PARKING LOT) $9,900.00
II. HARDSCAPE: BALL FIELD
A. CONCRETE PAVING 2,901 S.F. 2.42 $7,020.42
B. MOW CURB BELOW FENCE 684 L.F. 8.62 $5,896.08
C. MOW CURBING 2,104 L.F. 5.53 $11,635.12
III. FENCING:
A. FALL FIELD FENCING 6' CHAIN LINK 300 L.F. 9.88 $2,964.00
B. BALL FIELD FENCING 12' CHAIN LINK 480 L.F. 22.08 $10,598.40
IV. SITE FURNISHING:
A. BACKSTOPS 3 EACH 5,723.00 $17,169.00
B. DUG OUT BENCHES 6 EACH 320.00 $1,920.00
C. IN FIELD MIX 799 CY. 28.43 $22,715.57
D. BLEACHERS 9 EACH 1,732.00 $15,588.00
E. BASES, PITCHERS RUBBER & HOME PLATE 3 SETS 310.00 $930.00
V. ELECTRICAL PARKING LOTS & BALLFIELDS $327,400.00
A. BUILDING ELECTRICAL EQUAL 7,708.00
TOTAL COST $552,124.21
ITEMS APART OF BUT NOT CHARGED:
1. ADDITIONAL COSTS WERE INCURRED TO REMOVE EXISTING FENCE POSTS.
2. 6 X 6 X 10 W.w.M. AT 6" CONCRETE ACCESS ROAD.
3. COST DIFFERENCE FROM AGGREGATE ACCESS ROAD TO CONCRETE.
14,15
THIS PAGE BLANK
14,1'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item .t5
ITEM TITLE
.
.
MeetingDate 4/23/91
Resolution .tt.l<<f.2. Approving agreement with the County of
San Diego requiring the City of Chula Vista to provide EMT-
Paramedic (EMT-P) lllli! EMT Public Safety-Defibrillation
(EMT/PS-D) Services.
Fire Chief >?
City Manager tJ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No-X.)
SUBMITTED BY
REVIEWED BY
At the Council Meeting of February 12, 1991, Council approved the appropriation of funds for
the purchase of automated external defibrillators. Because Chula Vista provides EMT -P services
under an agreement with the County, this enhanced service level must be acknowledged
contractually. The proposed agreement replicates the existing agreement except that it authorizes
Chula Vista to render EMT/PS-D services. No change to the exclusive operation area (BOA)
for EMT-P services, or any other operationally significant covenant of the existing agreement,
will result from the execution of this proposed agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the attached resolution approving
the agreement with the County.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
The County of San Diego currently maintains an agreement with Chula Vista to ensure that
EMT-P services are provided. The agreement presented for consideration today will supplant
the existing agreement in order to include the provision, by trained Fire Department staff, of
EMT/PS-D services within Chula Vista's city limits. Staff estimate that between 120 and 150
calls for EMT/PS-D services will be responded to annually here in Chula Vista. Defibrillation
is the only field administrable therapy that can significantly alter a person's chance of survival
if that person is suffering from ventricular fibrillation. In other jurisdictions, EMT/PS-D
programs have increased the survival rate of heart attack victims anywhere from 5% to 30%.
This action would have no impact on Chula Vista's operating agreement with Hartson Medical
Services.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
1. 5-1
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO REQUIRING THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TO PROVIDE EMT-PARAMEDIC (EMT-P)
AND EMT PUBLIC SAFETY-DEBIFRILLATION
(EMT/PS-D) SERVICES
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, at the Counci 1 meeting of February 12, 1991,
Council approved the appropriation of funds for the purchase of
automated external defibrillators; and
WHEREAS, because Chula Vista provides EMT-P services
under an agreement with the County, this enhanced service level
must be acknowledged contractually; and
WHEREAS, the proposed agreement replicates the existing
agreement except that it authorizes Chula Vista to render
EMT/PS-D services; and
WHEREAS, no change to the exclusive operation area (EOA)
for EMT-P services, or any other operationally significant
covenant of the existing agreement, will result from the
execution of the proposed agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an agreement with the
County of San Diego requiring the City of Chula Vista to provide
EMT-Paramedic (EMT-P) and EMT Public Safety-Defibrillation
(EMT/PS-D) Services, a copy of which is on file in the office of
the Clerk Clerk.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
is hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement for
and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
8772a
form by
Presented by
Sam LopeZ, Fire Chief
, Clty Attorney
t5'2
AGREEMENT
EMT-Paramedic And EMT/PS-Defibrillation Services
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, hereinafter
referred to as COUNTY, and CITY OF CHULA VISTA
(Corporate Name of Party)
276 FOURTH AVENUE
(street Address)
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
(City/State)
92010
(Zip)
hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR
Paramedic/EMT/PS-Defibri11ation Services.
to
provide
EMT-
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS CONTRACTOR possesses certain skills, experience, education
and competency to perform certain specialized services regarding
the provision and management of advanced life support; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Title XXII, Division 9,
Chapters 2 and 4, of the California Code of Regulations, the County
of San Diego is required to enter into a contract which authorizes
and standardizes the provision of such services within a given
region.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree to the terms
and conditions as attached and set forth in this document.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, COUNTY AND CONTRACTOR have executed this
AGREEMENT to be effective , 1991.
CONTRACTOR:
COUNTY:
BY:
BY:
NAME:
TITLE:
GJ:cw/CONTRACT/CHLAVSTA.AGR
15-3
AGREEMENT-CITY OF CHULA VISTA
EMT-Paramedic/EMT/PS-Defibrillation Services
Page 2
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Department of Health Services
1. Administration of Aqreement
COUNTY'S Chief. Emeroencv Medical Services hereinafter called
COUNTY'S ADMINISTRATOR, shall represent COUNTY in all matters
pertaining to the performance under this Agreement and shall
administer this Agreement on behalf of COUNTY. CONTRACTOR'S
Fire Chief shall represent the CONTRACTOR and shall administer
this Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions on
behalf of CONTRACTOR. All reports, letters, notices and/or
other correspondence shall be sent to the attention of the
designated representatives at their respective addresses.
2. Term of Aqreement
The term of this Agreement shall be from Julv 1. 1991
and will continue until mutually terminated. Termination
proceedings can be started by either party provided that a
forty-five (45) day notice of intent to terminate is given.
3. Responsibilities of Contractinq Parties
A. Responsibilities of COUNTY
1) To provide, under the authority of Section 1797 et seq.
of the Health and Safety Code, the following services:
a) Approval of the EMT-paramedic (EMT-P) and EMT/
Public Safety-Defibrillation (EMT/PS-D) training
program(s) in the County of San Diego pursuant to
California Code of Regulations, Ti tle XXII,
Division 9.
b) Standards for accreditation/authorization of EMT-
Paramedics (EMT-P's), Mobile Intensive Care Nurses
(MICN's), and EMT/PS-D's (Defibrillation) in San
Diego county, pursuant to California Code of
Regulations, Title XXII, Division 9.
c) Contracts with designated base hospitals to provide
immediate medical direction and supervision of the
ALS system for the area defined by the local EMS
agency. For the purpose of this Agreement, the
area defined is the MICU and the EMTjPS-D unit,
1S-'f
AGREEMENT-CITY OF CHULA VISTA
EMT-Paramedic/EMT/PS-Defibrillation Services
Page 3
including assigned personnel, assigned by the local
EMS Agency to the base hospital for medical
control.
2) To provide prehospital report forms in accordance with
California Code of Regulations, Title XXII, Division 9.
3)
To review this Agreement every two (2) years
compliance with standards, regulations,
procedures and protocols.
to ensure
policies,
B. Responsibilities of the CONTRACTOR
1) To provide EMT-P and EMT/PS-D Services within the
boundaries of its local jurisdiction, and within
adjoining areas as specified by agreements with
adjoining EMT-P and EMT/PS-D Service Providers.
2) To participate in the advanced life support (ALS)
program in accordance with Title XXII of the California
Code of Regulations, Division 9, Chapters 2 and 4.
3) To develop and operate EMT-P and EMT/PS-D Services in
accordance with California Code of Regulations,Title
XXII, Division 9, Chapters 2 and 4. The CONTRACTOR may
subcontract all or a portion of these services.
However, the CONTRACTOR is responsible for insuring
that any and all subcontractors provide services in
accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title
XXII, Division 9, Chapters 2 and 4.
4) To maintain and operate at least one fully equipped,
supplied and staffed EMT-P unit and one fully equipped,
supplied, and staffed EMT/PS-D unit seven days a week,
twenty-four hours a day in accordance with the
Policies, Procedures, and Protocols established by San
Diego County.
5) To staff each EMT-P responding unit with at least two
(2) EMT-P's at all times. For the purpose of this
Agreement, an EMT-P is an individual certified in the
State of California as an EMT-Paramedic, and accredited
by the San Diego County Emergency Medical Services
Medical Director to operate as an EMT-Paramedic in San
Diego County, pursuant to section 1797 et seq. of the
Health and Safety Code.
6) To staff each EMT/PS-D responding unit with at least
two(2) EMT/PS-D's at all times. For the purpose of this
Agreement, EMT/PS-D's are individuals accredited by the
San Diego Emergency Medical Services Medical Director
S
1$~
AGREEMENT-CITY OF CHULA VISTA
EMT-paramedic/EMT/PS-Defibrillation Services
Page 4
to operate as EMTjPS-D's in San Diego County, pursuant
to section 100064 of Title XXII, Division 9, Chapter 2
of the California Code of Regulations.
7) To provide the citizens of the local jurisdiction with
information on the 9-1-1 system and where and how to
obtain cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training.
8) To ensure that all EMT-P and EMT/PS-D personnel comply
with the continuous accreditation requirements of the
COUNTY.
9) To provide suitable facilities for housing the EMT-P
and EMT/PS-D units.
10) To cooperate with the approved EMT-P training programs
in providing field internship locations for paramedic
interns.
11) To develop mutual aid and/or call-up plans for
providing EMT-P service in an area in the event the
unit assigned to the area is not operable, or is away
from the area for other reasons. Automatic response
plans may be developed by the local jurisdiction with
concurrence of adjoining EMT-P services.
12) To notify the Chief, Division of Emergency Medical
Services, or designee, immediately whenever any
condi tion exists which adversely affects the local
jurisdiction's ability to meet the conditions of this
Agreement.
13) To appoint an Agency EMT-P and EMT/PS-D coordinator, to
serve as liaison between the Agency, the County, base
hospitals, receiving hospitals, BLS provider agencies
and Public Safety Agencies operating within the service
area.
14) To provide orientation for first responder agencies to
advanced life support functions and role.
15) To provide for a planned maximum response time of no
more than ten (10) minutes.
16) To participate in local Emergency Medical Services
planning activities, including disaster management.
17) To comply with all applicable State statutes and
regulations and County standards, policies, procedures
and protocols, including a mechanism to assure
~
t5-~
AGREEMENT-CITY OF CHULA VISTA
EMT-paramedic/EMT/PS-Defibrillation Services
Page 5
compliance.
18) To implement and maintain a Quality Assurance program
that interfaces with the local EMS agency's system-wide
Quality Assurance program, which include base
hospitals, and is approved by the local EMS agency.
19) To take immediate corrective action where there is a
failure to meet "Responsibilities of the CONTRACTOR".
4. Contractor's Standards
CONTRACTOR shall adopt CONTRACTOR'S own standards for the
purposes of paragraph 3.B above and shall monitor the Service
Provider's compliance with them.
5. Notice
A. Notices Pursuant To This Aqreement -- Any notice or notices
required or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Agreement may be personally served on the other party by
the party giving such notice, or may be served by certified
mail or registered mail, to the officials cited in
paragraph one (1).
B. Notice of Delav -- CONTRACTOR shall, within five (5) days
of the beginning of any delay in the performance of this
Agreement, notify the COUNTY'S ADMINISTRATOR, in writing,
of the said delay, causes and remedial action to be taken
by CONTRACTOR.
6. Amendments. Minor Chanqes and Termination
A. Amendments -- COUNTY or CONTRACTOR may request written
amendment to this Agreement. Such amendments, as agreed
upon in writing, by and between COUNTY'S DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES and CONTRACTOR are not in
force until approved by the Board of Supervisors and the
COUNTY.
B. Termination of Aqreement for Cause -- Upon breach of this
Agreement, COUNTY shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement by giving written notice to CONTRACTOR of such
termination and specifying the effective date of such
termination.
c. Termination of Aqreement for Convenience -- Either party
may terminate this Agreement upon forty-five (45) days
-,
tS~
AGREEMENT-CITY OF CHULA VISTA
EMT-Paramedic/EMT/PS-Defibrillation Services
Page 6
written notice to the other party.
7. Independent Contractor
Independent Contractor -- It is agreed that CONTRACTOR shall
perform as an independent contractor under this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR is, for all purposes arising out of this Agreement,
an independent contractor, and shall not be deemed an employee
of COUNTY. It is expressly understood and agreed that
CONTRACTOR shall in no event be entitled to any benefits to
which COUNTY employees are entitled, including, but not
limited to, overtime, any retirement benefit, worker's
compensation benefits, and leave benefits.
8. Subcontracts of CONTRACTOR
Subcontract All subcontracts for EMT-P and EMT/PS-D
Services entered into by CONTRACTOR shall be in writing and
the subcontractor shall be authorized by the COUNTY to deliver
such services in accordance with Title XXII of the California
Code of Regulations, Division 9, Chapters 2 and 4.
No such subcontract shall act to terminate any legal
responsibility of CONTRACTOR to COUNTY to assure complete
performance of all activities and functions required of
CONTRACTOR under this Agreement.
9. confidentiality
CONTRACTOR shall maintain the confidentiality of its records,
including billings, in accordance with all applicable State
and Federal laws relating to confidentiality. CONTRACTOR
shall inform all its officers, employees and agents, and
others providing services hereunder of said confidentiality
provisions. COUNTY shall maintain the confidentiality of all
records made available hereunder during and after the terms of
this Agreement.
10. Maintenance of Records
All administrative records under this Agreement shall be
maintained by the CONTRACTOR for a minimum of five years after
termination date. COUNTY, at its option, may take custody of
a copy of CONTRACTOR'S non-patient administrative records
related to this Agreement upon contract termination.
11. Fiscal and Performance Audits. and Inspection of Records
Authorized Federal, State or County representatives shall have
i
1~'::<I--
AGREEMENT-CITY OF CHULA VISTA
EMT-Paramedic/EMT/PS-Defibrillation Services
Page 7
the right to monitor, assess and evaluate CONTRACTOR'S
performance pursuant to this Agreement, said monitoring,
assessments and evaluations to include but not be limited to
audits, inspection of premises, reports, patient records and
interviews of staff. At any time during normal business hours
and as often as COUNTY may deem necessary, CONTRACTOR shall
make available to County, state, or Federal officials for
examination all of its records with respect to all matters
covered by this Agreement and will permit authorized County,
state, or Federal officials to audit, examine, copy and make
excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits
of all invoices, materials, information regarding patients'
receiving services, and other data relating to all matters
covered by this Agreement.
12. Compliance with Laws and ReQu1ations
A. COUNTY Affirmative Action Proqram - The CONTRACTOR, sub-
contractors and suppliers of the CONTRACTOR, shall comply
with the requirements of the COUNTY'S Affirmative Action
Program for vendors as set forth in Article III-K of the
Code of Regulations of the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, unless,
specifically exempted in accordance with the Article's
rules and regulations.
(1) Eoual Opportunitv - CONTRACTOR will comply with the
provisions of Title VI of the civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 USC 2000 as amended by the Equal Opportunity Act of
March 24, 1972, Public Law No. 92-261) in that it will
not discriminate against any employee, or against any
applicant of such employment because of age, race,
color, religion, sex, physical handicap, ancestry or
national origin. This provision shall include but not
be limited to the following: employment, upgrading,
demotion, or transfer; recruitment advertising; layoff
or termination; rates of payor other forms of
compensation; and selection of training, including
apprenticeship.
(2) Nondiscrimination CONTRACTOR shall ensure that
services and benefits are provided without regard to
race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin in
accordance with Title VI, of the civil Rights Act of
1973, as amended (29 USC 794), pertaining to the
prohibi tion of discrimination against qualified
handicapped persons under any program or activity which
receives or benefits from Federal financial assistance.
'1'
j.S~
AGREEMENT-CITY OF CHULA VISTA
EMT-ParamedicjEMTjPS-Defibrillation Services
Page 8
13. Hold Harmless
CONTRACTOR agrees that its performance under this Agreement is
at its own risk and that it shall indemnify the COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, its agents and employees, against and hold them
harmless from any and all liabilities, both real and alleged,
for damages, cost, losses and legal and investigative expenses
resulting from, arising out of or in any way connected with
CONTRACTOR'S alleged negligence, wrongful performance, or
failure to perform fully under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR
further agrees to defend the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, its agents
and employees, against all suits, actions or proceedings
brought by any third party against them, for which CONTRACTOR
would be liable or be alleged to be liable hereunder.
COUNTY shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CONTRACTOR,
its agents and employees, against and hold them harmless from
any and all liabilities, both real and alleged, for damages,
cost, losses and legal and investigative expenses resulting
from, arising out of or in any way connected with COUNTY'S
alleged negligence, wrongful performance, or failure to
perform fully under this Agreement. COUNTY further agrees to
defend the CONTRACTOR, its agents and employees, against all
sui ts, actions or proceedings brought by any third party
against them, for which COUNTY would be liable or be alleged
to be liable hereunder.
14. Druq and Alcohol-Free Workplace
As a material condition of this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR
agrees that the CONTRACTOR and the CONTRACTOR I S employees,
while performing service for the COUNTY, on COUNTY property,
or while using COUNTY equipment;
A. Shall not be in any way impaired because of being under the
influence of alcohol or a drug.
B. Shall not possess an open container of alcohol or consume
alcohol or possess or be under the influence of an illegal
drug.
C. Shall not sell, offer, or provide alcohol or a drug to
another person.
Item C shall not be applicable to a
CONTRACTOR employee, who, as part of the
normal job duties and responsibilities
administers medically prescribed drugs.
CONTRACTOR
performance
prescribes
or
of
or
(0
15 :JJ::-
AGREEMENT-CITY OF CHULA VISTA
EMT-ParamedicjEMTjPS-Defibrillation Services
Page 9
The CONTRACTOR shall inform all employees that are performing
service for the COUNTY on COUNTY property or using COUNTY
equipment, of the COUNTY objective of a safe, healthful
and productive work place and the prohibition of drugs or
alcohol use or impairment from same while performing such
service for the COUNTY.
15. Area To Be Served
County hereby designates as the exclusive operating area (EOA)
for EMT-Paramedic services for this agreement the
jurisdictional limits of the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection
District and the cities of Chula vista and Imperial Beach, and
as the EOA for EMTjPS-Defibrillation services the jurisdic-
tional limits of the City of Chula vista.
GJ:cwjCONTRACTjCHLAVSTA.AGR
II
t~~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 11.
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Resolution 1"1"3 Accepting bids and awarding contract to
Signal Maintenance, Inc. for installation of bicycle detection
loops at various traffic signal locations in the City of Chula
Vista
Director of Public wor~~
City Manager bit fb (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No...lL)
f'~
On March 12, 1991, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids at 2:00
p.m. in Conference Room No. 1 of the Public Service Building for the
installation of bicycle detection loops at various locations in the City of
Chula Vista.
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Bids were received from 11 qualified electrical contractors.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution accepting the bids and
awarding the contract to Signal Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $17,358 and
authorize the Director of Publ ic Works to enter into a change order not to
exceed $20,824 for additional work under this contract.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In FY 1989-90, the Board of Directors of the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG), allocated Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to
the City of Chula Vista for the installation of bicycle detection loops at
older actuated traffic signals.
There are approximately 50 traffic actuated signalized intersections in the
City that cannot detect the presence of a bicyclist. To rectify this problem,
SANDAG has allocated Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to Chula Vista
to retrofi t 01 der traffi c signals wi th loop detectors (magnet i c detect i on
devi ces imbedded in the pavement) that wi 11 detect the presence of bi cycl es.
This bicycle detection loop project will correct 5 signalized intersections.
The remaining 45 intersections will be corrected as additional TDA funds
become available. It should be noted that all traffic signals designed and
constructed today and in recent years have bi cycl e detect ion loops
incorporated as standard design features.
The five intersections covered by this contract are: Bonita Road and Willow
Avenue; Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo del Rey; East "H" Street and Hi dden
Vista Drive; Otay Lakes Road and Allen School/Camino Elevado; "H" Street and
Hilltop Drive. These five intersections were selected on the basis of bicycle
act i vity in the area and traffi c volumes. When bi cycl e detection loops are
installed at an intersection, all vehicle detection loops must also be
replaced because of the electronic requirements of the traffic signal control
system.
1(,-1
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
The low bid received on this contract of $17,358 is approximately $24,000
lower than our estimate to perform this work. Staff's estimate was based on
previous traffic signal bids that included a unit cost of $400 for a loop
detector. Competition for limited traffic signal work apparently resulted in
a very favorabl e loop detector unit cost bid to the City. Si nce the low bid
received on this contract has left an excess of TDA funds, additional
intersect ions that need bi cycl e detection loops can be constructed. Staff
will expand this contract by change order by approximately $21,000 as the low
bidder, Signal Maintenance, Inc., has agreed to perform additional work at the
same unit price. The expansion of the contract will allow for bicycle loops
to be placed at additional signalized intersections. The resolution requested
authorizes the Public Works Director to approve a change order to perform the
expanded work without additional Council action.
The City has an option of rejecting the bids for the five intersections and
re-advert is i ng the work to i ncl ude addit i ona 1 intersect ions to expend all the
TDA funds available for bicycle loop detectors in one contract. Staff does
not recommend this action because there is no assurance that we will again
recei ve a low bi cycl e loop unit pri ce. Therefore, staff recommends awardi ng
the $17,350 contract and allow staff to expand the contract to expend the
remaining TDA funds budgeted in the 1989-90 CIP.
Bids received from 11 qualified electrical contractors are as follows:
1. Signal Maintenance, Inc.
2. Southwest Signal
3. Steiny and Company
4. MCR Electrical Contractor, Inc.
5. Signal Installation & Repair
6. Sierra Electric
7. Select Electric
8. Knox Electric
9. Lekos Electric
10. DBX, Inc.
11. 0 & H Perry, Inc.
$17 ,350.00
19,198.00
21,863.00
23,575.00
24,526.50
24,640.00
24,790.00
24,980.00
28,590.00
36,850.00
39,000.00
The low bid of $17,358 submitted by Signal Maintenance, Inc. is below the
engineer's estimate. Funds are available from the TDA fund account.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
I. Total Funds Available (602-6020-ST 5031
$46,900.00
2. Total Funds Reauired for Project
a. Contract Amount
b. Additional Work (by change order)
c. Staff Time
d. Contingencies (10%)
$17,358.00
20,824.00
4,900.00
3.818.00
Total $46,900.00
FISCAL IMPACT: Routine City maintenance.
WPC 5520E:File: DS-043
1/'-2
!H!H!RAt!!!!!M
DATE: April 1, 1991
File: DS-043
TO: John Goss, City Manager
Bruce Boogaard, City Attorney
Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance
Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
Roberto Saucedo, Senior Civil Engineer
FROM: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resol ut i on Accept i ng bids and awardi ng contract to Si gna 1
Maintenance, Inc. for installation of bicycle detection loops at
various traffic signal locations in the City of Chula Vista
A. Funds Required for Construction
1. Contract amount $17,358.00
2. Additional work 20,824.00
3. Contingencies (10%) 3.818.00
Total Funds Requested $42,000.00
B. Funds Available for Construction $42,000.00
TDA Account #602-6020-ST503
Total Funds Available $42,000.00
WPC 5523E
11,-3/11,-+
. .
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
Signal Maintenance, Inc.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
International Air Service
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serv1l1g as dueL'tor of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
nla
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No -1:L If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Rick UlJDCdn Utility Uperdtions Manag~r
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate. contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No.2- If yes, state which
Councilmember(s ):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, fiml, co-partnership, joint venlUre, association, social club,fraternal organization, corporation,
estate, trust, receiver, syndi1;ate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other politi1;al subdivision,
or any other group or combinao'on acting as a Unit."
Date: March 8, 1991
~O
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
[A-113\ADISCLOSE,TXT]
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
[Revised: 1I13O,'}OJ
1~ - <I
RESOLUTION NO. 1J.1 tf3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT TO SIGNAL MAINTENANCE, INC. FOR
INSTALLATION OF BICYCLE DETECTION LOOPS AT
VARIOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS IN THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the following eleven bids
opened at 2:00 p.m. on the 12th day of March,
Room 1 of the Public Services Building of the
for installation of bicycle detection loops
signal locations in the City of Chula Vista:
1.
2.
3 .
4 .
5 .
6.
7 .
8.
9 .
10.
11.
were received and
1991, in Conference
City of Chula Vista
at various traffic
Signal Maintenance, Inc.
Southwest Signal
steiny and Company
MCR Electrical Contractor, Inc.
Signal Installation & Repair
Sierra Electric
Select Electric
Knox Electric
Lekos Electric
DBX, Inc.
D & H Perry, Inc.
$17,350.00
19,198.00
21,863.00
23,575.00
24,526.50
24,640.00
24,790.00
24,980.00
28,590.00
36,850.00
39,000.00
WHEREAS, it has been recommended that said
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Signal
Inc., who has assured the City that they are
contractor in the State of California and can
acceptable performance bond.
contract be
Maintenance,
a licensed
produce an
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista has reviewed the specifications for the
construction of said project and does hereby approve same.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista does hereby accept said eleven bids, and does
hereby award the contract for said bicycle detection loops at
various traffic signal locations to Signal Maintenance, Inc. in
the amount of $17,358 to be completed in accordance with the
specifications as approved by the Director of Public Works of the
City of Chula Vista.
BE IT FURTHER
Chula Vista be, and he is
execute said contract for and
Vista.
the City of
to
Chula
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
8689a
ty Attorney
1~-5
THIS PAGE BLANK
.11. -~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE: Resolution .14,llft1quitclaiming water service easement to owners of the
property at 1250 Third Avenue and authorizing Mayor to sign deed
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~ ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager0~ (4/5 Vote: Yes_ No X)
f,' j
Prior to its annexation to the City, the property which is now Lauderbach Park obtained its water
service off the water main located in Third A venue. This necessitated the granting of an
easement through the property adjacent to the east. Since that time however, the water service
has been relocated to the Oxford Street side of the property. The subject easement is no longer
needed and may be quitclaimed back to the owners.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the subject resolution quitclaiming the water
service easement and authorize the Mayor to sign the deed on behalf of the City.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Amos Sanderson, a real estate consultant and acting in behalf of the owners of the property
known as 1250 Third Avenue, recently submitted a written request to the City to have a water
service easement quitclaimed to clear the title of the property.
A research of our records reveals that prior to its annexation to the City, the property which is
now Lauderbach Park was made up of two separate parcels. The southerly parcel evidently was
land-locked and the previous owners had to obtain water service from Third Avenue.
subsequent that, the County of San Diego obtained title to the southerly parcel and consolidated
them to create the parksite. With the development, the County evidently opted to use only the
water service from the Oxford Street side and the old service was abandoned.
The County evidently never quitclaimed the easement, however, and a title search shows the
easement still remains across the adjacent property to the east. In order to clear the title to that
property, the owners would like the City to relinquish that easement.
Parks Department staff has verified that the water facilities are no longer needed by us and will
not be needed in the future.
i 1-1.
Page 2, Item 11
Meeting Date 4/23/91
The easement is not considered "public" since it is for a private water service, so vacating it is
not necessary.
Based on the findings contained herein, staff is recommending that Council abandon the
easement and have the Mayor sign the quitclaim deed. We will then contact the owners'
representative to have the deed recorded.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
JH/PF-OOl
t 1~l
i IZ l
-~ -
oxr:ORD S ST.
" ~
N?/-.,4'4D.C (C..'.'~.') N 7Z..~Z.' ...../0<01 -~ >30
...... ~....., S' Z40.'. . "'.. - ", '. ~ --
II
" l. ~ .. ,/ .. "..
.
. i t ~ ~
. " J -;'\ 11Ce- I
. . . ~} "
" . . !
, . :~ @D
: a ~~ .U ~; . ;
~ . ... . OJ . t~ . I ,.j
~0 ~ -.
ii .. o.SIAC. , "
. @ ." , ~
. ." .
. . J
.; 0.9..' - .
!i) . ~ ''2'2 ;
0~ ;'....r ~ lJ ~ D N
...
.
s'~ !:
. - , G.n,.,c..
.. , LAUDERBACH ..
~t 2
~o ~ ~ 141._
-. Z90~7Z.""'ji:'11 11r/uj i1'IIt W~'O '1<1~'<; .~
@o! II-
.... PARK ~ <3 Il!!!;: ~UeJeGT
~ oi@f'a EAseMe~.,.
. . 127 "'c. 'it" r't;;'
. .. .
.. @ eD~
.. " O'<~ .. ..
. 1.90 At; .
, . -
~; "
7. ..
.. 0 It."!'':''- Q
. . . ,,. II:
~ "'7l'I1.'~$.' ~ i:
.... . e I ...
.. ~ ~ ; J2~-:z. .. ..
. .. ~~ .
.
. '~ -
.. "1
27() . H",
"S '\ ..,.'. Cr..,.cr; It.. 1,~
~ I
~ I .
I~;S @ 0 ~ .
o .
,~ ~ It.'"
.. e
102'" I.........r:~f.... D'~
.. ... .
0 ....IC)".... ~U~ . 101 ~
~~
~ . .. I"
It'"
il ! ~ /.0 ''17&1 i \0
0' "' ,_1 ~ "
E> 8~ ~ 0
0'" l LGTIO@ ~ If7.. ~ ~
LOT' ,." ~
'" .~. . .
.. Jlll,N~~.""''II ., II. .. ,...I!!.... : '.0 ,. .@ o~ .. 101/1 $C.4Le
~'''R... i= :8 '" @ @ I~ :
~ r ~."_M l" S ~~
",0,.4.1'-1 .. @
~ '-- : @ ,,~ ~i
' If"" @ .. D'''~~ 0
- ~j 0:
e : 15
,,,",a ~ ~ @) ...... l ..~ ..~
. ..
.
I~ @ 0:.-.:0 '- @' ~
: .: r-o., IlL 1-e"W
....., ~ .
o ~ 1 : l~: ~ ' ,.~ ''''.~.-.
'ALl ; . J '.0 I ..
l;! ..- II~-":
,...." .. .: . -- I
& 7',.......w III <",-:#....-..7" .T'....w.. ta"" ...
.T6.,,"~.-1 WID:
~ . PAL.OAIIA~ 5T. ~ I FILE NO. PF.OOI
OWN BY: Tj{ aUITCLAIM/A/4 WATE~ SERVICE lEASEMEN T
DATE: 4/lzj"i/.. AT IZ50 Tf//~O AVENUE
.1.' .
13
RECORDING REQUlElITED BY
...... ........ .c_. "'/lIL TO
I Bud Gestrl --,
- C/O Amos A. Sanderson
...:.:::: 29B5 Valley Street
c... Carlsbad, CA 9200B-1153
-L -.J
aPACE A80VI: THIS UNI: I"OR RECORDER'. USI:
.....11 l.un/l_ro
I
--,
-
-
-
c...
-L
Corporation Quitclaim Deed D.U s-=lb-
THIS I"OIllIlilI"UIIlNISHI:D.Y Tina INSUIIlANcaAND TIIlUST CON~"'NY
TO.oO"CA (....,
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, ...,.;pt Df wMeb is .....by ocbDWIecIpI,
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal
<<c:orporatiOlli o'lanized under the I... of the ute of CALIFORNIA
b.",by REMISES, RELEASES AND QUITCLAIMS ID BUO GESTRI AND NORMA GESTRI, as co-trus tees
of the Gestrl Family Trust, under declaration of trust dated August 22, 19B9
the following described real property in the
Coonly Df SAN 01 EGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
,State of California:
'~._,,-
This Document is being recorded for the sole purpose of relinquishing
any and all interest in the following Easements:
1) An Easement recorded May 11, 1951 in Book 4095, Page lIB of
Official Records.
2) An Easement recorded October 20, 1952 In Book 4629, Page 161 of
Official Records.
DESCRIPTION OF LAND IN EXHIBIT A, ATTACHED
In Witness Whereof, &aid corp~_tation has caused ill corporate name and seal to be affixed herdo and this inltru-
ment to be executed by ils.-.-MAYOR .....lti'llhl_ an" rnv rl ~I)r ~.."
thereunto duty authorized.
DaIO<!' CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
} ss.
By
By
MAYOR _"'"
CITY CLERK ~~
COUNTY OF
On before me. the WIder.
allied, . NoW')' Public in and for Mid Stale, penonall, .ppeued
known
President, and
known to IDe to be
~eW')' of the Corpoution tMt ellecuted the
within In.trument. known ta me to be the penon. who e.ecuted the
within Instrument on behalf of lhe Corparalion therein Damed, aDd
acknowledged to me th.t .ueh Corporation elIeculed the within Inttn:
menl punuant to it. by.la". or a reaolUtiOD af it. board or directon.
to me to be lb.
WITNESS my halld Ind official -.1.
Signllllle
Name (Typed or Printed)
C'nlII,.,...'", -.! _1U'IIo!_1I
Title Order No
J;'.{'row or Loan No
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
1. 1."
EXHIBIT "A"
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 7 IN QUARTER SECTION 142 OF CHULA VISTA,
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 505, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 13, 1888, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE THEREOF 30 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY
PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, 200 FEET; THENCE
NORTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT, 87 FEET TO A
POINT; THENCE EASTERLY 15 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE
LAND CONVEYED TO CASTLE PARK BAPTIST CHURCH BY DEED RECORDED
FEBRUARY 4, 1954 IN BOOK 5131, PAGE 272 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID CASTLE PARK
BAPTIST CHURCH'S LAND, 213 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE
OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 145 FEET
MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LAND CONVEYED TO NICK
PARIANOS AND WIFE, BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 10, 1954 IN BOOK 3627,
PAGE 392 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE BOUNDARY
OF SAID PARIANOS LAND TO A CORNER THEREIN; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG
SAID BOUNDARY 20 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY 100
FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG
SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 350 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
30-58000-30
11-5
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA QUITCLAIMING WATER SERVICE
EASEMENT TO OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AT 1250
THIRD AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO SIGN DEED
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Mr. Amos Sanderson, acting on behalf of the
owners of the property known at 1250 Third Avenue, submitted a
written request to the city to have a water service easement
quitclaimed to clear the title of the property; and
WHEREAS, in order to clear the ti tIe to the property,
the owners would like the City to relinquish that easement; and
WHEREAS, Parks Department staff has verified that the
water facilities are no longer needed by the City and will not be
needed in the future; and
WHEREAS, the easement
it is for a private water
necessary; and
is not
service,
considered "public" since
so vacating it is not
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that Council abandon the
easement and have the Mayor sign the quitclaim deed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby quitclaim water service
easement to the Gestri Family Trust, the owners of the property
at 1250 Third Avenue.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the Ci ty of
Chula Vista is hereby authorized to execute said quitclaim deed
on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
8774a
Presented by
11-~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1 'i
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Resol ut ion 11-145 Approving an agreement with Dominy and
Associates Architects for architectural design services
required for the Rancho del Rey Fire Training Tower located at
H Street and Paseo Ranchero in the City of Chula Vista, CA
Director of Public work~~H~
Fire Chief ,;7y; > v: II"
, '<< /'1" '<4' /,
~~-
City Managert~{, (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..lL)
On November 5, 1990, the Engineering division sent requests for letters of
interest, statement of qualifications for professional architectural design
services for the Rancho del Rey Fire Training Tower. Four firms responded and
after evaluation of the qual ifications by a selection committee, three firms
were selected for i ntervi ews. Based on the anal ys is of the propos a 1 sand
interviews, the selection committee made up of Engineering, Fire and
Administration staff recommends that the contract for design of the Rancho del
Rey Fire Training Tower be awarded to Dominy and Associates.
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: That Counc i 1 adopt the resol ut i on and authori ze the Mayor
to execute said agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The general scope of the project is to construct a four-story concrete fire
training tower on a two-acre site on Paseo Ranchero adjacent to East H
Street. This building will be Phase 1 of a two phase project for new Fire
Department Facilities. Phase 2 calls for constructing a 6,500 sq. ft.
two-story fire station with a training room on the second floor. Phase 2 will
be designed and built by the developer in conjunction with the Rancho del Rey
development.
Currently, the City's only existing fire training tower exists at the East J
Street Fire Station. Construction of the new fire station at East J Street
has restricted the use of the existing fire training tower and a new training
facility is needed.
The architectural fi rm of Domi ny and Associ ates has revi ewed the site and
submitted a proposal with a detailed work program and recommendations for
comp 1 et i ng the des ign of the subject project. Staff has revi ewed the fee
proposal and is satisfied that Dominy and Associates is capable of completing
the work required in a timely manner and for a reasonable fee. Included
within the scope of work for this project is completion of the design review
process for architectural approval from the Design Review Committee. The
design work for the this project is scheduled to be completed by October
1991.
FISCAL IMPACT: $220,500 has been allocated from the Fire Suppression
Systems Fund for the Rancho del Rey Fire Training Tower project. The
agreement will utilize $15,620 of the allocated funds.
WPC 5548E
1';. (
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH DOMINY
AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS FOR ARCHITECTUAL
DESIGN SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE RANCHO DEL
REY FIRE TRAINING TOWER LOCATED AT H STREET AND
PASEO RANCHERO IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, on November 5, 1990, the Engineering division
sent requests for letters of interest, statement of
qualifications for professional architectural design services for
the Rancho del Rey Fire Training Tower; and
WHEREAS, four
the qualifications by
selected for interviews;
firms responded and after evaluation of
a selection committee, three firms were
and
WHEREAS, based on the analysis of the proposals and
interviews, the selection committee made up of Engineering, Fire
and Administration staff recommends that the contract for design
of the Rancho del Rey Fire Training Tower be awarded to Dominy
and Associates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an agreement with
Dominy and Associates Architects for architectural design
services required for the Rancho del Rey Fire Training Tower
located at H Street and paseo Ranchero in the City of Chula
Vista, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
form by
Presented by
J
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M. Boo
Attorney
8773a
If, 2..
AGREEMENT
WITH
DOMINY , ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
POR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
This Agreement is made this day of
1991 by and between the city of Chula Vista, california, a
Municipal Corporation, herein referred to as "City", and Dominy
& Associates Architects, a Professional Architectural Consulting
Firm ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the fOllowing
facts:
RECITALS
Whereas, the existing fire training site at 80 East "JII
Street is restricted due to construction of a new station; and,
Whereas, the Fire Station site at "R" Street and Paseo
Ranchero is centrally located with good access by all south by
fire departments to utilize for automatic aide, multiple company
training; and,
Whereas, the City desires to proceed in a timely manner with
the construction of this project and lacks sufficient resources
to design the project in a timely manner, the City, thus requires
design architectural services; and,
Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are
experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can
prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City
within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant
do hereby mutually agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Duties
a. General Duties
Consultant shall prepare design plans and specifications for
the construction of a four story concrete fire training tower,
in accordance with City of Chula Vista standards/requirements.
Design plans will include:
(i) ArChitectural, structural and site plans.
(ii) Final material of tower and site work.
Consultant shall prepare all construction cost estimates,
specifications, and provide construction plan interpretation.
- 1 -
I~ -,3
b. Scope of Work and Schedule
Consultant, in the process of providing said advice and
recommendations, shall perform the duties and deliver the "Work
Product" as is set forth in the Scope of Work and Schedule,
attached hereto as Exhibit A, not inconsistent with the General
Duties, according to, and within the time frames therein
established (time being of the essence of this agreement) (The
General Duties and the work required in the Scope of Work and
Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services").
c. Standard of Care
Consultant,
whether Defined
performed in a
skill ordinarily
practicing under
in performing any Services under this agreement,
Services or Additional Services, shall be
manner consistent with that level of care and
exercised by members of the profession currently
similar conditions and in similar locations.
d. Insurance
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and
consultants employed by it are protected by worker's compensation
insurance and the Consultant has the coverage under public
liability and property damage insurance policies which this
Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the form of a
certificate of insurance.
Consultant will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates
of insurance to the city prior to beginning work:
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000
Employers liability coverage.
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000
combined single limit which names City as an additional insured,
and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise
carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the
City in the same manner as members of the general public ("cross-
liability coverage").
Errors and Omissions
and Omissions coverage is
policy.
All policies shall be issued by a
Rating of "A, Class V", or better,
approval of the City's Risk Manager.
insurance to $250,000, unless Errors
included in the General Liability
carrier that has a Best's
or shall meet with the
- 2 -
I ~- tf
All policies shall provide that same may not be canceled
without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the city.
2. Duties of the City:
a. Consultation and Cooperation.
city shall regularly meet with the Consultant for the
purpose of reviewing the progress of the Plan and to provide
direction and guidance to accomplish the Plan.
b. Compensation.
The compensation to be paid by City to Consultant for all of
the work required herein shall not exceed Fifteen Thousand Six
Hundred Twenty Dollars ($15,620) and shall be paid out in the
increments set forth in the attached fee schedule (Exhibit B)
payable in monthly progress payments in an amount that the Public
Works Director, or his designee, shall determine corresponds to
the value provided to the City to the date of billing.
Consul tant agrees to perform all of the services, provide the
Plan and deliver the Work Product herein required, and in the
manner of the detailed Scope of Work set forth on the attached
Exhibit A, and shall incur all associated costs, including
reproduction and printing with a limit of 12 sets of plans and
specifications, secretarial work, telephone charges, travel
including automobile charges, for said Fee.
c. Reductions in Scope of Work.
City may from time to time reduce the Scope of Work by the
Consul tant to be performed under this Agreement. ci ty and
Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose
of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the Fee associated
with said reduction.
d. Additional Scope of Work.
In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set
forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional
consulting services related to the General Duties and Scope of
Work ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing,
Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at
the rates set forth on Exhibit B. All compensation for
Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed.
- 3 -
If'-~
3. Administration of Contract:
The City hereby designates the Director
his written designee, as its representative
administration of the work performed by
required.
of Public Works, or
for the review and
Consultant herein
4. Term:
Consultant shall perform all of the Defined Services within
consul tant' s control herein required of them by not later than
August 1991, and shall abide by and comply with any interim time
frames and milestone dates that are set forth in Exhibit A.
5. Liquidated Damages:
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the
essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to
estimate the amount of damages resul ting from delay in
performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a
reasonable amount to compensate for delay.
Failure to complete the General Duties and Defined Duties
specified within the allotted time period specified in Exhibit A
shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive
calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion
of the respective work assignment, the consultant shall pay to
the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of $100.00.
Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control,
other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in
writing to the Public Works Director, or his designee, prior to
the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when
granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and
will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless
it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress
of the work.
6. Financial Interests of Consultant:
Consultant warrants and represents that neither he, nor his
immediate family members, nor his employees or agents
("Consul tant Associates") presently have any interest, directly
or indirectly, whatsoever in the property which is the subj ect
matter of the Project, or in any property within 10 radial miles
from the exterior boundaries of the property which is the subject
matter of the Project, or ("Prohibited Interest") except as
listed on an attachment.
- 4 -
If.(,
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise
of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or
other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant
Associates. Consultant promises to advise City of any such
promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or
for 12 months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that neither Consultant nor his immediate
family members, nor his employees or agents, shall acquire any
such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or
for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any
party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in
conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement.
7. Hold Harmless:
Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and
against all claims for damages, liability, reasonable cost and
expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising
out of the conduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employee,
subcontractors of the consultants, in connection with the
execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for
those claims arising from the negligence or willful conduct of
the city, its officers, or employees. Consultant's
indemnification shall include any and all reasonable costs,
expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, it
officers agents, or employees in defending against such claims,
whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant
at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suitor action brought against the City, its
officers, agents, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of
City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration
by the Consultant.
8. Termination of Agreement for Cause:
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a
timely and proper manner his/her obligations under this
Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants,
agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the
right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to
Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date
thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such
termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents,
data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other
materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the
City, become the property of the city, and Consultant shall be
- 5 -
/P-7
entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work
satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up
to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the
amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by
Consultant's breach.
9. Errors and Omissions:
In the event that the City Engineer determines that the
Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance
of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to city
greater than would have resulted if there were no such
negligence, errors, omissions in the plans or contract
specifications, Consultant shall reimburse City for the
addi tional expenses incurred by the City including engineering,
construction and/or restoration expense. Nothing herein is
intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this
agreement.
10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City:
City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any
reason for giving specific written notice to Consultant of such
termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least
ten (10) days before the effective date of such termination. In
that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other
materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City,
become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is
terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant
shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for
any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other
materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant
hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or
compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth
herein.
11. Assignability:
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and
Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and
shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by
assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City
which City may unreasonable deny.
- 6 -
If-l
12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material:
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms,
designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or
properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and
exclusive property of City. These documents are site specific.
If these documents are revised to build another new tower,
architect of record shall be held harmless if not utilized as
consultant. No such materials or properties produced in whole or
in part under this Agreement shall be subject to copyrights or
patent rights by Consultant in the United states or in any other
country without the express written consent of city. City shall
have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose as may be
limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act, distribute,
and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any
such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials
or properties produced under this Agreement. The consultant may
reuse ideas, details, and materials produced by him on this
project on future projects, and may duplicate materials for this
purpose.
13. Independent Contractor:
city is interested only in the results obtained and
Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole
control of the manner and means of performing the services
required under this Agreement. city maintains the right only to
reject or accept Consultant'S work Products). Consultant and any
of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for
all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and
shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them
shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are
entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement
benefits, workers compensation benefits, injury leave or other
leave benefits.
14. Responsible Charge:
Consul tant hereby designates that Darrold Davis shall be
Consul tant ' s representative ("proj ect Manager") to the proj ect
for the duration of the project. No substitution for this
position shall be allowed without written approval from the City.
15. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this
agreement, against the city unless a claim has first been
presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula vista and
acted upon by the City of Chula vista in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula vista Municipal
- 7 -
If ./1
Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the prov1s1ons of
which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth
herein, and such policies and procedures used by the city in the
implementation of same.
Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in
good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute
over the terms of this Agreement.
16. Attorney's Fees
Should that dispute result in litigation, it is agreed that
the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable
costs incurred in the defense of the claim, including costs and
attorney's fees, provided that said party has exercised best
efforts, in good faith, to negotiate a settlement of the dispute
prior to and during the litigation.
17. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document,
or participates in the preparation of a report or document as a
result of the scope of work required of Consultant, Consultant
shall include, or cause the inclusion, in said report or document
a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all
contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the
report or document.
18. Miscellaneous.
a. Consultant not authorized to Represent City.
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City,
Consultant shall have no authority to act as city's agent to bind
City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
b. Notices.
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted
to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All
notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be
deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served
or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party,
postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt
requested, at the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures
of the parties represented.
- 8 -
Ii.. It)
d. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement, together with any other written document
referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement
and understanding between the parties relating to the subject
matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof
may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an
instrument in writing executed by the party against which
enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
e. Capacity of Parties.
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and
represents to the other party that it has legal authority and
capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this
Agreement; that all resolutions or other actions have been taken
so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement.
f. Governing Law/Venue.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the state of California. Any action
arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only
in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, state
of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as
close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and
performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
- 9 -
Ii-It
Signature Page to
Agreement with
Dominy & Associates Architects
for Architectural Services
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this
Agreement this day of , 1990.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Leonard M. Moore
Mayor Pro Tempore
Attest:
Beverly Authelet,
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Dominy & Ass ciates Architects
.
,
A.I.A.
By:
A. Lewis Dom~ny, III
(A: \MASTER1. DOC)
- 10 -
If', 12.
Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
(A: \MASTER1. DOC)
Exhibit List
to
Agreement with
Dominy & Associates Architects
for Architectural Services
Scope of Work and Schedule
Consultant's Fee Schedule
- 11 -
/R../3
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
The general scope of the proj ect is to construct a four-story,
concrete training tower on a two acre site on Paseo Ranchero
adjacent to East "H" street.
The design shall conform to V.B.C. 88 Code compliance and the
City of Chula vista standards/requirements and shall include the
following tasks:
A. Review project scope and budget with City staff and others,
as directed.
B. Consul tant shall be responsible for all design surveying
which shall include:
1. Horizontal and vertical control
2. Location of existing well monuments, benchmarks and
property monuments affected by construction.
3. Two copies of all survey notes shall be submitted to
the City.
C. Consultant shall be responsible for providing:
1. Architectural, structural and site plans of the tower
configurations with amenities (plans, elevation
drawings, details, fire hydrants, etc. and sitework.
2. Code compliance specifications as part of the working
drawings.
3. Preliminary and final construction cost estimate, bid
documents and construction contracts.
a) Material quantities shall be computed from final
design plans. Engineer's estimate shall be based
on prevailing construction unit prices for the San
Diego area.
b) Bidding and construction contract documents shall
be based on "boilerplate" documents provided by
the City.
D. Consultant shall be responsible for completion of the design
review planning process including attending meetings of the
design review committee and Council meetings to present the
design plan.
li../'f
- 2 -
E. Consultant shall participate in conferences with City staff
for the development of all drawings, plans and
specifications and answering questions and provide
clarification during bidding phase.
F. Consultant shall be available during the construction phase
to provide engineering support services which may include:
1. Design plan interpretation;
2. Observation of proj ect site during construction phase
not including construction inspection;
3. Design of minor changes in the original design concept
and resolution of any design conflicts.
G. Consultant will obtain any permits or permission necessary
to enter private property as required to perform the work.
City shall pay any permit fees required.
H. Final design plans shall be submitted on "D" sheet (2' x 3')
size mylar with standard City border. Mylars are available
in the Public Works Department and will be provided upon
request.
(A:\MASTER1.DOC)
(p#/r
DOMINY + ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
EXIllBIT B
~+..
April 8. 1991
Re: City of Chula Vista
Fire Training Tower
Payment Schedule
% FEE PHASE AMOUNT
15 Schematic Design $ 2344.00
20 Design Development $ 3124.00
40 Construction Docs. $ 6248.00
5 Bidding $ 780.00
20 Construction Admin. $ 3124.00
$15620.00 TOTAL FEE
/f../~
SUITE 303
21S0W. WASHINGTON
SAN DIEGO, CA
92110
FAX (6t9) 692-93904
TEL(619)692-9393
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, I.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
It . U;1,.IJI-:' OoIV\I~lY.:m::
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
N I A ('&11vt f(.cPf!.It'V.~..:;
'"
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
.....lliA
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No..2S..... If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
t:J\A'loI.-O L-. VA'll S ,.. I. A.
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No L If yes, state which
Councilmember( s):
Person is defined as: :Any individual, firm, co-pannership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation,
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and CDUnn)', city, municipality, district or olher political subdivision,
01' any other grOlfp or combination acting as {/ unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
a.
.
Date: q API-It..- \'lGfI
[,\-I13IADISCLOSETXT]
A. l!1JJ1C; paM 1.., ..::m:.
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
[Revised: 11/30/901
1~../7
THIS PAGE BLANK
I~.I'
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE: A. RESOLUTION 1165 APPROVING OWNER PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT BF/OP #03 WITH ROHR INDUSTRIES TO
CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 850 LAGOON DRIVE,
CERTIFYING EIR-90-10 AND ADDENDUM THERETO,
ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROPRIATING $150,000 TO
THE BAY FRONT FINE ARTS ACCOUNT AND $399,500 FOR
CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. (REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ACTION)
B.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
245,000 SQUARE FOOT
DRIVE.
RESOLUTION Ir.. ~5 Certifying EIR -90-10 AND
ADDENDUM THERETO, ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS AND A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION, ADOPTING
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
ADOPTING FINDINGS FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT AND SIDE
YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, ENTERING INTO A PARKING
AGREEMENT WITH ROHR INDUSTRIES AND FINDING ROHR
INDUSTRIES' PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 245,000 SQUARE
FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AS APPROVED BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON APRIL 23, 1991, IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM, AND APPROVING ISSUANCE OF COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 52. (CITYCOUNCILACTION)
CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL
NO. 52 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
OFFICE BUILDING AT 850 LAGOON
SUBMITTED BY: Communi ty Development Director (,?,
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager/Executive Director G{
(4/5ths v6te: YES-K-NO___)
Rohr Industries proposes to construct a 245,000 square foot
office building at 850 Lagoon Drive to house industrial research,
design and corporate personnel. The project plans were reviewed
by the city's Design Review Committee, EIR-90-10 and an addendum
was prepared to address potential impacts of the project, and a
mitigation monitoring program was prepared for the project. One
cumulatively significant impact was identified, therefore, CEQA
findings and a statement of overriding consideration will need to
be adopted.
The project is located within the Chula vista Coastal Zone and
the Redevelopment Agency must approve the project plans via Owner
participation Agreement BF/OP No. 3 prior to issuing a Coastal
Development Permit.
1'1 -,
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
/q
4/23/91
RECOMMENDATION:
A. That the Redevelopment Agency adopt the attached resolution:
1. Certifying EIR-90-10 and addendum thereto, adopting
CEQA findings and a statement of Overriding
Consideration, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program set forth in Attachment I; and
2. Approving Owner Participation Agreement BF/OP #03 with
Rohr Industries, Inc., attached as Attachment II; and
3. Appropriating $150,000 to the Bayfront Fine Arts
account and $399,500 for certain public improvements.
B. That the city Council conduct a public hearing, consider
public testimony, and adopt the attached resolution:
1. Certifying EIR-90-10 and addendum thereto, adopting
CEQA findings and a statement of Overriding
Consideration and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program set forth in Attachment I; and
2. Adopting findings for a building height and side yard
setback variance,
3.
Entering into a
Industries, Inc. ,
parking
agreement
with
Rohr
4. Finding Rohr Industries' proposal to construct a
245,000 square foot office building, as approved by the
Redevelopment Agency on April 23, 1991, is consistent
with the certified Chula vista Local Coastal Program,
and
5. Approving issuance of Coastal Development Permit No.
52.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee
(DRC) reviewed Rohr Industries' proposal to construct an office
building at 850 Lagoon Drive (DRC minutes attached) and
recommended that the Agency approve plans attached to Owner
Participation Agreement BF/OP #03 as Exhibit "B" subject to the
following conditions of approval:
1. A signed and recorded agreement securing the easterly
adjacent SDG&E easement as a parking facility for this
proj ect shall properly be recorded prior to issuance of
construction permits.
\tt-~
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date
ICf
4/23/91
2. Developer shall provide one parking space per each 300 sq.
ft. of gross floor area as required by section 19.62.050.
3. A site plan showing the development of the SDG&E easement
parking facility shall be submitted to staff for review and
approval, and shall be installed prior to the occupancy of
the Rohr building.
4. A master landscape plan and implementation schedule
addressing the landscaping for the entire Rohr industrial
complex shall be submitted and approved by the city's
Landscape Architect for review and approval prior to the
occupancy of the Rohr building.
5. A variance requesting the proposed encroachment into the
side setback and building height shall be obtained prior to
issuance of construction permits.
6. A pedestrian circulation system connecting the subject
project with the proposed easterly adjacent parking facility
shall be submitted to staff for review and approval.
7. A set of 8-1/2 x 11 photographs of the model and all
graphics presented at the meeting shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to submittal of plans for plan
check.
8. Level of reflectiveness of the building's glass component
shall be acceptable to the Local Coastal Plan intent to
restrict said material.
DISCUSSION:
The project site consists of 11.6 acres of vacant property
located on the south side of Lagoon Drive approximately 400 feet
west of Bay Boulevard and adjacent to and east of the FIG Street
marsh (see attached locator map). Rohr proposes to construct a
245,000 square foot office building on the western portion of the
site with two underground parking structures and surface parking
for 760 vehicles on the central and eastern portions of the site
(see site plan - Exhibit B of BFIOP #03).
site Plan/Architecture
The building will be approximately 750 feet long and three
stories in height. It is architecturally divided into three
segments creating a main building adjoined by a north and a south
wing. The building skin will be composed of glass and
articulated stucco bands with spaced vertical fins arranged
evenly along the entire length of the building with the exception
\C\ -~
Page 4, Item I~
Meeting Date~
of the central section of the western elevation which will be an
all-glass element. Beige stucco, varied tones of green glass,
green mullions, and gray painted fins will be the main materials
used.
The glass proposed for use on the building has reflective
properties. Since the project, particularly the west building
elevation, is located adjacent to the FIG Street marsh, a
sensitive wildlife habitat area, the Design Review Committee has
recommended that glass with a reflective level consistent with
the regulations of the Local Coastal Program be used. As a
condition of approval, the applicant will be required to submit a
sample of the building glass to the City's Environmental Review
Coordinator for approval. The Coordinator, with the advise of a
biological specialist, will determine the appropriateness of
glass proposed.
Parkinq
A total of 762 parking spaces will be provided on site. An
underground parking structure will be located at the southeast
corner of the site and will accommodate 238 vehicles and another
underground parking structure located at the northeast corner of
the site will house 221 spaces. In addition, 303 surface spaces
will be provided. Approximately 20% of all vehicle spaces are
proposed to be compact in size.
Based on a parking ratio of one space per 300 square feet of
building area, 817 spaces will be required to accommodate the
project. To meet this requirement, Rohr proposes to provide the
deficit on-site parking, 55 spaces, within the SDG&E right-of-
way directly adjacent to the project site which Rohr has leased
with options for at least 15 years. It is recommended that the
City enter into the parking agreement attached as Attachment II
to ensure that the applicant will provide the number of vehicle
parking spaces required by the ordinance.
The attached parking agreement guarantees to the City that Rohr
will provide the required number of vehicle parking spaces on-
site and adjacent to the site on the SDG&E easement which Rohr
currently leases with options for at least fifteen additional
years. The agreement states that if the SDG&E easement for any
reason is no longer available to Rohr for parking then Rohr will
provide an alternate site, satisfactory to the city, for the 55
spaces. If, for any reason, no site is satisfactory to the City,
then Rohr has agreed to reduce the active use of approximately
16,500 sq. ft. of floor area in the office building to negate the
need for the 55 spaces.
\q-I.\
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date
"
4/23/91
Landscape/Open Space
The project's on-site landscaping consists of three major
features. The main entry way to the building entails a
hardscaped plaza stepped-up to the building's second floor
central lobby. Precast concrete planters to contain trees and
flowering plants will be arranged on both sides of the plaza.
Trees, shrubs
building and,
within the 65
create a site
and ground cover will outline the exterior of the
a large grove of flowering trees will be placed
foot front yard setback adjacent to the building to
entry feature.
Landscaping within the surface parking area will consist of a
bosque of trees to de-emphasize the linear shape of the parking
lot. Canopy type shade trees will be arranged to
compartmentalize the lot. Canopy trees, shrubs, and vines will
be planted along the perimeter of the parking structures to
screen vehicles. A substantial detention basin to collect on-
site storm water and irrigation run-off will be created parallel
to the westerly property boundary. This open swale will be
planted with xeriscape (drought tolerant) plant material which
has been approved by the U. S. Fish and wildlife Service. The
swale has been designed to provide a physical and visual buffer
between the FIG Street Marsh and the project. In addition, a
0.14 acre grove of environmentally sensitive riparian vegetation
(principally sandbar willow) that will be removed to grade the
detention basin will be reestablished within this buffer. (A
Coastal Development Permit for site grading was issued in
February 1991.)
The project's landscaping will be limited to on-site
improvements. The city's Design Review Committee, when reviewing
Rohr's proposal, recommended that the Agency require Rohr to
submit a Master Landscape Plan for the entire Rohr complex as a
condition of approval for this project. Staff has evaluated the
committee's recommendation and considers a master landscape plan
premature at this time. Rohr has been reassessing their existing
facilities and is currently restudying the layout of their
buildings as they relate to the functions of their operations.
As a result of that study and the current project proposal, staff
anticipates the development of a master plan for Rohr' s Chula
vista complex will be forthcoming and, it would be more
appropriate to develop a master landscaping program in
conjunction with that master planning effort. Therefore, it is
recommended that the submittal of a master landscape plan not be
required as a condition of approval for this specific project
proposal.
\'\ -5
Page 6, Item /q
Meeting Date~
Land Use
The project will accommodate approximately 1300 employees. Rohr
plans to move employees currently working at the Chula vista
complex to the new building and consolidate existing design,
research, and corporate activities. The site is designated as
Industrial:Business Park which allows the proposed administrative
offices and research and development activities.
Public Improvements
Rohr will be required to install public improvements to
accommodate the project. In addition to on-site improvements,
several off-site improvements will be required, including: 1)
extension of utilities to the site including the installation of
a sewer monitoring facility, 2) expansion of off-site water
facilities to provide adequate water pressure for fire service to
the project, 3) street improvements adjacent to the site, 4)
restriping and signalization of Lagoon Drive/Bay Boulevard
intersection, 5) cash contribution toward future improvements at
I-5/E street northbound turn lane to 1-5 and E street/Broadway
southbound turn lane to Broadway.
Several of the required public improvements are extensive, and
are required at this time because of the general lack of public
improvements in the mid-bayfront vicinity. Three major upgrades
including the extension of the Bay Boulevard water system, the
construction of a sewer monitoring facility, and the installation
of a traffic signal and pavement restriping at Bay Boulevard and
Lagoon Drive will cost a total of approximately $662,000.
Because Rohr's project is the first to be developed in the mid-
bayfront, Rohr will have to carry the financial burden of
installing these improvements even though future development will
benefit. For this reason, Rohr is requesting the Agency's
assistance in financing these three major bay front improvements.
staff has considered Rohr' s request and based on the financial
burden posed on Rohr at this time and due to the high potential
to recover the Agency's investment from future bay front
development, staff is recommending that the Agency participate in
financing the following public improvements.
1. Water Service. The fire code requires that the project be
serviced with water flow in excess of 5,000 gpm and that two
individual water sources be available to the project site.
The upgrade also will provide increased water flow for
future development of hotels, and other non residential
uses which require similar flows planned in the bayfront
area inclusive of the Port District's property. To meet the
required water service, a major link in the water line
located in Bay Boulevard south of J street must be
\C\ -10
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date
ICJ
4/23/91
constructed and additional water line upgrades and
extensions needed in F street. Sweetwater Authority
estimates the upgrade will cost $460,000 to $480,000.
Staff recommends that the Agency consider investing $240,000
(50% of estimated cost) to improve water service to the mid-
bayfront. In addition, staff recommends that a suitable
vehicle for reimbursement from future mid-bay front and Port
District development be investigated and implemented to
recover the Agency's expenditure.
2. Sewer Monitorinq Facilitv. The Metropolitan Sewer District
will be requiring one, possibly two, sewer monitoring
facilities within the midbayfront to meter the amount of
sewage that will enter the system from the midbayfront.
Since Rohr's project is the first development to be built in
the midbayfront, it will be their responsibility to install
the first monitor which also will serve other future
development. The cost to install the monitoring facility,
as estimated by Rohr's engineer, is $50,000.
Staff recommends that the Agency provide $50,000 for the
installation of the sewer monitoring facility (100%) and
direct staff to research and recommend a vehicle to
recapture the funds from future development that will
benefit from the monitoring facility.
3. Traffic Siqnal. The project is projected to increase
vehicle traffic at the Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive
intersection by 17%. This increase will warrant the
installation of a traffic signal and major pavement
restriping. The total cost of these intersection
improvements is estimated at $132,000.
It is recommended that the developer contribute their 17% of
the cost ($22,500), and the Agency finance the balance
($109,500). Also, it is recommended that the Agency
recommend that the City establish a reimbursement district
for repayment of the Agency's portion from future mid-
bay front developers.
The developer will be responsible for the cost of the following
off-site improvements:
4. Street Improvements
The Developer will be required to install street improvements
adjacent to the development site. The extent of the
improvements will be subj ect to the approval of the City
Engineer, however, it is anticipated that the developer will
\" -1
Page 8, Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
fully construct the south one-half of Lagoon Drive, one-half
of the center median, and place approximately 15 feet of
pavement overlay on the side of Lagoon Drive. These
improvements will be installed along the site's frontage.
In addition, a transition from existing improvements just
eat of the railroad right-of-way westerly to the site will
be installed. The developer estimates these improvements
will cost $351,000.
5. Off-site street Improvements
The environmental impact report identified two off-site
intersections that would be slightly impacted from traffic
generated by the project. As mitigation, the developer must
contribute toward the construction of a right turn lane at
the 1-5 northbound ramp/eastbound E street and a right turn
lane at Broadway/westbound E street. Since the impacts
expected from the project are cumulative and projected to
occur in the future, staff is recommending that the
developer provide a cash contribution of $18,000 (pro rata
share) at this time. The city Engineer will continue to
monitor the intersections and, when appropriate, will
recommend actual improvements be installed. The developer's
contribution will be placed in a City fund to be contributed
toward future construction.
Buildinq Heiqht and Side Yard Setback Variance Request
In accordance with section 19.14.190 of the certified Chula vista
Local Coastal Program variances for height of structures and side
yard setbacks may be allowed provided that the variance is
consistent with and implements the certified local coastal
program and does not reduce the requirements to protect coastal
resources.
Buildinq Heiqht Variance
The height of the central building will be 47-1/2 feet, the wings
will stand 42 feet high, and the interconnecting building
segments will be 39 feet. The Central building height includes a
five foot parapet to vary the building's roof line and to create
a stronger design statement at the request of the Design Review
Committee. As a result, the central building element exceeds the
site's building height limitation of 44 ft. by 3-1/2 feet.
Because the parapet is a design feature only and it enhances the
structure and because the overall building height is within the
site's height limitation, staff recommends that the city Council
grant a 3 ft. 8-inch height variance for the central building in
accordance with the variance findings listed below.
\'\ - <g
Page 9, Item
Meeting Date
I,
4/23/91
Findinqs
(a) The applicant proposed an initial building design consisting
of a continuous top of building with an elevation of 42 feet
3 inches, a height below the site's 44 ft building height
limitation. In an effort to meet the Design Review
Commi ttee' s request to incorporate vertical archi tectural
features, the central glass core of the building was
elevated to 47 feet 8 inches, 3 feet 8 inches above the 44
foot building height limitation. The height variation,
though above the limitation, will enhance the design of the
building and aesthetic quality of the coastal area.
(b) The proposed height variance allows the applicant to provide
an enhanced building design. No additional building floor
area will result from the allowance.
(c) The added design enhancement will provide interesting
building silhouette from bay views at a mlnlmum variance to
the LCP height limitation which will not reduce or adversely
affect coastal resources.
side Yard Setback Variance
The proposed parking structures will encroach into the 20 ft.
Side Yard setback required along the easterly property line. As a
resul t the setback will be reduced to 10 feet. Because the
project was required to maintain a 50 ft. setback along the
westerly property line to provide a wetland buffer (rather than
the normally required 20 ft. setback), the building site was
reduced in area and less property could be used for on-site
parking. To accommodate the maximum number of vehicles on-site,
the parking structures were planned. As a result of the land
area reduction, the space needed to construct the parking garages
now encroaches into the easterly Side Yard setback. Staff
recommends that the City Council grant a variance for a 10-ft
Side Yard setback along the easterly property line to accommodate
the two parking structures in accordance with the findings listed
below.
Findinqs
(a) In an effort to meet the goal to protect coastal resources
and to satisfy environmental concerns raised by the u. S.
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the applicant placed the
proposed building along the western edge of the 50 foot
westerly side yard setback to form a buffer between active
uses east of the building and the wildlife preserve on the
west side. This placement limited the space for arrangement
of on-site parking and access. The proposed variance will
\C\ -1\
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date
Ie;
4/23/91
assist the applicant in complying with parking and access
requirements.
(b) The site's westerly side yard setback, normally 20 feet, was
required to be increased to 50 feet to provide an adequate
buffer for adjacent sensitive wetlands (FIG street Marsh).
This requirement reduces the on-site buildable space and
flexibility of site planning enjoyed by property owners not
located adjacent to wetlands.
(c) The granting of a easterly side yard setback reduction, of
10 feet will allow the applicant to recover 30% of the land
area lost to the wetland buffer. The additional land will
be used to provide on-site parking.
Fine Arts
It is the policy of the Redevelopment Agency that a developer
within the Bayfront project Area contribute 1/2 of 1% of their
building valuation toward the development of Fine Art. The funds
are to be deposited in a pool of funds to be used at the
discretion of the Agency, in consultation with the developer, in
creating and funding significant works of art. Also, the policy
states that the Agency will deposit 1/2 of 1% of the proposed
building valuation into the pool of funds to be used for
significant works of art. In the event a developer commissions a
fine arts feature without Agency involvement, it must be
consistent with the ambience of the site and surroundings and it
will be considered as the developer's 1/2 of 1% credit to the
j oint Fine Arts Fund. Based on the proj ect' s valuation of
$30,000,000, Rohr and the Agency each will be required to deposit
$150,000 into the Fine Art fund for a total of $300,000.
Rohr is currently investigating the potential for construction of
an on-site work of art. Therefore, it is being recommended that,
as a condition of approval, the Agency allow Rohr to propose an
on-site feature prior to issuance of occupancy permit. If a work
of fine art is not approved by the time an occupancy permit is
requested, then Rohr would be required to deposit the fine art
fee.
Environmental Considerations
EIR-90-10 and an addendum discussing traffic, CEQA findings and a
statement of overriding consideration, and a mitigation
monitoring program were prepared for the project. On February
19, 1991, the City Council certified and adopted the
environmental documents prior to approving a grading plan for the
Rohr project site. The construction of the Rohr office building
is now presented to the Agency and will be presented to the
\C\-\O
Page 11, Item
Meeting Date
/'1
4/23/91
council and again, certification and
environmental documents will be required.
adoption
of
the
A mitigation monitoring program outlining mitigation necessary to
be implemented to mitigate potential impacts has been included in
Attachment I. Implementation of the program has been included in
the conditions of approval for the project. A requirement for
Rohr to enter into a third party contract with the City to hire a
Mitigation Compliance Coordinator to oversee the program also has
been included as a condition of approval to ensure that
mitigation is incorporated into the project activities.
Coastal Development Findinqs
state and regional interpretive guidelines have been reviewed,
and the proposed project has been found to be in conformance with
the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3
of the public Resources Code.
Based on the following findings, Rohr Industries I proposal to
construct a 245,000 sq. ft. office building at 850 Lagoon Drive,
as approved by the Redevelopment Agency on April 23, 1991, is
found to be consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program:
1. The project will provide the number of on-site and adjacent
vehicle parking spaces (through an agreement with the City
of Chula Vista) to meet the vehicle parking requirements set
forth in the certified LCP. The project is a minimum of
one-third of a mile from the Bay I s shoreline and public
coastal park land. with adequate off-street vehicle parking
provided by the development and the site's substantial
distance from the bay's shoreline, no adverse impact on
public access to the coast line is expected to occur.
2. The proj ect is located adj acent to the F /G street Marsh.
However, a 50-foot setback has been maintained to provide a
buffer adj acent to the wetland boundary. In addition, the
building has been designed to be in itself a barrier that
will further buffer the wetlands from human activities on
the eastern portion of the site. In accordance with EIR-90-
10, mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that
the building and associated activities will not adversely
effect the adjacent wetland habitat.
3. Public improvements in accordance with the certified LCP
will be installed in conjunction with the project. street
improvements incorporated into the project will provide an
incremental increase toward improved access to coastal
resources.
\q...\\
Page 12, Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
4. The project site is designated for Industrial Business Park
land uses. Administrative offices and research design
activities related to the industrial land use adjacent to
the south are in conformance with the certified LCP land use
element. Findings in accordance with the LCP have been for
a 3 ft 8 inch building height variance for the central
building element and a 10 ft easterly side yard setback
variance. No adverse affect on coastal resources are
anticipated due to the variances.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Fine Art Fee
In accordance with the Bayfront Fine Arts policy, the developer
and the Agency are each required to contribute 1/2 of 1% of the
building valuation toward fine art within the Bayfront project.
Based on a building valuation of $30,000,000, the Developer and
the Agency are required to each contribute $150,000 to the
Bayfront fine art account for a total of $300,000. The
Developer's contribution may be in the form of an on-site feature
or as an alternative the developer may deposit an estimated
$150,000 into the Bayfront Fine Art Fund prior to issuance of an
Occupancy Permit. Funds for the Agency's portion are available
from the unappropriated balance of the Bayfront/Town Centre Bond
fund.
Tax Revenues
Based on the proj ect' s estimated building valuation of
$30,000,000, it is anticipated that the Agency will realize
$300,000 annually in tax increment from property tax. Provided
the building is placed on the 1992 tax roll, the Agency should
collect approximately $2,100,000 (present value) in tax increment
over the next 7 years. (Bayfront Redevelopment Project expires
in 1999.) Also, given a 40-year building life, approximately
$1,782,000 (at present value) over the balance of the project's
life span (33 years) would be collected by the City in property
tax.
7 years tax increment (Redevelopment)
33 years property tax (City)
40-year total revenue = (present value)
$2,100,000
1.782.000
3.882.000
NOTE: All revenues are based on conservative estimates. Present
value has been used throughout and no increase in property values
or interest on revenues has been added.
V\-ll.
Page 13, Item
Meeting Date
19
4/23/91
Expenditures
If the Agency accepts staff's recommendations to invest in
selected pUblic improvements, expenditures would total $399,500.
Water System
$240,000
Sewer monitoring facility
50,000
Traffic signaljrestriping
109.500
$399.500
If the Agency accepts staff I s recommendation to participate in
the financing of public improvements, an initial outlay of
$399,500 will be required.
Based on the proposed project valuation of 30,000,000, the funds
expended by the Agency toward public improvements would be repaid
by the project's tax increment in approximately two years
following building completion. The pay-out in tax increment then
may be recuperated by the Agency over time as future mid-bay front
developments paid their portion of the reimbursement, if a
reimbursement district or other repayment vehicle were set in
place.
Fundinq Source
In 1987, funds were approved for Bayfront utility relocation at
the northwest quadrant of 1-5 and E Street. To date, several
utilities have been relocated in conjunction with the Cal-Trans
1-5jE Street ramp project, however, undergrounding of the major
overhead 12KV and 69KV electric facilities has not been
undertaken. It is staff's opinion that further physical
improvement to the overhead lines is premature and major
undergrounding needs be reevaluated with the mid-bay front
project. Therefore, it is recommended that the funds necessary
to finance the recommended public improvements relative to the
Rohr office building project be reappropriated from the
unencumbered utility Relocation CIP account BF 42 to a new CIP
account for midbayfront public improvements associated with the
Rohr proposal.
(OPBF3)
\~ - \?:>
--
.
.
It
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
II
.
.
.
.
ROHR INDUSTRIES OFFICE COMPLEX
Vicinity Map
I'
I
1
1
Iv> .,.c..........:..;
i';> . ,. ;....:.:...:.
.'2:.
1
1
''0
I-
. 'C."\
I~
10
\l
I~
I..
1'6
\~
\
\\
RJ.vmid<C"""..
"t<i~i-~--'~-__
r~~". '\,,1 .~-
"= . Cl \ l-
tc. .r:.-.(.;
~ if<$' ,:N''''
-.-..
N
'S>
~
\q... '4
/9. J.t
LOCATOR MAP
, I
I
SAN mEGO BAY
..~
I,r' /---- ,-tv
i bL / /()() 200 300
.:~ I
,I ;
" SCALE' I" = ZOO'
: ~', I ;__.'
,;:
NO. DATE
I"
ROHR
( ~-~-r
I ....,- - r\
I II :i:
I ... /
/: I' ;------. ..' __ I I IZ'14-88
L/' . , ---=~ - I LEGEND
,.y ~- ~ -,
, ' ~ '" Rllf( SOIiVEY PT- - - - G
r-<' '- " , ',,- I SANDE/lS'STNIOIrS - - - A-,
. . '::~, "." I ~ IANDSEETABW
1 ' .' -~"i' '~. 5ANOEIIS' STI/OY flliEA5 L..J
.. I j /, ' "t, ~ "- I . WETIANPS - - - - c::::::::>
.:, :f; :1 '-'~, '-:.~ . _ ~. . lil{ff PTNO SANOfRS Elf V
_ ,"' { '{"..../ _ / I (p {J./J!
c-- [" ~. " "~-'. 2 5.92
.'. .I' ,~ ;<i:. ~',:'!~- .:. ~ 5 r~~
. "': 'Ii fJ-V.1 I' .'. "'- 5 4 552
'. '."'. '~::"'.'.' I - t. 5 530
;..:"--~ . .'~ --''''1/ 1 ~ 3.21
1 '.
I '. .
(\ r-"::::::::,.~--"
. _., J ',~---.:::::
L' [2~-:i-~$' . >
) I C:~~~iD51
/./. ,40,. . .9
8-{ -.::tj-j~'Z
AREA B -AREA -A --
40[;' .'
r"
i;
/
,.
.,
'.
....r--~I
:" C: I
I,
;0
, p
A-I
/I-l
B-f
B.2
o
,
11,
'------..,
'-.....
.,."
. '-",
. ,) : ;--"i .~
. F ftJClllJT~
. 'I"
-( 1
'1
\
l
. )
I
'-------
ROt;iR PARCEl
~50' S. D. G.& E. R/W
r'--'~--~~--'~
- -<
-'---'---~'-"~ --
'-,,'"
',-I.
.aAyaJ...VP,
l-
I .W
-'UJ'
0::.
.L.'
/r-,
__'~_ (J). -
,
,
- '-------=.=-.......'-.- - --~~-.~' ._- ~...
~~ ;
_.- u.
~
PRlNTED BY
WIlST8lDE BLVEPRl
INTERSTATE 1-5
AUG 1 1990
J-10812
_ ~~ RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
\ (...\... \s I //II~ I CIVIL ENGINEERS: PLANNING CONSULTANTS: SURVEYORS
MINUTES OF A REGlJL1\R MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
February 25, 1991
4:30 D.m.
Conference Rooms 2 and 3
A. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Gilman, Members Flach, Alberdi, Landers,
Spethman
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Acting Associate Planner Luis Hernandez, Assistant
Planner Amy Wolfe, Senior Community Development
Specialist Pam Buchan, Planner Msryann Miller
B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chairperson Gilman made an opening statement explaining the design review
process and the committee's responsibilities. She asked that all
applicants sign in and when they speak to identify themselves verbally for
the tape.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Gilman/Flach) that the minutes of February 11, 1991 be approved with
corrections as noted by Associate Planner Hernandez.
D. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS
1.
DRC-91-52
Starboard Develooment. 800 Block of Laaoon Drive.
Rohr Office Buildina
Staff Presentation
Associate Planner Hernandez stated that a person from the Community
Development Department would present the project overview as well as
the items refined from the pervious meeting. He introduced Pam
Buchan, Senior Community Development Specialist.
Ms. Buchan gave a general overview of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
The Rohr project is in the Chula Vista Coastal Zone and is also in
the Redevelopment Project area for the Bayfront. The land use for
Rohr's 11 acres, which is designated "Industrial Business Park" is
designed as a transition from the general industrial area to the
less intense office park and residential land uses. Within the
Bayfront Specific Plan local bike and pedestrian routes are planned
which will be linked to 39 acres of park land. She also discussed
buffer areas around the marshes which will have pedestrian walkways
and lookout points, except for the west side of the Rohr building
due to the proximity of the marsh and the business park. All of
Chula Vista's departments have been involved in working with Rohr
for over a year on environmental issues. After this committee
approves the project, it goes to the Redevelopment Agency and to the
City Council on March 12.
\q-I~
DRC Minutes
-2-
Februarv 25. 1991
Committee Response/Discussion
Member Landers inquired about the total area included in the
Midbayfront Plan. Ms. Buchan defined the midbayfront area as the
midbayfront subplanning area of the Local Coastal Program. She
verified that all the dark area in the Land Use Plan is included.
Chu1a Vista has a specific plan for the dark area over which they
have jurisdiction; the Port District has a plan for the white area
over which they have control. They have a lease on the property
until 2009.
Mr. Hernandez clarified that the specific plan would cover areas
such as parking, signage, etc. similar to that for Eastlake. He
stated that while the Redevelopment Agency has not set architectural
style guidelines for the plan as a whole, there are architectural
guidelines for areas that are sensitive to the marsh and the
bayfront.
Anolicant Presentation - OVerview of Pro;ect
Mr. Ian Gill, Starboard Development Corporation, stated that since
the January 10 meeting they have eubmitted a revised formal design
review package to staff and have received certification of the EIR
by the Planning Commission. The grading plan and the coastal
development program for grading have been approved.
He briefly recapped areas of committee concerns which included (1)
reduction in potential traffic impact n "E" and "H" streets, (2)
plans to provide additional parking on the SDG&E right-of-way, (3)
locker rooms in the building for joggers (4) the comprehensive
master landscape plan will be completed in the future and (5) they
have revised the architectural design and will obtain a variance
enabling them to raise the central element of the building above the
44-foot height limitation. He then introduced Kathy Garcia,
landscape architect from WRT.
Ms. Garcia pointed out amenities on the sketch which include outdoor
decks on the upper level and provision of benches in a little canopy
courtyard to increase outdoor seating. The sketch illustrated the
proposed planting which will hide the view of the parking deck
(which is four feet above street level) from the view of drivers on
Lagoon Drive as well as the planting along the F Street elevation.
So far no satisfactory way has been found to put plants on the
parking deck itself.
Sidewalk connections to the SDG&E right-of-way are being planned
for. Small covered trash containers will be located along the front
of the building and along the back patio. The dumpster located
within the building is big enough for the paper trash.
ft ..\1
DRC Minutes
-3-
Februarv 25. 1991
A grid will be placed in the pavement to enhance the main entry
area. Espaliers run up the walls to form a pattern i.n two
dLmensions; the entry is framed with trees.
Staff Presentation on Traffic
Maryann Miller from the Environmental Review Section of the Planning
Department referred to the addendum on traffic analysis. The
traffic reanalysis indicates 41 percent fewer impacts to the project
site and states that overall impacts to certain intersections
throughout the project site, although significant, are mitigable.
The percent of contribution the applicant will be making toward
improvement will be reduced and an implementation agreement will be
developed between the City, the Engineering Department and the
applicant.
Committee ResDonse/OiscuBsion
Member Landers inquired about the cumulative impact that the project
will create in relationship to the threshold which is created as
part of the growth management program. She expressed concern that
Nos. C & D on pg. 3-50 of the Engineering Report will meet the
threshold standards since the figures are projected only to 1992.
Ms. Miller assured the committee that the Rohr project will be
subject to the Engineering Department. s constant monitoring program.
The Department has a number of options they can exercise, including
restriping of certain intersections and making certain ~provements
in terms of the capital improvement program.
Mr. Hernandez stated that this 245,000 sq. ft. office building would
not have a large impact and Mr. Gill stated that because they are
basically thinking of long-term occupancy by Rohr (and not renting
part of the building to another tenant) they are really talking
about a redirection of traffic.
LandscaDina
Member Spethman raised a question about planting trees in precast
planters at the entry. Ms. Garcia stated that the trees are in pots
to give coverage at the two-three-foot level.
Vice Chairman Gilman inquired whether the parking structures could
be redesigned so tree-size planters could be supported. Mr. Gill
replied that due to the very high water table they would have to put
in footings. This means involvement in the de-watering program.
Under the EIR there are very serious problems associated with that.
The other fact is that if the effect to be achieved by putting
plantings on top of the parking structure is to provide additional
screening from F St. or Bay Blvd., that can be accomplished by
planting around the edge of the parking structure.
~'\ .. I~
DRC Minutes
-4-
Februarv 25, 1991
Vice Chairman Gilman asked how high the edge is on the parking
structure which is 4 ft. above grade. Mr. Gordon Carrier,
President, BSHA, replied that the step wall is about 1 ft. 4 inches
with a railing on top. The earth grade against it comes from curb
level and ends up within 6 inches of the top of the wall.
Member Flach inquired about drainage. Mr. Gill described the
drainage system that includes a retention area (which would be
covered with natural vegetation most of the time) capable of
collecting 200-acre feet of water in case of a lOO-year flood. All
drainage dumps into the lower F and G Street marsh.
Site Plan
In response to Member Landers' inquiry about Fire Dept. access to
the building, Mr. Gill stated that's a 12-inch loop system around
the building and hydrants on both sides. Ms. Garcia said they've
requested that vegetation be held back from the building and that
there be a gravel path along the two edges of the building that are
accessible to fire trucks.
EIR Mitiaation Measures
Member Landers inquired as to who would monitor the mitigation
measures listed in the environmental impact report. Mr. Hernandez
replied that Doug Reid will be the mitigation coordinator to oversee
certain stages of the project to be sure the mitigations are
incorporated. Doug Reid may be coordinating the hiring of the
person for the City. Ms. Buchan stated that the overall agreement,
which will include financing, will be brought forward to the
Redevelopment Agency and the City Council on March 12 for final
approval.
Applicant's Presentation - Architecture
Mr. Carrier introduced the topic, stating that they have tried to
address changes suggested by the committee. The building is a
background building due to Rohr's criteria and the fact that the
site itself is a wetlands area. Instead of putting reflective glass
(which was referred to in the report) on the outside of the
building, they will use opaque spandrel glass in areas where people
don't interact with the outside. The building was broken up to
illustrate the central point of entry; the rest of the building is
secondary to it.
Bob Davis, Chief of Design, BSHA discussed the sculptural quality of
the west side. They are maximizing the central portion of the
building by increasing the parapet to a 6 ft.- 6 in. high
fenestration which increases the feeling of the whole entrance to
the building. Mr. Gilman discussed the building texture. The gray
\C\ ' "
DRe Minutes
-5-
Februarv 25. 1991
fins run through the glass which will be in two colors and the fins
have been kicked out on the end modules, giving more shadowing and
three-dimensional effect, distinguishing them from the middle area.
Mr. Davis displayed the glass colors on color boards. Setting the
panels back and trading out light color to light color maximizes the
shadowing effect on the building.
In each of the insets of the entry a dark and even darker mullion
will be included. The three-dimensional quality has been enhanced
not only when the viewer is looking straight on the building but
also is intensified when one travels around the building as the
colors shift from gray to brown. The two end modules have the fins
which gives them more dimension than the middle area.
Committee ResDonsefDiscussion
Member Flach questioned the use of the other color chips displayed.
Ms. Garcia explained the exposed aggregate will be used on the
paving area in the front. The site plan sketch shows a lighter
color in the main pedestrian area and a darker color in front of
that which would transition it to the asphalt. The west side of
building will have coarse grayish-brown gravel for fire truck
access.
Mr. Gill summarized and thanked the committee for their patience.
He stated that signage will be included in ORe package but no
illustrations are available at this time.
Staff Summarv
Mr. Hernandez said that the presentation covered every issue
discussed previously and that was included in the letter to the
applicant after the meeting. Two elements of the five
recommendations they were unable to address are outdoor amenities
and the comprehensive master plan for the Rohr. Staff is
recommending that the comprehensive master landscape plan, rather
than the master plan, be incorporated in this project.
Concerning parking, Mr. Hernandez stated that of the total of 762
parking spaces, 156 are compact and 606 standard. The Planning
Committee has approved the project with compact spaces no higher
than 20 percent which this project has. The applicant will be
working to develop a lease agreement to insure that the easterly
adjacent SDG&E easement will be continuously available for parking.
If at any time the lease is not renewable, the agreement will make
provision to look for another place to provide the additional 55
spaces.
He briefly discussed staff recommendations and the current status on
landscaping on the parking structures, the need for outdoor trash
enclosures, the pedestrian circulation path, and architectural
\'\-lO
DRC Minutes
-6-
Februarv 25. 1991
design changes. He commented that there is a level of
reflectiveness on all glass; a determination will have to be made by
the person reviewing the LCP as to what level of reflectiveness will
be acceptable by the Local Coastal Plan.
Committee ResDonse/Discussion
Glass
is not
mirror
Ms. Cunningham believes the type of glass that is proposed
reflective. Mr. Carrier verified that the glass is not a
glass and said they would abide by the LCP.
Architecture
Mr. Hernandez recommended that the project architecture be reviewed
by the Committee and approved, denied, or continued at this time.
If forwarded, the conditions as stated must be included with one
added condition - that a set of 8 1/2 x 11 photographs of all the
models and graphics and material sample boards be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to submission to City Council.
Member Spethman inquired if there was direction from the
Redevelopment Agency or the City with regard to a possible
architectural theme on the bayfront as part of a long-term master
plan.
Ms. Buchan stated that design guidelines for the midbayfront area
are being developed. The theme is basically design criteria - just
a little more structured than the LCP which is fairly general.
There was discussion before the Redevelopment Agency about a theme
in the northern and eastern areas but no action was taken. Mr.
Hernandez suggested if the committee wants to develop an industrial
field unlike the Barkett development, this project could be a good
benchmark for that. Referring to the sketch, Ms. Buchan explained
how the Rohr development is a transition between General Industrial
and Office areas.
In response to Chairperson Gilman's concern that no surfaces which
could serve as bird perches would be part of the building structure,
Mr. Gill replied that the elements will be sloped so birds can't
perch on them. Mr. Carrier stated that a basic vertical theme is
used as opposed to horizontal ledges for that purpose. Horizontal
ledges are set back.
Member Alberdi suggested recessing two bays on either side to soften
the corners of the building. He expressed concern about pedestrian
scale breakup on the first floor. Member Flach mentioned shifting
the building modules on the property.
Mr. Davis said it is important that the two ends of the building sit
in the landscape. They are emphasizing the pedestrian circulation
system breaking down the buildings that then relate to the modules
of the building.
\~-'J..\
DRC Minutes
-7-
Februarv 25. 1991
Concern was expressed about the building articulation when viewed
from Marina Parkway. There was also discussion regarding the
location of the building.
Fish and Wildlife said their long-range plan is to build a six-foot
high fence along the edge of the property to protect the habitat.
It would also redirect the view toward the top story of the
building. Before any grading goes into effect, the fence is to be
installed in order to protect the marsh.
Mr. Hernandez stated that staff recommendation was to break the
silhouette of the building horizontally rather than breaking the
fabric or texture of the building.
Recommendations - Staff Summarv Report
4-c. Site Plan Member Gilman suggested locker rooms for an
additional tenant. Mr. Carrier stated another set would be
installed at the opposite end of the building at that point.
Member Gilman asked what recreational facilities would be installed.
Ms. Buchan answered that there are 39 acres of park in the build-out
over the bayfront and 14 acres of public parkland directly across
the street.
4-d. Master Landscape Plan Chairperson Gilman requested Rohr' s
Master Plan before another project is presented.
Ms. Cunningham stated that many of their staff members have been
involved with negotiations and would not recommend that the Master
Landscape Plan be linked to this specific project.
Mr. Gill stated that they have discussed this with the Redevelopment
Director. It will take time to work out a plan; there are three or
four other property owners involved, one of which is the Port
District. Rohr leases some property from them and the length of the
leases is only for a few years. The City has some specific desires
related to Rohr' s property, including the extension of certain
streets.
After further discussion of the staff recommendation, Member Landers
felt the Committee should agree with staff's position.
4-e. Landscapino Incorporated within the Parkino Structure
Committee was in agreement with plantings around the parking
structure as proposed by applicant.
\'\...11-
DRC Minutes
2.
-8-
Februarv 25. 1991
4-f. Trash Enclosure within parkina Facilitv Mr. Hernandez
expressed concern that because the trash collection room is elevated
it is inconvenient for disposal of landscaping material. Mr. Gill
stated they would put small enclosed containers in the parking
garages.
There is a very sophisticated trash disposal system within the
building_ Trash is going to be removed from the facility
immediately. Trash containers will be rolled out onto the loading
dock which will have a dock leveler to service various sizes of
pickups.
4a. Variance for encroachment Committee agrees.
4h. Pedestrian Circulation Svstem Submit to staff for review.
4i. Addition Level of reflective glass must fit in with the LCP.
4;. Addition Photographs of items to be included.
Committee Action
MSUC (Gilman/Flach) to certify ErR 90-10 and its addendum.
MSUC (Gilman/Landers) to accept the overriding considerations of the
CEQA findings.
MSUC (Gilman/Landers) to adopt the statement of overriding
considerations.
MSC (Gilman/Landers) (4 - 1) to approve the project with staff
conditions a - as is, b as tied to a, c & d as they stand, delete e
and f, 9 and h as they stand, and add i-that the reflective glass
shall meet the requirements of the LCP and j - that 8 x 10 photos of
all the exhibits, working drawings, and models shall be submitted to
the Planning Department.
DRC-9l-53
Arnold's Furniture. 568 Broadwav. Pole Sian
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planner Amy Wolfe introduced the subject which involves
the replacement of the existing pole sign which is approximately 50
ft. high and includes an internally illuminated 14 ft. wide by 16
ft. high sign cabinet. Arnold's proposes to decrease sign height
to 35 ft. and install a 6 ft. high by 14 ft. wide sign cabinet.
While the size is in conformance, staff feels the sign design is
incompatible to the building's architecture. Due to existing site
limitations which prevent the applicant from installing a monument-
type sign (which would be in conformity with DRe policy), staff
recommends approval of a pole sign subject to the following
conditions:
\ '\ - ~:?>
THE Cl1Y OF CHULA nSTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests. payments, or caJnpaign contributions, on lIl1matters
which will require discretionary action on the pan of the Oty Councll, Planning Commlssion, nnd all other
official bcIdic:s. Tho following information mUllt be disclosed:
1. lJ$t the nlUl1es of nil persons having a financial interest In tho contract, Le., contmctor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
Rohr Industries, Inc. a Delaware corporation
2.
3.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above Is a corporation or partnenhip, list the names of all
individuab owning marc than 10% of the shares in the corporation or ownlng MY partnership
Interest in the partnership.
Rohr Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation
If any persOI1 identified pursuant to (1) above Is non-profit DI'g!Ulization or a trUst, Ust the names
oE any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or benefieiaIY or
trustor of the trllit.
Reich & Tano. Inc.
100 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10017
-
4.
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the pUt tWelve months? Yes_
No g If yes, please indicate persQu(s):
Please Identify ellch and every person. including any agents, employees, con~u1tllI\lS or independent
contractors who you have aasigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Ian Gill of Starboard Developmenf CorpoTation
~rt Sellqren o~ Rohr Industries, Inc.
s.
6.
Have you and/or yaw officers or agents, in the aggregate, contrfbuted more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding f;\leetion period? Yes _ No...!:.: If yes, state which
Councilmcmbct(s);
Porson is detlned a6: '.An)' indMJuatfllnl. co-partnership,Jolnt vtJIlUrl1, alSocia/ioII, ~oclnJ rJub,fraleT7lJ:ll orgal1/J:atfon, corpot'tJtilm.
urat", tnu~ n<<:eiver, syndical", thwand allY other CaliRI)!. ell)' and ccunny, clJy, numiclpalflY. d#rrlct ll1' othl!T polidcat subdivision.
Qr any QIM group or CQmbiMtlon acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Amch addltlollal pajlP-s as !(~l')')
R INDUSTRIES, INC.
Date;
March 20, 1991
BY" . ~ ./~ ~11'1
j nUlro of contractor/applicant
. t1. t1iller
Vice President & Treasurer
h. Print or type Mme of contractor/applicant
~'f \ (Rni"'!: l1{.l{),wj
v,-~ 1
* Not to our knowledge.
lA'll~,^,DlSCLOSB.'l'XTJ
'.
RESOLUTION ~
RESOLUTION APPROVING OWNER
PARTICPATION AGREEMENT BFjOP NO.3 WITH
ROHR INDUSTRIES TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE
BUILDING AT 850 LAGOON DRIVE, CERTIFYING
EIR-90-10 AND ADDENDUM THERETO, ADOPTING
CEQA FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
APPROPRIATING $150,000 TO THE BAY FRONT
FINE ARTS ACCOUNT AND $399,000 FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula
vista has considered the informatiion in EIR-90-10 and
Addendum thereto, CEQA findings and statement of overriding
consideration, and mitigation monitoring and reporting
program for the proposed project; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula
vista has reviewed Rohr Industries' proposal to construct a
245,000 sq. ft. office building at 850 Lagoon Drive; and,.
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
vista has considered Rohr Industries' request for the Agency
to participate financially in the construction of certain
off-site public improvements which will be beneficial to the
Bayfront Project Area; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula
vista has reviewed Owner Participation Agreement BFjOP No. 3
attached as Attachment II and the project proposal plans and
conditions of approval, exhibit Band C respectively,
attached thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula vista as follows:
The Redevelopment Agency hereby:
1. Certifies that EIR-90-10 and Addendum thereto, CEQA
findings and statement of overriding consideration, and
mitigation monitoring and reporting program, attached as
Attachment I, have been prepared in conformance with
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
2. Approves Owner Participation Agreement BFjOP No.03
with Rohr Industries, Inc., attached as Attachment II; and,
\q -2.S
3. Appropriates $150,000 to the Bayfront Fine Arts
account from the unapropriated balance of the Bayfront/Town
Centre Bond Fund; and,
4. Reappropriates $399,500 from CIP account no. BF42
to a new CIP account for the Agency's participation in the
construction of certain public improvements described in
BF/OP No. 03.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
(rohresoa)
\ "-2fo
ATTACHMENT II
Recording Requested By:
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Bayfront Project Area
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
(Space Above This Line For Recorder)
When Recorded Mail To:
BF/OP NO. 3
OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
ROHR INDUSTRIES, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a body
corporate and pol itic (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY"), and ROHR INDUSTRIES, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPER").
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desi res to devel op real property withi n the CHULA VISTA
BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT Project Area which is subject to the jurisdiction and control of
the AGENCY: and,
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has presented pl ans for development to the City of Chul a
Vista Design Review Committee; and,
WHEREAS, said pl ans for development have been recommended for approval by said
Committee; and,
WHEREAS, the AGENCY hereby approves the development proposals as submitted by the
DEVELOPER; and,
WHEREAS, the AGENCY desi res that said development proposal be implemented and
completed as soon as is practicable.
NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER agree as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Agreement.
2. The property to be developed is described as 850 Lagoon Drive and legal
description is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein.
3. The DEVELOPER covenants by and for himself, hi s hei rs, executors,
administrators and assigns all persons claiming under or through them the following:
A. That the property will be developed in accordance with the AGENCY approved
development proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and on file with the
AGENCY Secretary, as Document No. BF/OP #03.
B. DEVELOPER agrees to apply for building permits within one year from the
date of th is Agreement and to commence construction wi thi n one year from
.the date of issuance of the building permits. In the event DEVELOPER
fails to apply for such building permits within said one year, the
approval of DEVELOPER's development proposals shall be void and this
Agreement shall have no further force or effect.
\C1 -1..1
Paae I of 4
C. That in all deeds granting or conveyi ng an interest in the property, the
following language shall appear:
"The grantee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors,
admi ni strators and ass igns, and all persons cl aimi ng under or through
them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any
person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national
origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy,
tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the
grantee himself or any persons claiming under or through him establish or
permit any such practice of di scrimi nat i on or segregation wi th reference
to the select i on, 1 ocat ion, number use or occupancy of tenants, 1 essees,
subtenant lessees, or vendees in the premises herein conveyed. The
foregoing covenants shall run with the land."
D. That in all leases demising an interest in all or any part of the
property, the following language shall appear:
"The lessee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors,
administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him,
and thi s 1 ease is made and accepted upon and subject to the fo 11 owi ng
conditions:
That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any
person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, nat i ona 1
origin, or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring use,
occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premi ses herei n 1 eased, nor shall
the lessee himself or any persons claiming under or through him, establish
or permit any such practices of discrimination or segregation with
reference to the sel ect ion, 1 ocat i on, number or use, or occupancy of
tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the premises
herein leased."
4. DEVELOPER agrees that if either the AGENCY or the CITY OF CHULA VISTA proceeds
to form a Speci a 1 Assessment Di stri ct for the construction or mai ntenance of parki ng
facil ities, common areas or other publ ic facil ities which benefit the real property,
subject to this agreement, that DEVELOPER hereby waives any right he may have to protest
the formation of such Speci a 1 Assessment Di stri ct; Drovided, however, (i) that such
waiver shall be limited to DEVELOPER's interest in the real property described on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and shall not apply to any other real property in which
DEVELOPER may have an interest, and (ii) DEVELOPER shall have the right to participate
in the formation of any proposed special Assessment District. Said waiver shall not
preclude the DEVELOPER from protesting the amount of any assessment on such property.
5. DEVELOPER agrees to contribute 1/2 of 1% of the building valuation of this
project to be deposited in a pool of funds to be used at the discretion of the Agency,
in consultation with the DEVELOPER, in creating and funding significant works of art in
accordance with the Bayfront Fine Arts Policy, as such Policy is in effect on the date
hereof.
6. DEVELOPER agrees to accept the attached cond i t ions imposed by the Des i gn
Review Committee and Agency as described in Exhibit "C."
\ q-2i'
Page 2 of 4
7. DEVELOPER agrees to maintain the premises in FIRST CLASS CONDITION.
"A. DUTY TO MAINTAIN FIRST CLASS CONDITION. Developer shall,
at Developer's sole cost and expense, maintain the premises and
all improvements in first class condition and repair.
If Developer fails to maintain the property in a "first class
condition", the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
or its agents shall have the right, after written notice to
Developer and Developer's failure to correct any deficiency
specified in such notice within 30 days after Developer's
recei pt of such not i ce, to go on the property and perform the
necessary mai ntenance and the cost of said maintenance shall
become a lien against the property. The Agency shall have the
right to enforce this lien either by foreclosing on the
property or by forwarding the amount to be collected to the Tax
Assessor who shall make it part of the tax bill.
B. Developer shall promptly and dil igently repair, restore,
alter, add to, remove, and replace, as required, the Premises
and all improvements to maintain or comply as above, or to
remedy all damage to or destruction of all or any part of the
improvements. Any repair, restoration, alteration, addition,
remova 1, maintenance, replacement and other act of comp 1 i ance
under this Paragraph (hereafter collectively referred to as
"Restorat i on") shall be completed by Developer whether or not
funds are available from insurance proceeds or subtenant
contributions and shall place the building in the condition
existing immediately prior to the date of such damage or
destruction.
C. FIRST CLASS CONDITION DEFINED. 'First class condition and
repair,' means Restoration which is necessary to keep the
Premises and improvements in efficient and attractive
condition, at least substantially equal in quality to the
condition which exists when the condition(s) in attached
Exhibit B are completed."
8. The AGENCY agrees to participate in the construction of certain public
improvements which will benefit the subject project and Bayfront Redevelopment Project.
Said participation shall include deposit by the AGENCY of apprOXimately $399,500 into a
Capital Improvement Project account to provide: I) $240,000 or 50% of the construction
cost of publ ic water service to provide adequate water service to meet the fire code
requi rements of 5,000+ g. p. m. for the project and other future uses proposed for the
Bayfront Redevelopment Project and Port District; 2) $50,000 or 100% of the construction
cost of a new sewer monitoring facil ity as required by the Metropol itan Sewer District
that will benefit the project and Bayfront Redevelopment Project; and 3) $109,500 or 83%
of the construction cost to install a traffic signal and pavement restriping at the
intersect i on of Bay Boul evard and Lagoon Dri ve (" F" Street). Agency's part i c i pat ion
shall be dependent on the condition that DEVELOPER complete said publ ic improvements
within two years from the date of execution of subject Owner Participation Agreement No.
SF/OP No. 03 and DEVELOPER provides documentation reasonably satisfactory to the Agency
of actual improvement costs. The participation shall be paid to DEVELOPER upon
substantial completion of the construction of such improvements within thirty (30) days
after DEVELOPER's presentation to the Agency of such satisfactory documentation.
\&\.- 2C(
Page 3 of 4
9. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein
sha 11 run with the 1 and. DEVELOPER shall have the right, without pri or approval of
AGENCY, to assign its rights and delegate its duties under this Agreement.
10. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein
are for the express benefit of the AGENCY and CHULA VISTA BAY FRONT REDEVELOPMENT Project
Area as the same now exi sts or may be hereafter amended. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree
that the provi s ions of thi s Agreement may be speci fi ca 11y enforced in any court of
competent jurisdiction by the AGENCY.
11. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that this Agreement may be recorded by the AGENCY in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
"AGENCY"
DATED:
By:
Leonard Moore, Mayor Pro Tempore
"DEVELOPER"
BY:
Ronald M. Miller
Vice President and Treasurer
BY:
Richard W. Madsen
General Counsel and Secretary
NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card.
WPC 4685H
Bayfront
\'\ - 30
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
That portion of Quarter section 172 of RANCHO DE LA NAC~ON, in
the City of Chula vista, County of San Diego, state of
california, according to Map thereof No. 166 filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, being more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of said Quarter section 172 as
shown on Record of Survey 9039 on file in the Office of the
Recorder of said County; thence along the Easterly boundary of
said Quarter section North 17'46'57" West 332,01 feet (Record
North 17'47'11" West 332.00 feet); thence l~aving said Easterly
boundary along the Southerly boundary of said Record of Survey
9039 and its Easterly prolongation, South 72 '11' 56" West (Record
South 72'12'12" West) 170,02 feet to the southeasterly corner of
Record of Survey 9039 and the TRUE POINT OF BEG~NNrNG of this
description; thence continuing South 72'11'56" West 1333.57 feet
(Record 1333.46 feet); thence continuing along the boundary of
said Record of Survey North 66'58'39" West 73.95 feet (Record
North 66'58'55" West 73.94 feet); thence South 84'48'01" West
339.66 feet (Record South 84'47'56" West 339.69 feet); thenoe
North 38'00'20" West 328.14 feet (Record North 38'00'25" West
328.08 feet); thence North 31'19'51" West 217.16 feet (Record
North 31'19'56" West 216.96 feet); thence North 72'03'09" -Ea;;t
(Record North 72'03'22" East) 703.95 feet; thence North 17.56'51"
West 299,96 feet (Record North 17'56'38" West 300,00 feet);
thence North 72'03'09" East 1182,28 feet (Record North 72'03'22"
East 1182.05 feet); thence south 17'46'57" East 946.30 feet
(Record South 17'47'11" East 946.06 feet) to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING,
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion lying Westerly of the Easterly
line of paroel 10E as shown on Record of Survey No. 11749,
recorded August 10, 1988, in the Office of the county Recorder of
San Diego County, and the Northerly prolongation of said
Easterly line.
\'~-3' 'Iq ..32.
(13381 -..:J.) i if ti^'CJO NOO~\il
~ '/ f
'tG~ u . -=-0 -.".'.... :1 ~ ~~~
I \ 1 "'/ II: I .t
\ I, L ~ C I
," J7 ~,--~'-
\ ...""., I
\ ~ ,.~l , := , I
\. - - 'l c ' I
) : I.', I
/ - tI I
; ~ I
i i c ,I ,.j. . I
! I I' - -. I
! l '" 3" r
/ I ' .f; c: ~~i i
1/ 1/ ' J I ~lI.~ I
; ,n I ( L____ ;
i ~ ~ 1 - I
. '( L" I" ' I I" I
:( ; ~ :. f :~\ C" f ~ I
I, If"j':, _____J :
',," \ ,,--------g::-'TJ---U--,-.J
II If r IF :';" :.;?~< ~;I!
"I, ,\1 l >\'' ',1; ~~~ ',:
l to S .- - --= ~
, 1::< ~/;J L~ u I
~! . .~
I ,.. ,
,i .'.
Ii /.> .
j //'/ ,,', ~~~' '
~j /,' ~
~ ! ~./
"!~/
"1'- '~1\llR! n
.! ~
'I ~
j 'I
I ~..
, .,
,
i
,;
'I
1
i
i
i
,i
1:
"
'i
i
i
i
i
,i
'i
i
i
i
i
,;
'i
i
i
, '
, ,
E',i
'ij'i
. '
, ,
, '
"
.,,,,,,'j,,,,.
""h '''1''''''-
,
,~ J'
,
~l
II
,I
J
-~~~-==Y~~-~'=;:~' ~~ .~ ~~~
.OC
lr----.
Ii
II
:f fi. ,l,; c..~
i v-- '!" ,
I 9 Jt 4-=~':::~=-:.=L...E~-~(L _ L~
r'~'; lC;'1-..j' i
r':"i-f"~=' :
. ... j ---.' ,
I ---- I
I "c: '
, l' '
',' . ~ - lj I
I ' ,
I '" ii' ,
, 'I !~ ,
I -- :: !!i : '1
i -Ii ~tM I ~A
1'1 "~ ' il
"I I
I I I
1 ,I ,
, c. ( I I
'I ' 'j , \ ~ 32. '
:j iLl ,-, ,;\ -,-~L -- ~.::,,-":-~~~;:-~ -A~
1
[I..'
-'.' 'J"
.,
c.:>
C~,
d
.
i
l
--.1~___/
'..
!. ~ l'
" .,f!
;,"~. ",
!lilll r
~ '
i""'..'.... ,mR'~T B
:\ \v f;;j";~1 ,"
" P,. h f; ~ ,", '; ,
~~.h 1,\ III fi' ~ ~,.~ R. - y
.1/
. - ':::::f- -~- ,"
. ' . . .- ,.
. . . . . . !
Qo"" ... ..." ~-r:
I
"I
HI
i
T='::-'::IL-'~--!(-Jl--jf---)i ----=c.oo:.:.--..."'_~. ,-.... -- ... ,- _
L...,..",~..,-j.-=_ -- __.-J 1) (:::; ... -== _ _~ _ .,'_.---r. ~
3^IClO NO
"'-b-.t-n ~
~----_._~--------
- -- - - - - - - - - - -- -~ -- --- -" -- --~~- ---;:_:- -
;(
.J-
~\ ....
\' ))
I .
1[11 .'
,([(I,: .
II\~
11\\
If/l.
Ilif'
,II, .'
lii:I'
11,
,1'1\
i .
\1
',I,J
i1,II
, I
'\\~
'\\. '.-
~,jJ
J
€l 81
" . ~=' I
I 1--
I.
I
I A
(c=-q I}
o ~ \'1-33/"."
~""____~ I
BC~
'1"""'Y'
~r
III
FUJII;,
I.Yl~r.1'
"\)
?
<"'l.
'1
)
)
'~
, ;11
.,
,~
t
r
(
(
n.'
~ . .) @;....
\ !P
t ~~ 1
p I.' I
~ i', "I j
J { , ,
/ - - - - 1 r -, !: ~,( )
>.1.:: I, I/"ij"~ (. \
:':r~"7J;~~t'i;:,i~'T)l B
,1:>' V ;;:",; ~,,'t' .
j , M'~. '''''i,
, h"'",' .~, '.' )
,
, '
" '11' I
.I. .
~ . '...
r ~~ 1: ';" ~~
, ,
i'l
" ,
I I
I
II,
. ,
I '
,
l~ I. !~ I! l' ~
il. I. ,. .',
~~.'!~';~~
I
" ' '
~,: ! ~J,~
fl'h
i i i
. I
I
z
o
>=
..
>
'"
~
'"
"
I-
"
o
..
z
o
>=
..
>
'"
~
'"
"
I-
'"
o
z
~I
'"
~
'"
Z
I-
"
o
..
z
0
>=
..
>
~,
i "';
xl::
, " ~~
li- "'1
ll,
z z "
0 I-
0 ! >= "
>= 0 ~Io
.. .. ..
> I > .. 0'
w , w ~;
II ~
J I '" I' ..'
I, w >
!1 l- I- a: W:.~
.. , :1 .. 0 J"
.. z ",'"
" w '"
~
\&t-~~
.... ,
~
"r'
;.f~
"',', , ~j fI, ~,' ~. ~ """'IT 8
.'. \-". ~ We ~_Ai ,
:'," ,J" 1,'1i~/'&, ,
[:.~i/\t~ ~Mt~;
EXHIBIT C
BF/OP #03
Rohr Office Building
850 Lagoon Drive
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Developer shall sign and record, prior to the issuance of
construction permits a parking agreement between the city
and the Developer, on terms and conditions satisfactory to
the City of Chula vista and the Developer, providing one (1)
parking space per each 300 square feet of gross floor area
of the proposed Rohr office building as required by section
19.62.050 of the Chula vista Municipal Code. This condition
shall be deemed satisfied upon the recordation of said
parking agreement.
2. A site plan depicting the planned parking facility
improvements to the SDG&E easement area currently leased by
the Developer shall be submitted to staff for review and
approval, and said improvements shall be installed prior to
the issuance of an occupancy permit for the Rohr office
building. This condition shall be deemed satisfied upon the
issuance of said occupancy permit.
3. A variance allowing the proposed encroachment into the
easterly side yard setback and building height shall be
obtained prior to issuance of a building permit for the
proposed Rohr office building. This condition shall be
deemed satisfied upon the issuance of such building permit.
4. A pedestrian circulation system connecting the proposed
project with a proposed easterly adjacent parking facility
shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval in
connection with the Developer's submittal of the site plan
reference in paragraph 2 above. This condition shall be
deemed satisfied upon the issuance of an occupancy permit
for the proposed Rohr office building.
5. A set of 8-1/2 x 11 photographs of the model and all
graphics presented to the Design Review Committee shall be
submitted to the Planning Department prior to submittal of
plans for plan check. This condition shall be deemed
satisfied upon the submittal of said photographs and
graphics.
6. The level of reflectiveness of the proposed Rohr office
building's west elevation exterior glass component shall be
approved by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator,
\t\ .. ~5
with the advise of a biological specialist, in accordance
wi th the Local Coastal Program's intent to restrict said
material to protect coastal resources. This condition shall
be deemed satisfied upon such approval.
7. Developer shall incorporate into the project all mitigation
measures set forth in EIR-90-lO and addendum thereto.
8.
Developer shall incorporate the Rohr
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and shall enter into a third party contract
ensure implementation of said program.
Office
into the
with the
Complex
project
city to
9. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of the
Chula vista Municipal Code, and other state and local laws.
10. The Developer shall contribute funds in the amount of
$18,000 toward the future improvement of the following two
off-site traffic intersections: i) 1-5 northbound ramp at
"E" street, and ii) southbound right turn lane on to
Broadway at "E" street. Developer's contribution of $18,000
shall be deemed their fair share and no future contribution
toward these specific improvements shall be required based
on the project as approved in BFjOP#03. This condition
shall be deemed approved upon such contribution.
11. The Developer shall construct public street improvements
adjacent to the site and reasonable transition street
improvements in accordance with the standard engineering
practices and procedures and the requirements set forth by
the City Engineering Department's letter dated September 26,
1990 unless otherwise required by environmental mitigation
as set forth in EIR-90-l0 and addendum thereto or by field
condi tions. This condition of approval is based on the
project as proposed and may be modified in the event the
project is modified. If the project is not modified, this
condition shall be deemed satisfied upon the substantial
completion of the construction of such improvements to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
12. The Developer shall contribute one-half of 1% of the
building valuation toward fine art within the Bayfront
Project.. The Developer's contribution may be in the form
of an on-site feature as an alternative the cash
contribution. If a work of fine art is not approved by the
time an occupancy permit is requested, Rohr shall be
required to deposit the cash contribution.
v\ - ~(.
I and
authorized representatives for Rohr Industries, Inchoate read and
understand these conditions of approval as required- by the
Redevelopment Agency as they pertain to the construction of Rohr
Office Building at 850 Lagoon Drive and agree that these
conditions be incorporated into Owner Participation Agreement
#BF/OP#03
Rohr Industries, Inc.
by:
by:
date:
date:
(Rohr)
c:Penelope
ta..-'31j,Q.j8
THIS PAGE BLANK
\~ - 3~
RESOLUTION -'(.1 S5
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EIR-90-10 AND
ADDENDUM THERETO, ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS
AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION, ADOPTING MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM, ADOPTING FINDINGS
FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT AND SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE, ENTERING INTO A
PARKING AGREEMENT WITH ROHR INDUSTRIES,
AND FINDING ROHR INDUSTRIES' PROPOSAL TO
CONSTRUCT A 245,00 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
BUILDING AS APPROVED BY THE REDEVLOPMENT
AGENCY ON APRIL 23, 1991, IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM, AND APPROVING ISSUANCE
OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 52.
WHEREAS, the
(LCP) has been
commission; and,
city of Chula vista Local Coastal Program
certified by the California Coastal
WHEREAS, said LCP includes Coastal Development
procedures determined by the Commission to be legally
adequate for the issuance of Coastal Development Permits and
the city of Chula vista has assumed permit authority of the
Chula vista Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing
conducted on January 23, 1991
procedures; and,
was duly noticed
in accordance with
and
said
WHEREAS, the City Council of the city of Chula vista
has reviewed and considered the information contained in
EIR-90-10 and Addendum thereto, the candidate CEQA findings
and statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation
monitoring and reporting program attached as Attachement I.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the city of Chula Vista,
as "approving authority," has reviewed Rohr Industries'
proposal for the construction of a 245,000 square foot
office building at 850 Lagoon Drive as approved by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula vista on April 23,
1991, considered Rohr Industries' request for a 10 ft.
sideyard and 3 ft. 8 in. height variance, and reviewed the
proposed Parking Agreement attached as Attachment II; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Chula vista:
\~-~4
A. The city council of the City of Chula vista hereby
certifies that EIR-90-I0 and Addendum thereto, CEQA findings
and statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation
moni toring and reporting program attached as Attachment I;
have been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
B. The City Council of the City of Chula vista hereby
adopts the following findings and grants a building and
sideyard setback variance:
Findings - Sideyard Setback
a) In an effort to meet the goal to protect coastal
resources and to satisfy environmental concerns raised by
the U. S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, the applicant
placed the proposed building along the western edge of the
50 foot westerly side yard setback to form a buffer between
active uses east of the building and the wildlife preserve
on the west side. This placement limited the space for
arrangement of on-site parking and access. The proposed
variance will assist the applicant in complying with parking
and access requirements.
b) The site's westerly side yard setback, normally 20
feet, was required to be increased to 50 feet to provide an
adequate buffer for adjacent sensitive wetlands (FIG Street
Marsh) . This requirement reduces the on-site buildable
space and flexibility of site planning enjoyed by property
owners not located adjacent to wetlands.
c) The granting of a easterly side yard setback reduction,
of 10 feet will allow the applicant to recover 30% of the
land area lost to wetland buffer. The additional land will
be used to provide on-site parking.
Findings - Building Height
a) The applicant proposed an initial building design
consisting of a continuous top of building with an elevation
of 42 feet 3 inches, a height below the site's 44 ft
building limitation. In an effort to meet the Design Review
committee's request to incorporate vertical architectural
features, the central glass core of the building was
elevated to 47 feet 8 inches, 3 feet 8 inches above the 44
foot building height limitation. The height variation,
though above the limitation, will enhance the design of the
building and aesthetic quality of the coastal area.
b) The proposed height variance allows the applicant to
provide an enhanced building design. No additional building
floor area will result from the allowance.
\,\_ qC>
c) The added design enhancement will provide interesting
building silhouette from bay views at a minimum variance to
the LCP height limitation which will not reduce or adversely
affect coastal resources.
C. The city Council
enters into a Parking
attached as Attachment
of the city of Chula vista hereby
Agreement with Rohr Industries, Inc.
II; and,
D. The City Council of the City of Chula vista finds that
state and regional interpretive guidelines have been
reviewed and the proposed project has been found to be in
conformance with the public access and public recreational
policies of Chapter 3 of the Public Resources Code.
Further, based on the following findings, Rohr Industries'
proposal to construct a 245,000 sq. ft. office building at
850 Lagoon Drive, as approved by the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Chula vista on April 23, 1991, is found to be
consistent with the certified Chula vista Local Coastal
Program:
Findings - Coastal consistency
a) The project will provide the number of on-site and
adjacent vehicle parking spaces (through an agreement with
the city of Chula Vista) to meet the vehicle parking
requirements set forth in the certified LCP. The project is
a minimum of one-third of a mile from the Bay's shore I ine
and public coastal park land. with adequate off-street
vehicle parking provided by the development and the site's
substantial distance from the bay I s shore I ine, no adverse
impact on public access to the coast line is expected to
occur.
b) The project is located adjacent to the FIG street
Marsh. However, a 50-foot setback has been maintained to
provide a buffer adj acent to the wetland boundary. In
addition, the building has been designed to be in itself a
barrier that will further buffer the wetlands from human
activities on the eastern portion of the site. In
accordance with EIR-90-10, mitigation measures will be
implemented to ensure that the building and associated
acti vi ties will not adversely effect the adj acent wetland
habitat.
c) Public improvements in accordance
LCP will be installed in conjunction
Street improvements incorporated into
provide an incremental increase toward
coastal resources.
with the certified
with the project.
the project will
improved access to
d) The project site is designated for Industrial Business
Park. land uses. Administrative offices and research design
\'\ - ~ \
activities related to the industrial land use adjacent to
the south are in conformance with the certified LCP land use
element. Findings in accordance with the LCP have been for
a 3 foot 8 inch building height variance for the central
building element and a 10 foot easterly side yard setback
variance. No adverse affect on coastal resources are
anticipated due to the variances.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
approves Coastal Development Permit No. 52.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
(Rohrreso)
\ct -q2-} 14. IfJ
ATTACHMENT I a., b., c., & d.
Same as Attachment I a., b., C., and d.
to Agency Resolution to approve
OP/BF No. 03
\Q.-~~
ATTACHMENT II
Recording Requested by:
CITY CLERK
When Recorded, Mail to:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
No transfer tax is due as this
is a conveyance to a public
agency of less than a fee
interest for which no cash
consideration has been paid or
received.
Declarant
Agreement Between the
City of Chula vista
and
Rohr Industries, Inc.
re
Potential Use Restriction on Office space
This Parking Agreement ("Agreement") between the city of"Chula
Vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("city"), and Rohr
Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Rohr"), dated
April 15, 1991 for the purposes for reference only, and effective
as of the date last executed by the parties, is made with reference
to the following facts:
Whereas, the real property which is the subject matter of this
Agreement is commonly known as 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula vista,
California, and is legally described as set forth on Exhibit A,
incorporated herein by reference ("Property"); and,
Whereas, Rohr is the owner of the Property; and,
Whereas, Rohr proposes to improve the Property with a 245,000
square foot office building, parking lot, and miscellaneous collat-
eral improvements, all of which are more particularly identified in
the following zoning document on file in the Office of the city
Clerk: BF/OP (Bayfront/owner Participation) No.3 ("Project"); and,
Whereas, the city's Municipal Code, Zoning Chapter, section
19.62 requires that a project of the size and scope of Rohr' s
proposed Project have 816 parking spaces; and,
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 1
\'1-4,\
Whereas, the project as proposed by Rohr permits only 760
parking spaces, so that the site is deficient in parking by 56
spaces ("Deficient Spaces") which, according to standard parking
space construction standards permitted by city, would require an
area of approximately 20,000 square feet ("Deficient Area"); and,
Whereas, San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDGE") is the
owner of a 15 acre parcel of property ("SDGE Parcel") the northerly
part of which is diagrammatically represented in the map attached
as Exhibit C, adjacent, in part, to Rohr's Property but consisting
of an area substantially greater than the Deficient Area; and,
Whereas, in February 21, 1981, Rohr has entered into a lease
agreement ("Parking Lease") with SDGE by which Rohr, their
employees, invited guests and visitors may occupy the SDGE Parcel
for the purpose ("Parking Purpose") of parking (and ingress and
egress thereto) their vehicles on the SDGE Parcel for so long as
they are visiting Rohr at the building on the subject Property;
and,
Whereas, said Parking Lease had a 5 year term prior to its
expiration and contains 4 five (5) year options to renew; and,
Whereas, the City is willing to permit the oversized project
with the proposed parking on the terms and conditions herein
stated;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. Duty to Keep Lease Current and in Full Force and Effect.
Rohr shall keep the Parking Lease, or at least the northerly
most 20,000 square feet of the area which is the subject
matter of the Parking Lease ("Rohr Office Building Required
Spaces Portion"), current and in full force and effect.
2. Duty to Use Good Faith and Best Efforts to Renew Parking Lease
Upon Expiation.
Rohr shall use good faith and best efforts to renew, on terms
and conditions satisfactory to Rohr and SDGE, the Parking
Lease with SDGE, or at least the Rohr Office Building Required
Spaces portion, at such time as it is scheduled for, or may
be, canceled or terminated.
3. Duty to Provide Alternate Parking Satisfactory upon
Cancellation of Parking lease.
3.1. Alternate Parking Area.
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 2
\C\-4S
As used herein, "Alternate Parking Area" shall be used to
define an area of equal or greater size to the Deficient
Area, designed and improved to permit parking spaces
equal to or greater than the Deficient Spaces, in the
close or immediate vicinity to the Property.
3.2. Duty.
In the event that Rohr, despite the exercise of good
faith and best efforts, is unable to continue the right
to occupy the SDGE Parcel for the Parking Purpose, Rohr
shall use good faith and best efforts to obtain the right
to occupy for the Parking Purpose of an Alternate Parking
Area which has been submitted to, and has been approved
by, the city, by and through their City Manager, or his
or her designee. In the event that Rohr secures the
Alternate Parking Area, this agreement shall terminate
and be of no further force and effect.
3.2.1.
without limitation of the City's remedies,
upon the failure of Rohr to use good faith and
best efforts to obtained an approved Alternate
Parking Area shall be grounds for requiring,
after notice, Rohr to implement "Office Area
Use Reduction Duty", hereinbelow described.
4. Office Area Use Reduction Dutv.
4.1. Identify Specific Area within Building for Reduction of
Use.
The Area within the proposed building on the Property
which is the subject matter of this section is shown on
Exhibi t B ("Potential Reduction Area"), attached hereto.
4.2 Duty.
Rohr agrees, for its successors and assigns, including
leasees, that if the Parking Lease is no longer available
for the Parking Purpose for any reason whatsoever
regardless of fault, and, within 90 days after written
notice from the City to Rohr, Rohr has not provided an
Alternate Parking Area according to the terms of this
Agreement, Rohr shall, upon written demand by the City,
terminate any usage except pedestrian circulation,
storage, and retrieval and deposit therefrom, of the
Potential Reduction Area. (This Duty shall be herein
referred to as the "Office Area Use Reduction Duty.")
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 3
t tt - "'I..
4.3. Record Agreement Giving Successor Lessees or Purchasers
or Lenders Notice of Potential Reduction of Use.
This Agreement shall be recorded upon execution of the
parties.
4.4 contain provision in Subleases.
In the event that Rohr shall lease or sublease all or a
portion of the building which contains the Potential
Reduction Area, the lease or sublease shall contain a
provision notifying the prospective tenant that some or
all of the area of the lease is subject to termination on
exercise of the city's rights under this agreement.
4.5 Burden Touches and Concerns Land; Binding on Successors.
The burden of this covenant touches and concerns the
Property, and as such is binding upon the heirs,
successors, and assigns of Rohr as if they had entered
into this Agreement directly and enforceable by the City
as benefiting any and all land adjacent thereto, or in
the vicinity thereof owned by the City, including but not
limited to the public rights of way which both parties
acknowledge would be substantially impacted as a result
of the loss of the Deficient Spaces.
5. Miscellaneous.
5.1. Proof of Title.
Rohr shall provide proof, satisfactory to the City, that they
have fee simple absolute title to the Property; and that this
Agreement has been recorded prior to interest of any subsequent
purchaser, lessee, or lender except for the interest of a purchase
money lender but then not to the extent that it is in excess of the
purchase price of the land at the time of Rohr's purchase of the
fee interest.
5.2. Attorney Fees.
In the event that litigation is necessary to enforce any of
the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
5.3. Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the
contrary, in the event the City I S Municipal Code is hereafter
amended or otherwise changed to permit less than or equal to 760
parking spaces for the Project, the Duties herein imposed on Rohr
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 4
\'\ -41
shall be suspended during such time as said Code permits less than
or equal to 760 parking spaces.
Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood
the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their
consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the
date set forth adjacent thereto.
Dated: April 15, 1991
city of Chula vista
by:
Leonard Moore,
its Mayor Pro Tern
Attest:
Beverly Authelet
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Dated: April 15, 1991
Rohr Industries, Inc,
by:
Ronald M. Miller, Vice President
and Treasurer
by:
Richard W.
Secretary
Madsen, General Counsel
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 5
\ q -4 ~
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit c:
rohr5.wp
April 1,5, 1991
Exhibits List
Legal Description of Rohr Property.
Floor Plan of Office Building, marked for Potential
Reduction Area.
Map showing SDGE Parcel.
l G - 4~
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 6
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
That portion of Quarter section 172 of RANCHO DE LA NACION, in
the City of Chula vista, County of San Diego, state of
california, according to Map thereof No. 166 filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego county, being more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of said Quarter section 172 as
shown on Record of Survey 9039 on file in the Office of the
Recorder of said County; thence along the Easterly boundary of
said Quarter section North 17'46'57" West 332.01 feet (Record
North 17'47'11" West 332.00 feet): thence l~aving said Easterly
boundary along the Southerly boundary of said Record of Survey
9039 and its Easterly prolongation, South 72'11'56" West (Record
South 72'12'12" West) 170.02 feet to the Southeasterly corner of
Record of Survey 9039 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this
description: thence continuing South 72'11'56" West 1333.57 feet
(Record 1333.46 feet): thence continuing along the boundary of
said Record of Survey North 66'58'39" West 73.95 feet (Record
North 66'58'55" West 73.94 feet); thence South 84'48'01" West
339.66 feet (Record South 84'47'56" West 339.69 feet); thence
North 38'00'20" West 328.14 feet (Record North 38'00'2!;i" West
328.08 feet); thence North 31'19'51" West 217.16 feet (Record
North 31'19'56" West 216.96 feet); thence North 72'03'09" -Eoost
(Record North 72'03'22" East) 703.95 feet; thence North 17"56'51"
West 299.96 feet (Record North 17'56'38" West 300.00 feet);
thence North 72'03'09" East 1182.28 feet (Record North 72'03'22"
East 1182.05 feet): thence South 17"46'57" East 946.30 feet
(ReCord South 17'47'11" East 946.06 feet) to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion lying Westerly of the Easterly
line of parcel 10E as shown on Record of survey No. 11749,
recorded August 10, 1988, in the Office of the county Recorder of
San Diego County, and the Northerly prOlongation of said
Easterly line.
~" - SD
EXHI BIT B
J__.
,'-01
'.~..... ... ,. . - "'-
r
.
POTENTIAL REDUCTION AREA
l t\ -'5 l
/...-
i
I
THIRD FLOOR
~~~
.~
.
Ul
t-'
J.,
. .' .~C:'~~~~;
'ASHItLYBOUNl5'A"
\ .
.Om
II
-,-,
. ,j/;<"r' :Jt~ /:<~~;~B+d'F~?1:e~,<
-rrno~~~;:/:..,!j~;ir~~~i::\;;,>:X~'
I
...t.~ II
..,.t;:
, W:).~~t~Jr"6
TYPIC^'L~1)_a I:V,''tO'~[R:J
WlTH'lJ'~S"SQ. CUAJ:OlAH
.).,:.,-!2'...21 n
,
i
!
',.:,"
"t.'-
ROHR
- ~.__~.... _....... .t.:.
,.
>'-
"'
u.
'0
u
Q;
',.."--.,-.,' .
:SEC;"
162':;
~.'.
~ "
u
i7
rf\-~-~-~-\---V-~-~ ^.
I ~ - , ~
i ~ . ... \ \,:::,::: ::~::'iOQ~
~--~~--- _ ~_\__~ :x. ~ L \.
. !
t
~=
..,-."
I~
~
u
'" '<.~
'.',:
. '".'.:'<'~'
'~" '~:': ;~~~F::
.~~tit..i:'.':
,':;;,'
.ffo-'...~ZOtl/.. t,ilsreRi/:FiAid: ^y' .:.
~'''''''
:;,,~~'-'.:""_-';".:.'~:'~::;:'
ROIIII :r~s'[' rQn
'J~:.:; SI(
p 'i,.~l.:.c ~.:g.."
ING {i~'i'i..'u't/2r:, . ,.- .'
i .
., / .<,.~
111/// ".
c~. Q. He. 111-
I:iI /
"
Exi:
~
"R.R. SPUR H' t/W
Q'" 'SE" C'
. . ....;.
171
.~ I
I
I
. CORPORATION.
. .'~
-;;
N "
~ .
n~' ': -. !' ._' .~.~~
I ~ '/0. ,.... ~,~ .
J' _- 'W' . .' '.q>. . .
..... ~ -,\~'--f-'i:i~mm~H~~~N;[AS:Tm RmWAl-
~';;.l-- ,;.,-;.;:" ..- 'I . '.
'_i..~'.""(~~I"".n'O'OIL UN'1~_ :. '-.'_ -:--.'~
':'.' -<_:J; AMENO p'~?~~~~! ,t ." i'ooJ>.~ ! II
,. .--""1..,-...-1'.... ~
7~.H;W~"I" i"f ' I~___
. ; "dsOGut c;..L'
g ~M'O ~ T c'$ ~)[ R.:,j.. -,';
"
Rohr Office Building Required Spaces Portion
EXHIBIT "e"
. Z
.~ 0
~v~ ~
v.
... ....:
~..; .-.~_:- ~
Ct',6-"
,
"'0
:::i~
:z: Iz'
. 212
~I~ -
~ ~
0,0
~~
:...:-
,? .J
: . - if)
(XlSTlt<.:C 'It
~:41 ;;J. ~~ ~,
'; '/~J' \;yt\ ;:1:".' ~!.
::', :'~, ;~,~.~: ~?~.: [:~w;
t .Vi' dl:. 'i:;5' './_'(':
i:Ai i~f {~} }~:
:",.,,,li'cl" ~.,_1.._~~
Hi~ fiHil ~i
~ :7.;.:f~' \~;' ~.c~~., ~
i: ''3'.C.~t~ . 1:<~.
" ~~. -I'~
;' .q
1. .'~"".~i
~~~~;
\ ^'''),':;~''':I'~~;;
. .....,. ~~ ;"'~f;1-;; ~~lP
',' ~o~~,. ?tlif~:;t?~;
'.'; _ ,\ ," " U)_'i~~'{Ai;t;..
,: '~'.~~~~{~JJj;
ll::cr (j'ji'l,:"
ti ~~:jt\
w~ ..~:J......:-_~
..1"0::.,'>'..
WU ",Ic';.'
. 6 .a:.~~:~'t:C
d:S~ ,.,!,~);.,.,_w
.' =' 'j
~' '~~.*;'~~~~i ~
.1.~'~ Y-;1(~~'{
:~. ':g~ ~~~_~Kr~;i~
w, O\dry-:;':.J:
'0: O:~.~i/'>':~'
'Z'- ...i..:(~.,.
.<C
IJ).;
~.'
~--
.:'
l I
ATTACHMENT I
Irsh/ ~ I'
Rohr Office Complex
Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR # 90-10)
SCH # 90010623
Prepared for:
City of ChuIa Vista
Environmental Review Coodinator
276 Foruth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. (KEA)
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
February 1991
~~f?
~
, --- -- -.---
- -- ----
~~~~
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
Final Environmental Impact Report
Contents
Summary
Comments and Responses
Draft Environmental Impact Report
/'t-fJ
SUMMARY
This report is the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Rohr Office
Complex project. The FEIR includes the Draft EIR (which has undergone public review),
the public comments received as a result of the public review, and the responses to these
comments. Changes to the Draft EIR which have been made as a response to comments
are indicated in the Draft EIR with shading for new text, and cross-outs for text to be
eliminated.
$-1
I q. S~
ST A Tf OF CAlIFORNIA-OFFICE Of THE GOVERNOR -_
Comment-A
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Go~mor
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 958U
Jan 04, 1991
RECEIVED
~
MARYANN MILLER
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 4TH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 92010
.IAN 8 1991
PLANNING
Subject: ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
SCH It 90010623
Dear MARYANN MILLER:
At
The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review
period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies)
is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will
note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented.
Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment
package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please
notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the
project's eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond
promptly.
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code
required that:
"a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make
substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a
project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or
which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency."
Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their
comments with specific documentation. These comments are forwarded for
your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more information
or clarification, we recoI:llnend' Lhat you contact the commenting
agency( ies) .
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact
Terri Lovelady at (916) 445-0613 if you have any
questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
.--:-;>
r..:~~'.......--,.__,.,..""''' .-
'.. -."
David C. Nunenkamp
Deputy Director, Permit Assistance
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
/Q,.55
Notice of Completion
.- ~.....
~-
SNHOnrNI.w
Moil,., $.... Clcarina"""", 140ll Tenll1 S...... S",..m,,"o, CA 95814 'H613 Sat. 90010623
...---;:,...".... _....RQ.b~r QfJj~e..C_Q!IIDlex _U!l_-.:....__~__
lAldAloncy: ._.... qtY. _t?~ .~hul~_ y'!~.~a C-.ct~ Marvann .Mi1L~~.___.
S d.Jno 2.76 Fourth .Avenue . _, (619) 691-5101
(":t~'.. .:.='" Cbu.1..a..~~i,'i..Y.~-~CA_ ?jp~-.1.~<I!9_____. Counry: San OieQo
-----------------------------------------
Pr.Ject ..........
C"unl)': .__ San DJego _~_. .____ Cil)'IN__ Commuftily: _ Chula _Vista
Cm"~U'otll: _~.Stree..tJBay Q9J.l.leya.r:Q..... TNlAcnt: 11.00
A.......'. p_, No. .56.Z~010-26_._ s"""., _ NfA Twp. NfA a..,,, NfA_ 8_, NfA
Wilhin2Mil..: S"'a.H...)'I:_..l.::~__ WllUWI)": San DieQo ~.!. Sweet~ater R'i"'Ver
ALr,oN:-1tLA..__....__u_. alihlll)'l: _.~Q!~~__ Se.....:.~~:~~e~ ~~~:~~~~~'er Elem;
---------------------------------~-------
Doeurn.. TV.-
CIQA, 0 NO'
O....y c...
ON., Doc
iXIll..n.,~
Os"pp......tllub.~,\1
o Ela <I'rior KH No.)
000...
NUA:
0"""
OM
o llo,^ E1S
OPONSI
01111I:
010... Ilooun_
o PUW lloaonona
Oow,__.
-----------------------------------------
L__I ...t.... TV..
00.....11 Plan ll,-..
DC."",.zPl...~
Oo,l'CttJ ".. e__1
o Communil)'''_
o SPICiRc P1-.
OMu.PltII
0_ Unil O'Volo.......
(JIM"- Design Review
0......
D-
O u..,....
o Lad 1>'..... (SUW;"....
'''' N.. Tnd.........)
0-_
a bd."..,....c
KJ eo.l&I '......M
o ow,
-----------------------------------------
,
00..._ ""
o a..i,*"UtJ: UIfiJI. Ap'u
(lOt..., J.~.~4~.UUO'"..== '''''0''''__
o C~I.1t I~~. ","Vel &.,Iqy.u
Olndutriall Sf~.== A4:"u:::= ~.u==
OEd"".1&aW _.
DRICIMu...i
OW_'""w., ,."..
a-............: .,.,..
0.......: 1I,...,
01'0_ r,..
OW__ r,..
O_W_,.".
(2)0..: 730 car OarKlny
.._wnn_
w.._
IUL. IUI
clU...luJT"."~
-----------------------------------------
....Jc.et I..... .._....... I" .........
a~LicIY"al
G AarleuI.... L...td
OAIrQt.laJity
O~Iic:a1IHllllO'iuJ
CiCUMW:t.one
Q DrIiNl..,AbiorylIlon
a &mnmiclJobt
OF....
o fkIod PI~In.
O-'-H.... I
n CIecNo.M:/1......
CJ MbwAl,
DHa...
o Pop.I"kInIJ~ 8.1_.
o PublleSW'#icuIt'lCilibu
Oa",.........ta
q~IIN"'''''''
D'.,u.: .)'....
OS.... C.,.""
OSoil_~....".....
o Solid W...
C1 TudcM......
[] T,,"cJCirc~
~V'pl..kJn
I1lw__
m.....J_y~...
[iJ W....-,.....
ex: WUcWl.
00.-.."'""",
o .....
;, ",lad". atrlCtl
------------------------~-~-
"...",....... UMrlZ......lII...,......... u.. Project site. is I?resent
disturbed from agricultural uses. The current.lonlng 1S !P
~~~neral Plan is R~$~arch & ltd. manufacturlng. The slte
~~~~~~m~~~~~~-----~---
The project is an office complex with surface parklng for 73
building would contain a maximum of 245.000 square feet of gr
not exceed 42 ft.. in height.
CLEAKINGBOUS! CONTACT.
STAn u:vu:tl BECAN:
DEPT. REV TO AGENCY:
AG!IICY" REV TO SCB
SclI COHPLIANC!
916/445-0613
T!IllU LOVELAIlY TllLLE'n'!:
aft' SIft
_ ~h.ourc.. qucy
..
_ ~Co..t&l
-
-~
JL... ...!-Con..rvation
___ ~P'hh , Game
- . L
.1l.- ZO /jQ
IZ-.J$.
..L-L
.L-~
p' .....Cl:x I.ETOKlI HOC VIm ALL COHHER'rS
AQHIl/APCIl:~ (R..ourc...-JjL,~)
- ~ ...........,., .u...--
,
- -
..
= · Ca,ltran. ,.1L
l' '1&
~
-
_ ~Food . AtJ
- .. llrlF...
..L. . I ~ "
b., sCRi..:..:..--=----- __..
~ .. III.-'",t' oJ" .;J~a, r .... - ,..;:l:t
----
aft' SNT
-
,
4.
w.
- ....1.
___ ~SVRCB:--Wtr Quality
___ -!-SWRCBr--Wtr Kights
_ ~R.g 0 11QC8 I q
170' .. ,
J
T
..
---
-~
.
___ ~St.t.
. i1i'
__. ^~~A_.
Land.
o
-
c"""'
w
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent A - State of California Office of Planning and Research
Al The acknowledgement from the Office of Planning and Research regarding
compliance with State Clearinghouse review requirements is noted.
90-14 01/25/91
,q-Sh
~'" vf Callhrnlll
Comment-.Jl
1IU11Mt1, TnlJ..~Ii.... _n~ HoIuIIna Aa-IU!\I
Memorandum
To
. STATE CLEARrNGHOUSE
0- , January 4, 1991
Attention T. ToIlette
File No., 11-50-005
7.9-8.6
District 11
From , DEPARTMENT OF TltANSPORTATJON
Subjed, Focused EIR for the
Rohr Office Complex - SCH
Caltrans Oistrict 11 comments are as follows:
1.
Locally funded Interstate Route 5 interchange improvements _
Our contact person for the initiation of feasibility studies
is Mike McManus, Chief, Local Funded Projects Branch, (619)
688-3392 .
Bl
2. Visual Quality - The extent of the visual impacts at Inter-
state 5 could not be determined. Our agency encourages
project sponsors to landscape highway rights-of-way when the
project-specific or cumulative visual impacts at those
highways are significant. Our contact person is Larry
Fagot, Landscape Architecture Branch, (619) 688-6092.
3. Encroachment permits are required for work within the
rights-of-way for Interstate and state highways. Early
coordination with our agency is strongly recommended for all
encroachment permit applications.
Tc.L-L-- :-
S T. CHESHIRE, Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
MO:ec
I t:t-5~
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent B - State of California De-partment of TraIl'ij)ortation. District 11
B 1 Caltrans District 11 comments are noted; these comments identify Caltrans contact
persons for (1) locally funded 1-5 interstate improvements, (2) highway rights-of-way
landscaping, and (3) encroachment permits.
90-14 01/25/91
State of California
Comment C
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CAUFORNIA
Memorandum
Ms. Maryann Miller
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
fl~~
~,' \
Dr. Gordon F. Snow /'."'.c Qat.., '
Assistant Secretary for Resour,:i:s '. \:::-\
I -i Subject,
~ ....0 b
~., · 2: /.~t/
,? . ,.-\~:.>,.
, I I .. ~ ~ \ .......
Department of Conservation-Office of the Director ~~
December 5, 1990
To
Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the
Rohr Office Complex,
SCH# 90010623
From
Cl
The Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology
(DMG) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the Rohr Office Complex for the City of Chula Vista. This
Draft EIR analyzes the environmental impacts that will result
from the construction of an office complex on an 11.6-acre site.
The proposed development will construct approximately 245,000
square feet of office floor space and adjoining parking
facilities. The following report was reviewed by DMG:
o Draft Rohr Office Complex Environmental Impact Report, EIR#
90-10, SCH# 90010623, prepared for the City of Chula Vista,
prepared by Keller Environmental Associates, Inc., November
1990.
Our review of this report indicates that sufficient data are not
presented to properly review 'the site for earthquake stability.
We offer the following specific comments:
1. The Draft EIR does not provide any data on the potential
seismic or geologic hazards at the project site. The Draft
EIR indicates that the Initial Study by the City of Chula
Vista found that no geologic hazards would affect the
project site. However, as we indicated in our July 17, 1990
letter in response to the project's Notice of Preparation,
the project site may have potential seismic, liquefaction
and tsunami hazards. Although a preliminary geotechnical
investigation was performed for the project, the Draft EIR
does not provide data on the seismic setting of the project
site nor on the potential for liquefaction. These geOlogic
hazards may have a significant impact on the proposed
development. The potential significance of these hazards is
discussed in the items below. The Final EIR should address
these issues and propose mitigation measures, if necessary.
Technical data to support the conclusions should be appended
to the Final EIR.
2. The project site is located approximately 1-1/4 miles east
of a system of faults that may be a southern extension of
the Rose canyon Fault (Treiman, 1984). Although there has
been uncertainty in the past regarding the activity of the
Rose Canyon fault, recent trenching of the fault in the San
Diego area by Thomas Rockwell of San Diego State
,t:}...S'l
Dr. Snow/Ms. Miller
December 4, 1990
Page Two
University's Geology Department has provided evidence of
Holocene activity. In addition, recently released mapping
of offshore geology by DMG shows the Rose Canyon fault
offsetting Holocene sediments (Greene and Kennedy, 1987).
Thus, a seismic event on the Rose Canyon fault appears to
have a high probability of impacting the San Diego area.
Recent evaluations of the maximum credible earthquake (MCE)
magnitude indicates that the Rose Canyon Fault has an MCE of
magnitude 7 (Anderson, et al, 1989). A maximum probable
earthquake (MPE) of at least a magnitude 6.3 for the Rose
Canyon fault would be consistent with the recent data.
Based on seismic predictive equations (Joyner and Boore,
1988), the project site can expect peak ground accelerations
of approximately 0.40g and O.53g from an MPE and MCE event,
respectively, on a nearby segment of the Rose Canyon Fault.
The project site lies within Zone 3 of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC), which has a seismic zone factor of 0.3,
representing an effective peak acceleration of O.30g (Table
No. 23-I, UBC, 1988). Thus the level of ground motion
expected at the project site may-exceed the design standards
of the UBC for the San Diego area. Therefore, the Final EIR
should address the seismic setting of the project site and
provide mitigation measures, if necessary.
3. The project site is underlain by soils of the Bay Point
Formation and lies adjacent to a marsh. Portions of the Bay
Point Formation are considered to have a moderate potential
for liquefaction (Gray, et al, 1977). The Draft EIR
indicates that the depth to ground water varies from 5 to 16
feet below the existing site grade. Although the Draft EIR
indicates that a preliminary geotechnical investigation was
performed. for the project, no data are provided to
demonstrate that the potential for liquefaction on the
project site does not exist, or even that it has been
evaluated. Since liquefaction would have a significant
impact on the project, the Final EIR should provide data to
demonstrate the lack of liquefaction potential on the
project site, or provide methods to mitigate the hazard.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Roger Martin, Division of Mines and Geology Environmental
Review Project Manager, at (916) 322-2562.
VJ~ J- 0611f:::t
Dennis J. O'Bryant
Environmental Program Coordinator
Dr. Snow/Ms. Miller
December 5, 1990
Page Three
DJO:RC:skk
cc: Roger-Martin, Division of Mines and Geology
Kit Custis, Division of Mines and Geology
References:
Anderson, J.G., Rockwell, T.K., and Agnew, C., 1989, Past and
Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego
Region, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 5, no. 2, pgs. 299-335.
Gray, C.H., and other, 1977, studies on Surface Faulting and
Liquefaction as Potential Earthquake Hazards in Urban San Diego,
California, DMG Final Technical Report, U.S.G.S. Contract No. 14-
08-001-15858.
Greene, H.G. and Kennedy, M.P., 1987, Geology of the Inner-
Southern California Continental Margin, DMG California
Continental Margin Geologic Map Series, Area 1 of 7, scale
1:250,000.
Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M~, 1988, Measurement, Characterization
and Prediction of Strong Ground Motion, in Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics II-Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation,
ASCE Geotechnical Special PUblication No. 20, edited by J.L. Von
Thun, pgs. 43-102.
Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and
Analysis, DMG Technical PUblication, EMF-83-K-Ol48, pgs. 80.
/9-5'
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
State of California. Department of Conservation - Office of the Director
C1 Comment acknowledged
The following is provided as a summary of geologic conditions for the project site.
GEOLOGY
Existing Conditions
The present-day configuration of the southern California coastline can be said to
have had its early beginnings during Cretaceous time (120 to 85 million years ago).
At that time, the southern California Batholiths intruded into existing Triassic and
Jurassic-age strata, causing uplift to the east, and subsidence to the west where the
deposition of marine sediments has continued through the last 60 to 80 million years.
The project site lies within the San Diego Embayment Graben, a structural block
down-dropped between the La Nacion fault zone (two to three miles east of the site),
and the "San Diego Bay faults" (one to two miles west of the site). The San Diego
Bay faults are generally believed to be a southerly extension of the Rose Canyon
fault zone, described below under "Seismicity and Geologic Hazards." The formation
of the San Diego Bay is directly related to the downward displacement of the San
Diego Embayment Graben.
Seismicity and Geologic Hazards
The major San Diego and southern California fault systems form a
northwest-southeast trending regional structural fabric, generally parallel to the San
Andreas fault zone, which extends over land from the Gulf of California to the
Bodega Basin north of San Francisco Bay. Structural geologists relate movement
along the San Andreas and associated fault zones (at least for the past five million
years), to movement along the boundary between the North American and Pacific
tectonic plates. As a result, the southern California region is subject to significant
hazards from moderate to large earthquakes. Ground shaking is a hazard
everywhere in California. Fault displacement of the ground is a potential hazard at,
and near, faults. Tsunamis, earthquake-induced flooding, and liquefaction are all
potential hazards in the San Diego Bay area.
The fault zones nearest the site which are mapped as "active" are the Coronado
Banks and the Elsinore fault zones. The nearest fault zone currently classified as
potentially active is the Rose Canyon fault zone. The California Division of Mines
and Geology is currently considering certain segments of this fault zone as active,
although this information has not yet been published by the State.
90-14 01/25/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The coastal zone of San Diego, including the areas along the periphery of San Diego
Bay, is currently assigned to DBC Seismic Zone 3. Based on recent information
from the Structural Engineers Association of San Diego, strong consideration is being
given to changing coastal San Diego from Zone 3 to Zone 4.
Coronado Banks Fault Zone
The Coronado Banks fault zone is located offshore from San Diego, approximately
10 miles southwest of the project site area. It appears to be part of a discontinuous
zone of faulting which includes the Palos Verdes fault near Los Angeles, and which
extends southeastward beyond the Mexican border (Greene et al. 1979; Legg and
Kennedy 1979). The total length of this fault zone is estimated to be approximately
130 miles and it is likely to be a strike-slip fault. Because of its mapped geologic
displacements, one-half of total fault zone length was used as the length of surface
rupture in order to estimate a maximum credible earthquake of surface wave
magnitude (Ms) 7. Offshore from San Diego, the Coronado Banks fault zone is near
an area where the epicenters of numerous local magnitude (Md microearthquakes
(ML 2.0 to 3.4) have been plotted. The Coronado Banks fault zone may be
associated with an Ms 6-1/4 earthquake during a typical 100-year period.
Elsinore Fault Zone
The Elsinore/Laguna Salada fault zone (approximately 40 miles northeast of the
project site area) is the nearest likely onshore source of a large earthquake. This
fault zone is generally characterized by strike-slip displacement. The total length of
the fault zone is approximately 255 miles; however, geologic displacements are
relatively discontinuous and sinuous compared to those of the other major active
faults. Therefore, it appears likely that the Elsinore fault zone would rupture in
shorter segments (as a proportion of total length) than the other major active faults
in the region. The general tectonic environment and expression of geologic
displacements along the Elsinore fault zone suggest that it may be subject to a
maximum credible earthquake of Ms 7-1/2, which would be associated with a length
of surface rupture of approximately 80 miles. The epicenters of numerous small
earthquakes of ML 3.0 to Ms 5.0 are located near the fault, suggesting that an Ms 7
earthquake is likely to occur on the Elsinore fault zone during a typical 100-year
period.
Rose Canyon Fault Zone
The most significant fault zone near the project site area is the Rose Canyon fault
zone, which is currently classified as potentially active. This fault zone has been
generally considered to exhibit no geologic displacement in the last 11,000 years
(Ziony 1973); however, some small earthquakes and microearthquakes have
epicenters on or near traces of the San Diego Bay faults (Hileman 1979; Simons
90-14 01/25/91
,q-ft,C
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
1979). A series of these earthquakes occurred in 1985 and 1986. Moreover,
evidence of displacement on the fault during the last 11,000 years has been
reportedly discovered (Abbott 1989) near downtown San Diego, and at a site in Rose
Canyon. Consequently, it may be advisable to consider the hypothetical earthquake
hazard from the Rose Canyon fault zone. It appears reasonable to conclude that an
Ms 6-1/4 earthquake could occur during a typical100-year period.
Seismic Hazards
Ground shaking likely to occur during the anticipated life of the development would
affect uses on the site. Bay muds tend to magnify the effects of ground shaking by
amplifying the intensity of movement caused by earthquakes. Ground surface
accelerations and site period (the frequency of oscillation) would be likely to vary
somewhat across the site.
Liquefaction is a potential hazard in all areas underlain by water-saturated sandy
soils. Within the site vicinity, portions of the fluvial (Qal) deposits encountered in
the low-lying areas are considered moderately susceptible to liquefaction.
. Additionally, relatively clean sands were encountered within the formational soils at
depths of 11 to 26 feet below existing ground grade. Although considered relatively
dense in nature, these clean sands may be susceptible to liquefaction during severe
ground shaking.
Tsunamis and earthquake-induced flooding are also potential hazards within the San
Diego Bay, and a sufficient length of water surface exists within the bay to cause
earthquake-induced flooding within low-lying areas.
Seismic hazards are potentially significant. However, standard required design
criteria and conventional engineering techniques can be implemented to reduce the
risk. Some risk would always remain due to the uncertainty of future seismic events.
Site-Specific Investigations
Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCe) has prepared two geotechnical reports
pertinent to the subject site: a preliminary geotechnical investigation dated May 13,
1988, and a more recent update geotechnical investigation, released July 24, 1990,
and revised September 7, 1990. These reports address potential constraints due to
seismic and liquefaction hazard. Refer to these reports for additional details on
these geologic hazards, and recommendations for mitigation. Any specific design
details intended to mitigate potential geologic hazards would be incorporated into
the grading plan, as specified by mitigation measures contained in Section 3.1.
90-14 01/25/91
Comment D
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sweetwater Harsh National Wildlife Refuge
P.O. Box 335
Imperial Beach, CA 92032
Dec 6, 1990
city of Chula Vista
Engineering Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE:
Gentlemen:
LETTER
MARSH
LAGOON
OF PERMISSION TO GRADE AND PLANT WITHIN
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN CONJUNCTION
DRIVE, ROHR INDUSTRIES OFFICE COMPLEX.
SWEETWATER
WITH 850
The property identified by the Assessors Parcel Number 567-010-27
~ies within the Sweetwater Harsh National Wildlife Refuge.
We have reviewed The Grading and Planting Proposal as shown on
City of Chula Vista Drawing Numbers 90-991 and 90-1102. Because
this effort is viewed as habitat enhancement, consistent with
1)1 Refuge objectives, we hereby grant permission to grade and plant
on our property (t 200 Square feet area) as shown thereon. As
agreed, all revegetation actions will involve coastal sage scrub
species only. Planting maintenance must comply with provisions
as outlined in the appended Landscape Specifications, sheet 10;'
By:
By:
Title:
Date:
Marc Weitzel
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sweetwater Harsh National Wildlife Refuge
'\~~ \\~ \J~
Refuqe ManaQer
(\ {, ~,.,\~~.~
\.
cc: Kelly L. Birkes, Rick Engineering
,fi-/'/
..
PLANTING
~
THE PLANTING PLAN IS DIAGRAMMATIC, ALL PLANT MATERIAL lOCATIONS SHOWN
ARE APPROXIMATE. PLANT SYMBOLS AND/OR .ON CENTER" SPACINGS TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT QUANTITIES LISTED. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE
PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE ONLY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE
CONTRACTOR. .
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
REMOVE ALL DEBRIS AND ROCKS IN ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS. FINISH PLANTING
SURFACE SHAll BE SMOOTH AND EVEN.
WEEDS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THEIR ROOTS, INCLUDINS BERMUDA GRASS.
WEEDS SHAll BE REMOVED FROM All PLANTING AREAS. WHEN NECESSARY TO ,
DISCOURAGE REGROWTH, THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD APPLY A SUITABLE'
HERBICIDE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. (ROUNDUP ,,'
HERBICIDE BY MONSANTO OR EQUAl.)
REMOVE ALL GRUBBED MATERIAL FROM THE SITE.
DELIVERY AND STORAGE
.
WHEN SOil AMENDMENTS ARE NOT INCORPORATED INTO TOPSOil PRIOR TO
DELIVERY, SOIL AMENDMENTS SHAll BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE IN THE ORIGINAL
UNOPENED CONTAINERS BEARING THE MANUFAcTURER'S GUARANTEED
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, NAME, ~TRADE MARK OR TRADE, NAME AND STATEMENT
INDICATING CONFORMANcE.fO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. IN LIEU OF
'CONTAINERS, SOIL AMENDMENTS MAY BE FURNISHED IN BULK AND A
CERTIFICATE INDICATING THE ABOVE INFORMATION SHALL ACCOMPANY EACH
'DELIVERY. .
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO "
CERTIFY ALL UNOPENED FERTILIZER PACKAGES ON SITE AND PACKAGES SHALL
NOT BE REMOVED FROM SITE UNTIL AFTER INCORPORATION INTO SOIL AS PER
SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDED HEREIN AND ONLY WHEN DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE.
STORE SOIL AMENDMENTS IN A DRY PLACE AWAY fROM CONTAMINANTS.
SOIL TESTING
THE FOLLOWING SOILS TESTING LAB WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE fERTILITY OF
THE SITE SOIL AND MAY BE USED TO DETERMINE THE FERTILITY OF THE TOPSOIL:
SOIL & PLANT LA80RATORY, INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 6566
n0l\t'~r,r r..... 0'1/,1'1 /(/-1,
SOIL Atv\EW 1ENTS
. AlLFiIT"5l0P.ES 3:1 OR STEEPER SHAll HAVE A MINIMUM OF ONE CUBIC YARD
P~NE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF ORGANIC SOIL AMENDMENT
INCOf~PORAT!=DIN TO THE TOP 3'AND COMFACT~D PRIOR TO PLANTING OR
SEEDING.
HYDROSEEDING MATERIALS
All HYORGSEE9-APflLlGATIONS SHALL INCLUDE FIBER MULCH WHICH HAS BEEN
DYED GREEN. THE FIBER MULCH SHALL BE WOOD CELLULOSE WITH NO
INHIBITORS TO GERMINATION OR GROWTH, AND IT SHALL BE A HOMOGENEOUS
UNIF8RMLY SUSPENDED SLURRY WHICH WILL ALLOW THE ABSORPTION OF
MOISTURE AND PERCOLATION OF WATER INTO THE UNDERLYING SOIL. FIBER
SHALL BE NONTOXIC TO WILDLIFE.
WHEN A WETTING AGENT IS CALLED FOR, IT SHALL BE 95% ALKYL POL YETHELENE
GLYCOL EITHER OR EQUAL, APPLIED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.
SEED SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE IN SEALED CONTAINERS, LABELED BY
GENUS AND SPECIE. CONTAINERS SHAll NOT BE REMOVED FROM SITE UNTil
DIRECTED BY OWNER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. MIX. SHALL CONFORM TO
SPECIFICATION FOR PURE LIVE SEED; BULK POUNDAGES LISTED FOR THE
CONVENiENCE OF THe CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH
SEED SUPPLIER FOR PRE-SOAKING INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEED WHIGH ARE
DIFFICULT TO GERMINATE AND SHALL ALSO PROVIDE SCARIFIED OR INOCULATED
SEED WHEN SPECIFIED. INOCULATED SEED MUST BE DRY BROADCAST.
HYDROSEEDING PROCEDURES
PRIOR TO SEEDING, THOROUGHLY MOISTEN THE ENTIRE SURFACE TO BE
SPRAYED. .
PREPARATION OF THE SEED SLURRY SHALL TAKE PLACE ON SITE. FIBER MULCH
SHALL BE PREPARED FIRST AND SEED SHALL BE ADDED lAST. THE SEED SHALL NOT
BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN THE MIXING TANK LONGER THAN THIRTY MINUTES.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN
ADVANCE OF SPRAY SO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY ATTEND SPRAYING AND
SLURRY SAtv\PLES MAY BE TAKEN FROM THE TANK.
f--l c.~ L Y 5SE-DCD SUK'F~ $.t...1-L BE- kEPT
HOIST CONTI~WoW?LY -n-+~L-1C:::fHoI.Jr ntE-
GfERH I N6--T k:?~ .pER-IOD.
CONi J2..-b,.. c....-rv f<:-, L-1o....! LE:-SS OTt-lE f2.J---lIS E:. D I REc.TE-D
)
S>-t.6..W- r<:SSPRb.'l Atu, ~ ACEAS WIT+-1 I t-4 20 DA;Y5
STABILIZING EMULSION SHALL BE A NONFLAMMABLE,NONT()XIC,
CONCENl:RATED LIQUID CHEMiCAl WHICH FORMS A PLASTIC FILM AND ALLOW$
. NR AND WATER TO PENETRATE. THE EMULSION SHALL BE ~EGISTER.EDWITH HiE.,
DEPARTME!'IT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE OF CALlFORNIAAS AN
-AUXILIARY SOIL CHEMICAl.- STABILIZING EMULSION SHALL BE MISCIBLE WITH'
. WATER DURING APPLICATION, AND ONCE CURED, SHALL No'T' BE:
~~~~~ '
rlYDROSEED NATIVE MIXE~
MIX A: UPLAND COASTAL SCRUB MIX
LBS/ AC ' SPECIES PURITY % GERMINATION %
2 ARTEMISIA CALIFORNIA 50 60
112 ATRIPLEX LENTIFORMIS 90 70
2 COF4::.0f"::;;>1? ",5 SO
MA.RI T I MA
10
. ERIOGONUM FASICULATUM
10
65
2
LA?TMENIA
. CfI-ABRA TA
LOTUS SCOPARIUS
90
85
5
4CJ
60
2
MIMULUS PUNICEUS
2
55
30
PLANTAGO INSULARIS
95
75
4
STIPA LEPIDA
40
30
60.5 LB/AC
MIX B: AI" i- 0 h Retu-J'<' (".4 (.e,. fr
.
TEMPORARY
HYDROSEED
MIX
LBS/AC SPECIES
PURITY %
GERMiNATION %
60 PLANTAGO INSULARIS
98
40
:::KJ YL-~9IN~UWJS. 95
4 STWA LEPIDA 40
. .6Q..5 LBIAC
MlXB: ;VLljL 01'>. Re.{uJ<' fr-4re~f.,
TEMPORARY HYDROSEED MIX
LBS/AC SPECIES PURITY %
60 PLANTAGO INSULARIS 98
HYDROSEED SLURRY MIX:
WOOD CEllULOSE FIBER
20-20-20 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER
BINDER
2000 POUNDS / AC
400 POUNDS/AC
160 POUNDS/AC
1'-~3
75
30
GERMINATION %
40
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment D - United States Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dl The comment and the requirements contained in Mr. Weitzel's letter are noted, and
will he compiled within the project design.
90-14 01/25/91
Comment E
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FIFTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92011
(619) 691-5553
RECE\'JED
OE.C \ 9 \99]
PLANNING
l
J
1
\
"
PI.ANNING DEPARTMENT
December 14, 1990
Ms. Mary Ann Miller
Environmental Review
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92011
Dear Ms. Miller:
Coordinator
Re: EIR-90-l0/Rohr Office Complex
On June 21, 1990, I responded to a Notice of Preparation of an'
Environmental Impact Report for the above subject project
(attached). The district's position has not changed. I am
El requesting that any approval of this project be conditioned on its
successful annexation to our. district's Community Facilities
District No.5, providing that Government Code Section 65995 and
65996 are applicable.
Should you have any questions, feel free to give me a call at 691-
5553.
Res/jCtfUllY,
1f//lfV~K-
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sf
cc: Kate Shurson
I '7-~~
EXHIBIT B
REVISED 2/13/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment E - Sweetwater Union High School District
E 1 Director Silva's comment requesting annexation to the District's Community Facilities
No. 5 is noted. As stated on page 5-4 of the EIR, "The applicanLis currently in
negotiation with the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing."
The question of whether or not the School Board has the authority to directly levy
a development fee on commercial or industrial projects is not part of the scope of
this EIR. According to Government Code Section 53080.1, the School District
governing board is required to hold public hearings and follow specified procedures
to adopt or increase development fees for commercial or industrial projects. The
imposition of such a fee is a matter for determination between the Applicant and the
School District. In the absence of failure to pay a School District-imposed
development fee, the City's environmental review process cannot stop a project due
to adverse impact. On the basis of the School District's factual assertions regarding
impact, it is concluded that this project creates impacts which are less than significant
and/or wholly mitigated by payment of the statutory fee for non-residential
development.
/t!-i:lS
90-14 02/13/91
BOARD DF EDUCATlON
OSEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D.
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A. JUDD
JUDY SCHULENBERG
FRANK A. TARANTINO
SUPERINTENDENT
JOHN F. VUGRIN. Ph.D.
Comment--.E
CHULA "" ITA ELEMENTARY SCHf )L DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 . 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
RECEIVED
DEe I 0 /990
December 4, 1990
PLANNING
Ms. Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Notice of Planning Commission Hearing - Rohr Office
Complex
Dear Ms. Miller:
Fl
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report for the Rohr Offi ce Complex
to hearing before the Planning Commission.
As stated in my October 19, 1990, letter (copy enclosed),
the Screencheck DEIR for. this project did not contain any
discussion relative to impacts on public facilities,
specifically schools. I have not received the DEIR and do
not know if this omission has been corrected, and impacts
properly addressed.
Ora ft
prior
The relationship between nonresidential development and student
enrollment has been clearly documented and this project will
have significant impacts on District facilities. My July
5, 1990, response to the project's Initial Study (copy
enclosed) stated that developer fees are not adequate to
mitigate these impacts, and recommended consideration of
an alternative financing mechanism, such as a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~m st\M-~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS :dp
cc: Tom Meade
Tom Silva
John Linn
19-111,
BOARD OF EDUCATION
JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, Ph.D.
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A. JUDD
JUDY SCHULENBERG
FRANK A. TARANTINO
SUPERINTENDENT
JOHN F. VUGRWoI, Ph.D.
CHULA y ISTA CITY SCHOOL .tlISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
October 19, 1990
~ rn ~ @ O\Yl~ ~
OCT 2. 2. SI)
l/
Ms. Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
City of Chu1a Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, CA 92010
RE: Screencheck Draft EIR - Rohr Office Complex
EIR-90-].4
Dear Ms. Miller:
I am in receipt of the Screencheck DEIR for the Rohr Office Complex
and your request for comments. The document, dated October 8, 1990,
was received in my office on October 17, with comments requested by
the 19th. Unfortuna te 1y thi s does not permi t adequate time to revi ew
the document.
It has not been the District's practice to comment on Screencheck
documents; rather, we provide initial input at the time the Notice
of Preparation or Initial Study is circulated. I refer you to that
letter (copy enclosed) for issues we request be addressed in the DEIR.
A bri ef revi ew of the document's Table of Contents revea 1s that the
impact analysis does not contain any discussion relative to impacts
on public facilities, specifically schools. Without a thorough analysis
of these impacts and inclusion of appropriate mitigation measures,
this document is inadequate.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~\L. S, "-u..s. G\"
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Tom Silva
Ian Gill
.
BOAnD OF EDUcA lION
JOsEPH D. CUMMINGS. ",.0.
SilMON Gt ES
PM nICK A. JUIlO
J\JOv SCflllLENBERG
mANKA. TMANrlNO
SUPEnl1l1ENDENT
JOlIN r. VUGnN. Ph.D.
CHULA .HISTA CITY SCHOO' DISTIUCT
~-
B4 EAST "J" STREF:T . CIIULA VISTA. CALlFOIlNIA 920 III . 619 ~25,96(J(J
EACH CIIILIJ IS AN INIJIVIUUAL OF GREAT WORTH
July 5, 1990
Ms. Maryann Hiller
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Rohr Office Complex - Notice of Preparation of an Eln
Case No. EIR-90-1~
Dear Ms. IHPer':
Thank you for the opportunl ty to pr'ovlde Input on the Ill'aft
Environmental Impact Report for the Rohr Office Complex.
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project does uot
identify potential significant impacts on schools. The relationship
between non-residential development and student enrollment has
been clearly recognized by the State Legislature through
authorization of collection of school fees. A Joint study sponsored
by five South Bay schoo.l distrIcts, prepared earlier' this yeai'
by SourcePoint. further documents and demonstrates this
relationship. Based on this study, the proposed 211,500 sr]uare
feet of office space will generate approximately 162 new elementary
age children.
Per student facility costs to the District are estimated at $8,81~.
or tl,~27 .868 for this pl'oject. These costs far exceed develop!'I'
fees currently allowed undel' State law, Chula Vista CI ty School
Ilistrlct's share of these fees Is $ .12 per sr]uare foot, 01' $25,380,
far short of what is needed to provide facilities.
The District recommends alternative financing mechanisms Including
formation of or annexation to a I.le11 o-Roos ConmlUnlty Facilities
DistrIct and would be happy to discuss this furthet'.
If you have any questions, please contact my office.
Sincerely,
U'L~'-U-~~
Kate Shurson
DIrector of Planning
KS:dp
cc : Tom S il va
Terri Senner
Jq-G,?-
-:l
"'--~--
REVISED 2/13/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment F - Chula Vista Elementary School District
Fl Director Shurson's comments regarding impacts to schools and recommendation of
an alternative financing mechanism are noted. Please see pages 5-3 through 5-4 of
the EIR, and Appendix A for discussion of impacts, and inclusion of her letters,
respectively. As stated above in Response El, the applicant is currently in
negotiation with the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing.
The question of whether or not the School Board has the authority to directly levy
a development fee on commercial or industrial projects is not part of the scope of
this EIR. According to Government Code Section 53080.1, the School District
governing board is required to hold public hearings and follow specified procedures
to adopt or increase development fees for commercial or industrial projects. The
imposition of such a fee is a matter for determination between the Applicant and the
School District. In the absence of failure to pay a School District-imposed
development fee, the City's environmental review process cannot stop a project due
to adverse impact. On the basis of the School District's factual assertions regarding
impact, it is concluded that this project creates impacts which are less than significant
and/or wholly mitigated by payment of the statutory fee for non-residential
development.
90-/4 02/13/91
[?@cVD=O(ff}OO@L?
carbonless
(, (' C\ n ~
..._' f) -' . . .;...
TRIP
; TO
i ~tJ\o.( y 0.. II ^ ('J\ : '\ \.e-r ! V\OvV\~ rJiI F
;\111\ ~ R.CJ(f' I . T)~l/O~ ~e~ ~
J .' . . C;/:( ~:~ . M
: 1.1....:..;..:..~; '"""'""~...~...;.._...;,_-.:..;i.j..u.-:.-,;..,~:.:..:....~~,;..::.-",.~.....-.:.,;;:.. ~,.:~~~ ~"-o;....:;i.; _~....;;-,,:,:~.i~:':'~~.-~' ,~..~~J-: '".~", -"~'-::'j..~O;'i.-.:.-(~~~~";:.L~'"'~;i;j;.:.\;;"....:../...~~...-.;,../ r..:.:~':~':~:~":':.. 1
:! ,UBJECT ~~ F-IC~ GoMf'L g."IiZ - z..('\~ o-II<...J
i
i MESSAGE
~/"I;r M, /V'.J,ev: 17
4~:'j
'i~_of
. ~
.;
,
Ik ~~;"J D:v:~:,"", \v.... 0B../.'P~ -\-L ~-L:-,~ cL>rJ"
C- c'\ ~ S,-"I.:.yc,i- ~-t . cn.s -h~ <\ --\L, ~"';;. ~~ f:..
w-E'_ .s~lV\'.,*eJ <AI ~-\C.- ~ -v:rs T cO,..tLc::.-k. ......l.~ ~cJreA _0 J
(2. c,,^,I;) . Ple~ ,dd rUJ,4 ",JQ ~ ~~ (',,:') ( +c
~ <,\.d ~rh. S~M~W,,--Q - -\~~ (f-<'--
SIGNED. . /J ' yv1 ,.N 0,_ r '.
. ....... -_.' ~"""'''':''-'-'' --"_..,~.__._......:.,,,.,--_::::::::'!~~~:::~~ .._'., ..~-
REPL V
SIGNED
.. LCJ .-:/.,...9.
DATE
/
/
~'-"I V 0.'1.;: rn -: ~7~" ,~P..{;"!
Comment G
~rn@rnDW!rnm.
OCT 3 0 1900 U
l/'
MEMORANDUM
October 26, 1990
File No. YE-042
TO: Maryann Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator
FROM: Clifford L. swans~eputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Engineering Review of EIR 90-10, Rohr Office Complex
The Engineering Division has reviewed the subject Environmental Impact Report and
hereby submits the following comments:
Gl
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
6.
1.
The subject EIR is incomplete. Many sections, most notably the ''Traffic
Impact Report," are missing. The Engineering Division considers this review
of the EIR incomplete and will provide a final review upon submittal of a
complete EIR.
2.
Page 2-4. Reference was made to Figure 2-3; however the figure is missing.
3.
It seems that this project will create significant changes to existing traffic
patterns, especially in the section of Bay Boulevard between "E" and "F"
Streets and at the intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street. The existing
ADT 4160 on "F" Street will be increased by 2450 to 6110 ADT.
4.
The developer will be responsible for the upgrading of "F' Street (from Bay
Boulevard to their westerly property line) to a Class I Collector as designated
on the General Plan and for dedicating the necessary right-of-way along "F"
Street. The required improvements to "F" Street shall include but not be
limited. to the installation of pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street
lights,...etc.
5.
A "Traffic Impact Report" is being prepared as part of this EIR. Bay
Boulevard between "E" and "F' Streets will probably need to be widened to
handle the increased traffic volume generated by this project. This
requirement will be contingent upon the conclusions of the "Traffic Impact
Report" after that report has been reviewed and accepted by the City.
A detailed grading and drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with
the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances,
policies, and adopted standards. Said plan must be approved and a permit
issued by the Engineering Division prior to the start of any grading work
and/or installation of any drainage structures.
I ,- Tl>
Maryann Miller
G7 7.
G8 8.
G9 9.
SMN/bb
[SMNIIROHR.DOC]
-2-
October 26, 1990
The following paragraph must be added under the "Mitigation Measures"
section on page 3-5:
"Development of the subject project must comply
with all applicable regulations established by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as set
forth in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements
for storm water discharge. "
The draft ErR did not go into detail about extension of existing sewer mains
to service this project. The nearest sewer line is in Bay Boulevard south of
"F" Street and is over 1100 feet away from the proposed office building. The
developer would need permission from the City of San Diego Metropolitan
Sewerage System if a direct connection to the existing 78" RCP Metro sewer
line is proposed.
The proposed building falls within an inundation zone due to tidal waves. The
lowest finished floor elevation of the building must comply with the standards
established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
EXHIBIT C
I
REVISED 2/13/91
----
---.--
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment G - Memorandu
Engineer
Ci of Chula Vist De u Public Works Director Ci
Mr. Nuhaily's request for addressal of all of their comments was completed as part of the ElR.
Locations where specific information is found in the ElR, or further information is included below.
G I The Traffic Circulation/Parking impact analysis is found in Section 3.4 of the ElR, and the
full report, prepared by JHK Associates (1990), is found in Appendix D.
G2 Mr. Nuhaily confirmed addressal of this comment.
G3 As shown on Table 3-4 of the ErR, the existing ADT on "F" Street will be increased to
approximately 5100 ADT between Tidelands Avenue and Bay Boulevard, and to 5900
between Bay Boulevard and Woodlawn Avenue. It is important to recognize that the traffic
volume increases were based on a trip rate of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet as
recommended in the San Diego Traffic Generators Manual, September 1989, produced by
SANDAG. This trip rate of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet is for a large commercial office
complex in excess of 100,000 square feet. At this rate the project was projected to generate
approximately 4,165 daily trips.
After the public review period for the draft ElR, the City Traffic Engineer recommended
that a trip rate for a corporate office complex with a single user be applied to this project
rather than the large commercial office rate used in the draft ElR. This corporate office
rate as recommended by SANDAG is 10 trips per 1,000 square feet. Under this scenario
approximately 2,450 trips would be generated by this site rather than the 4,165 daily trips
. which were analyzed in the draft ElR. This lower trip rate represents a reduction of
approximately 41 %. This trip reduction will reduce the amount of impact that this project \
has within the study area, because both study area segments and intersections will
experience a decrease in amount of project-generated traffic than what was originally
~,Im""" Th" d=~~ h~~~, w;1I '"' ,h"ge 'he ro,d,,"" of <h, ",m, ""ly,I.,
rather, it will change the percentage contribution the project would have on impacted
intersections and segments. JHK & Associates, the traffic consultant, will develop an
addendum to the original traffic analysis report to document the new reduced impacts which
will result from the trip distribution rate of 10 trips per 1000 square feet. This information
will be forwarded to the City of Chula Vista upon its completion for their use in the
adoption of a developer agreement.
G4 Page 2-2 of the ErR states that "as part of the project, the south half of this ["F"] Street
should be improved to Class 1 Collector Road standards (74 feet of pavement in a 94-foot
right-of-way, 2 lanes in each direction with a la-foot center turn lane, 8 feet of parking
adjacent to the curbs, and an 8-foot landscaped buffer easement at each side). The
improvement would involve installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, a bike lane, street lights
and landscaping. The bike lane would require an additional five feet of pavement within
this ROW on the south side."
G5 These comments are noted. No additional response is necessary as the widening discussion
is included in both the ErR (pgs 3-59, 3-(0), and in the Traffic Report, Appendix D.
G6 This measure is included on page 3-5 of the ElR, in response to this comment.
90-14 02/13/91
I Cj- ':f-I
.
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment G - Memorandum City of Chula Vista. Deputy Public Works Director/City
En~neer
Mr. Nuhaily's request for addressal of all of their comments was completed as part of the
EIR. Locations where specific information is found in the EIR, or further information is
included below.
G 1 The Traffic Circulation/Parking impact analysis is found in Section 3.4 of the EIR,
and the full report, prepared by JRK Associates (1990), is found in Appendix D.
G2 Mr. Nuhaily confirmed addressal of this comment.
G3 As shown on Table 3-4 of the EIR, the existing ADT on "F' Street will be increased
to approximately 5100 ADT between Tidelands Avenue and Bay Boulevard, and to
5900 between Bay Boulevard and Woodlawn Avenue.
G4 Page 2-2 of the EIR states that "as part of the project, the south half of this ["F"]
Street should be improved to Class 1 Collector Road standards (74 feet of pavement
in a 94-foot right-of-way, 2 lanes in each direction with a to-foot center turn lane, 8
feet of parking adjacent to the curbs, and an 8-foot landscaped buffer easement at
each side). The improvement would involve installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
a bike lane, street lights and landscaping. The bike lane would require an additional
five feet of pavement within this ROW on the south side."
G5 These comments are noted. No additional response is necessary as the widening
discussion is included in both the EIR (pgs 3-59, 3-60), and in the Traffic Report,
Appendix D.
G6 This measure is included on page 3-5 of the EIR, in response to this comment.
90-14 02/01/91
I ~- T iA
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
07 Mr. Nul1aily confirmed addressal of this comment.
08 Please see pages 5-2, 5-3 of the EIR. Also, the latter part of the comment has been added
to page 5-3, in response to this comment.
09 A tidal wave (tsunami) is generally considered to describe a destructive wave generated by
submarine earthquakes. A damaging tsunami has never been recorded along the coast of
San Diego County.
We are not familiar with an established "inundation zone due to tidal waves". However, as
noted in the Response (Cl) to Dennis J. O'Bryant (CDMG), tsunamis are potential hazards
within the San Diego Bay.
We assume the intent of the comment refers to inundation due to flooding, as defined by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Our review of the appropriate
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that the project site is located in an area
assigned a Zone "C" designation. Zone "C" refers to "Areas of Minimal Flooding". The
applicant will be required to comply with all standards established by the FEMA which are
found to be applicable.
90-14 0]/13/91
I
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
G7 Mr. Nuhaily confirmed addressal of this comment.
G8 Please see pages 5-2, 5-3 of the EIR. Also, the latter part of the comment has been added
to page 5-3, in response to this comment.
G9 A tidal wave (tsunami) is generally considered to describe a destructive wave generated by
submarine earthquakes. A damaging tsunami has never been recorded along the coast of
San Diego County.
We are not familiar with an established "inundation zone due to tidal waves". However, as
noted in the Response (Cl) to Dennis J. O'Bryant (CDMG), tsunamis are potential hazards
within the San Diego Bay.
We assume the intent of the comment refers to inundation due to flooding, as defined by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Our review of the appropriate
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that the project site is located in an area
assigned a Zone "C" designation. Zone "C" refers to "Areas of Minimal Flooding". The
applicant will be required to comply with all standards established by the FEMA which are
found to be applicable.
~I4 02/13/91
/q ,73
Comment H
December 12, 1990
TO:
Marianne Miller, Environmental Section Planning
Department /J
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreatio~
k fYY::. . 1 .
Shauna Sto es, Pr~nc~pa Management Ass~stant
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Draft EIR for Rohr Office Complex Expansion
HI
We have reviewed this document and appreciate the inclusion of our
concerns from the check print draft EIR. The concerns of this
Department have been met.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document.
Ics
RECEIVED
DEe I 7 1990
PLANNING !
/'1- ~tf
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent H - Memorandum. City of Chula Vista. Director of Parks and Recreation
HI Ms. Stokes comment is noted.
90-14 01/25/91
, " T"
;1:_~JIlJI
Comment.l
I
PLANNING
COMMENTS RELATING TO EIR '90-10
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
I1
Why is the building being constructed?
objectives. Are ther~ ot11ers?
provides
Page
4..1
12
h'l1L-::re Ctl"e Lll~ fui...ur~ L':"'::":'Ul)dnt::; CUHll.ng [rom'; .J...~ this a
',~~i)jj:-;[_t.: .i.'~u.l.J.U": uL ~L"iil(;yce::; .::..r:oru Clut.::.ide ,Jrt~d::) or d relocdl.:lCJ!t u,t
~ :.: l. i..w.: ~~. '._i~ J.~ '.: r s !~,' 1. Lh 1. II :..h~;;; (}V(;:: r ,~~ 11 20111: Ch u l.Ll 'v' 1 S ;"'.\ '.; ijI:lJ,) 1 e~'; ;' The
Jr('':::tlt2:::.;t lmpclct Is Section 3.1 r:ircu1ation/~JarJ.:inq. Page .J-1
indic,:ttes a cons()l1.Jation of current employees lIJto one facility.
I3
Summary page 6/10 says 44 foot high building.
paqe ~-1. ~aY3 r!ui..i.d.:.n'j lle1.'Jl"iI.: ;:':'2 ~2 :>::-;:..t.. rd'd'---' _, '.;.~,11'::" ~!(..,t;;
1-'J:01'i..J~t,d '''. ,~tiid iJ!..(Jr'Oseu .jif i-,..10l. ;V'f:icli;' It ,:;ppc.:(!::. rill:' :iLll_)'w't:c1
i.~; 44 feet. The propo:::;ed 1::; 42 ft-'et. Recr.Jmmend
"IJ[lptl~t~" on VdY~ 6/10 to read "42-foot", Ma~e
corr~ctl(lrl Lo [JAye 3-JO.
Paxagraph
~ -,
L . ~
changing
sillillar
14
Fage . - 5.
~truL:tural
deposited?
:jl,H.':':{:: thE.' (ill .,~~it~~ '-;()Ll:;; ?r~? '-1Ut ~.\.,'::::~::.;ptdLle 1..01':
:,;,-;uVJ:.lorL, 'I'IIlere is this "unsuitable ::.loil" ':l01ng Lo be
IS
Frequent reference
clause or is th~re
th(> enVirUlll!tellt.
a pxotective
.i.ntroduced to
to "heavy metals". Is
d chanc~ of 11eavy metals
this
be i I1(,j
P,,,:;e
:3 --I) .
~J1at Is tIle possibility of major
iur t.he structure, oadw~y~, etc LhAt
on Jr~ti116g'.;.~, ed'J.lLOHliIf.:'nt
TIle words "If encountcr~d" bother
subgradi li':f
could !kt\U-j
(1 U,;,: i I]<j
rne.
16
mO(::l.f ~c:.-:-tt 10tlS
;lldjur 1Il~&dCLs
relnova]i'reCOlup~ctjon?
17
paqe 3-;),
.) t,'~1 lId,", i... ;...
?..:: 'j L~
Whci L
.is d
"biulogically
~nuu.::t~:y 'I>} L..
t.rctinf~c1 mCJlJ.j_ i.( r"":" h.l...-'
(.'.'
-{ ~
: J J.":"; '~..i. I.:.J. .:.. i t .i.. ; ".-... ~ --'- 0 n:.:; ;'
; 'i
~! i r ~ ~~ ''': _ ~
'1 ";.1~UlC;',ji.L":l~ly dlifdte" J:JOliltijI. -:' .," ,.i <-:'~.,~. L::I_
"it
18
':":;eJJl-:.r..:il cClllmeuL: Dues Hohr a.srl~e
J!l:~;i..;I..J,->' u ....,j ~_;'1":';":'; ,(ei,,'u....."_:' ....[ rlu':,
to tJ1e nliLiYdtlu;1 l:le~t~Ure~ ~tG
wl1ich ')jle~-:, \~U L.;i~Y ~':(__'ti:c 2_~~~,,~,~'
',;,'.i.
19
. . ,-,
/lP i-"'-~ (1,--,1. c'~
L'.)~ ~;j\-=i\_,,~C:-:_j""ll.ij '~:lF.
, I . ~ ~
.;. "......,. jj'"
( ....c..... :-;.';' 'ji, L.
I10
~"~:1(:l":.~ .~.-.1..I'-:' ..i.'_... ,.._ 'l.r'~..:,! ll::'I::::;;, l"j'..J.~ .:,"'./;..'L'-'u{:" :Lei tJ.'Je. . , . -'t;-'.,....,
;;.I' "'J,1\!.:; ._nr numel.:C:l.lS :SUec1t::':': :nure: ~:.i1:icd.lj.~ '_'__"("_'-1.-,j:_,:.., ,,_ _ ..:
~,,',::tte.r ur shoreline c.tl:'<2a.s of the bay and coasta.l aIea.~-;. It '(~..:t '~'.i
L)d-SIt:' ::::-~'..f LottClrH 1 t states" L.xygell ll='vt-'ls ill ::he w-aler Ct~tn 1.'.' l.
J._'_'JL._':.'(.l ',;l.:tl.. c.d."; ./"~.-,U.:..-c 1.::,. a m,.:t:c.:.::ilVe dlt-'.'-off uf the ::::.i:::;11 :il\J.
.i.n''Jt:';:C-::''t:lj;:atl';'::~;.'' ',l';-lCi~. .L...;' ';o.'l!,~-~l- j;'; li'l~;~"_,,,,,,'(j.
III
~ ,:,\ ':Jt.~
-;,j.
i'ihC:-1 t
"1,:'11
~tJLiU un L:...:;
,J t:: '-:'~...;'.l.; ;'J
1:1 ,_~
,
'...11.
:.J ,:1 . j ~. :.' :"
'~'J'
:2:~ .
'..t:
:"';':,i
, ,
i_ . J ~.:.
(,: f i.."
i_ill ~} j i (:'0
.,;;)t.ll..
"- ' . .:~ . -, ,.,
1;-
I12
"
,
l'_
dIll;
:,1.
,,'-' ~":"_,iJlj.... 1 J
"'"'S"-'
..' -.;
:, i.'/lJ l.
:1,:":
'"'
..l1.._
'"~ J..; '.'
'.l,
_' 1; ~_
J~- r5
~'<"._,",:' .
by' th", pound" for his study.
par'agraphs tl) ctj,scussiorl?
If
insignificant,
why df>vote
When the Report refers to predators they are referring to
sCQveng~rs, cats, dogs, coyotes, ;lnd raptors. Tn discU5sin0 tIle
113 height of the builcling, tlh:Y :-,t;cHi:.:;, lil(lLf: '",'_)i; ~,e(~j ,_,1 ~~;lE: lJ.:-tlance (11
tl.H-:' .raptoy. versus the prey, i';h;;~1 l::j t.he J ;,;.lC:':~'il:~ uE Lilt.... r.apLur
,j':::ti~'r tJle enddJ1SL>leu :_5L->t.'C.iI;';::';?
paye 3-37. Mitiyation measure 110. Appear~ exce~slve to require
HO}lr to lurld the full time ellforcement staff at Lwo lJr more
officers Ulltil lnore develOplnent comes to frultlurl. Wllil~ tJle
i~ea is sound, the respollsiLility should be tunded aDd operated
114 by tlle City. ReverlU~6 Inigl1t tie 0bt~illed through Llle Jeveloper's
fee:;..~, l bt~llt,:'ve t:lh.\t Chula Vl:::;td. 1;:.: J.:c::-;pu!J::5,ible to other
iderltified entitles for execution of current lclw. Don't yet
...:,noti"1er tfmult:i-jurisdictllirlaJ dyenc~I" .,;t.:..r:tt:u 'w'lt.h lL~ aSt:iuciated
DUreaLl(;lacy.
PCl':jt..' ~':-,.i(). i'ritigation ~ne,:L::"ur'~' !l13. I'.\nnll,.=,l. :=u:Jc' ~I) J>:- pdid by
Rollr't ~he owner is respotlsibl~ [or most of t!lese r~COlnluendatlons.
115 I don't belit"ve they n!::"t.:.'cl be enulUe.rdt8d. .sUinP. a.cl"> alrec{cly
J.!lclul.;ed in tdX~':::=i, 0...1-ie(:-: by contract, Would l:':' Lie undt:.r::;tood
tbe,::' the ne.w' u-",ner will '::tSSUilIe costs w.hell l'~ohr leclves~J
116
TA.Llle ::-1,
of'hJc'si te ~',::::: j'_
','h--"I.~_:
~ldVt
L'~erl !-::d,S .i.r2r
i ~
it
w'eJ::.e tc
pr L :",t;(:
117
Flyu[c' :-9.
included?
Fhy isn't
the Bay Blvd stretch betwl:'ell "E"
and
I':;'''
I?age :~:i9.
118 pt' r ':, ~:: .i..)n ;'
;u:e tLJf~ 11rolec:tionf5 of traffic uC1ti..::d (In 3. 1JQ:jL 3254
'1'1"11::: C1I'i C::::O;.J.:'; t::i:...iiil..:: ..:ld.j hi:;" 1..-..;-:.- '_;)(:(j<::'~;t::~u ',J.L.th ti'le
v~- ~.:.J
'-:".:':[:." ,
,:'.:'~";ULJ'" n t
i ;3
-,' l" i'
U'=.:tl:.ly
j c i :l'J
Lc'
-"
"- 1,_: ~ ;;'-j '.'
. ~: c
119
'if;,
.!:. I_~
. i.t. e.,:,! /
:au ~y.[t,;,=mlJlG1~~'
120
C .~:I':J t::'
-. , ,
...) -. U 1. .
~nl~~. ,= ;::::. tI-le
.jD':;,:E
.__.i'jllt (i1.: ....;:..y
t;'lt ',,: l '--J 'J:-- :J1..
~ '1 :_ I;: l._, t..:." ; l
.ll":'
i,':': U J ,-' \..: L .'
"l'
- "
.~ ,~'...: J: i.:J_1'::: k
'.' I'
\I.' 1 (li 1. CJ
'I','.t:! .'
~.:.Yt:;.' ..:' - r)j .
,-;1...'1 -"I
iC ,~'l. '_,'.'
;."1:'
c.
"
121
. !:';"":
_~;__ !_ '.t ;_, 1. .:.. ~', i _!-.:.;,.
-'
'_hr::- ~'_,('
,._,.,1_.
,: I -' '~. i . 1-' (' ~_J..i.
'.i,l' ._'.:,..'.-;,j j. J
!\c'. (,'
~ 'i '-i I'
1::1-'-""
,1(..,
~f <-tPi?tOVl'ldLe/
I t !lot, wildt: i.1llpact .~:() t);".:y ..,...'./(-;'
P"-:'~'.
I',"~
., .." L
/.;',
. \ ; ~-' ~
.;'-
.il"'.",
. -
J t... "- '--
~ !-..
122
,':1 .... L t' 1 ;..~ ~-~ .1. '.'; ~ it (J U ~ ~.
t:Cl l:cduc,~
::.IJ'_.'
. 1;'11) ~ i.." ,_.1:
.
'i;i;
."
,
1.._ i,. '. ~ '-..'-' '.-
d nj '~Ldi!":::i;"; ,jJ.l L-,;..iL 11U U1:" _-: :)l.llJ(':':::; tIc n.
J
":it..
~: ~' 1..': .I ~.
'I'
. ,- -, -,,: ~.
.'-;
123 ,-"
.,
, "
, i ,._~ '.. c:- .j ~ ~
,......
:,;,:/.;'
:.l:',
d.
-
. .,
_!..'J.
yolny to work off "H" Street, they yo to work off "F't Street.
124
[\..;Hj'e 4-1.
U i::;) t ;' .i. c t
i~ the "Need tu move off of Port
Alternative 4 Off-Sit~ nlay be
Lt ,_ ill '_lfl ~.i(h-~'_^i.i;',.:1~.:.'
Objective
tidelands."
5. IYhdt
"hile
i~:-~\Ii::-C.l;!~lelj~:<-.i.lly prcfe::.,;bJ,~, l~;
125
p ,-~ 13 e ..' . ; : _: " : u c; L:~ . . ~, _ j -! ; ,;1 C i~ ,
i.:m!;)l'_r~--t~e::;; truw 011e 2i::.,11L "CdlflVU.:...-." i_V
"campus" 13 just down Lhe str8ct,
s chu u 1 ,::; y:-..; l.t.: ;:1;"
>""hy i::: therr2 an L;1i?act on t,;-JC'
t);>::l~..: ~~-:, u
(: :~; ;"::.:, ().l. .:.. I::':::> l .i '-.' i j
~l :_v dlJU tLdL C';P."
~jit.: l~>-,-uj'-L:
126
l1itlgdtion I;tunitor. It dOE'fH1't ctppear tllat thi;:3 hcib 0Cen
prov.ili~d for by the applicant. DO~5..it need to b~ adJres3~d?
127 J. ~_;llpP!):;:--:-. .'ll~:::'r':'jo:tlvt': 2 -. HoJiilf':>l..l De:.::....!.':;n.
J 1- -'r"
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent I - Comments from RCC Member - John Kracha
11 The objectives of the proposed project are stated on pages 4-1 to 4-2. The applicant
has not submitted any other objectives.
12 The EIR analyses assume that all occupants of the building could be persons new to
this location, and not merely transferred from the adjacent Rohr campus. Rohr and
its consultant have stated that all persons to occupy the building will be transferred
from next door. Rohr, however, has not made a commitment to this, and even if
they did, the possibility remains that the building could be leased or sold in the
future creating a situation where all occupants could be new to this location.
13 The proposed building height is 42 feet; the allowable building height is 44 feet. The
EIR text has been corrected to indicate such.
14 Text has been modified to indicate that these soils "are not acceptable in their
present condition". These soils will require remediation prior to construction of any
structures. Specific remediation recommendations are a part of the geotechnical
investigation (Woodward-Clyde Consultants [WCC], revised September 7, 1990), and
include removal and recompaction, selective grading, and use of piles.
The WCC report also recommends the site be cleared of vegetation, organic matter,
trash, debris or other suitable materials, and that unsuitable materials generated
during clearing should be disposed of off site at a legal dump site.
15 Heavy metals are often found in the usual array of contaminants that typify urban
runoff, and are typically a byproduct of automotive discharges from both exhaust
gases and continual low-volume leaks of gasoline, oil, and other fluids. It is intended
that the cleansing system be designed to remove these contaminants prior to their
entry into the detention basin and subsequently the marsh area.
16 If compressible bay deposits are encountered in areas proposed for improvement,
remediation of those soils will be required prior to construction of roadways,
embankments, or engineered fills. These "subgrade modifications" are a part of
project grading. Subsequent mitigation measures of the Groundwater/Soils and
Geologic Units section discuss (Section 3.1 of the EIR) erosion control measures to
be performed during site grading activities.
17 "Biologically trained monitor" and "biologically aware monitor" have the same
meaning, Le., that the monitor is aware and knowledgeable of the resources that can
be affected by the actions and/or conditions that he/she is monitoring. There are no
qualification standards within the industry, but the individual should have a general
90-14 01/25/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
knowledge of construction techniques and a background in ecology or resource
management.
18 Rohr has not publicly commented on their response to the required mitigation
measures.
19 Appendices were included with the EIR, and were bound in a separate volume.
110 The EIR text states that "this area ~ (emphasis added) support refuge, foraging
grounds and spawning grounds...". Also, to answer the question "What fish?" the EIR
goes on to say on page 3-14, "The tidal channels, creeks, and even frequently exposed
portions of the marshes are utilized as spawning areas and nursery grounds by
numerous coastal fish and invertebrates."
111 The large amounts of decaying organisms originate from increased algal production
in a poorly flushed environment. While algal production is increased through inputs
of fertilizers into the marsh, water circulation in the marsh is not sufficient to remove
the excess dead algae, so decaying organic material accumulates. Refer to paragraph
2 on page 3-24 of the EIR.
112 Outdoor lunchroom facilities have the potential for attracting wild and domestic
predators and scavengers. Furthermore, where office complexes provide such
lunchroom facilities, feral animals tend to be promoted by well meaning individuals
that leave food out. Refer to Recommendations 13 and 14 of Section 3.2 of the EIR.
90-14 01/25/91
/'1 - 1-~
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
II3 No matter what the "incidence of the raptor after the endangered species," any
increases in the availability of perch sites for raptors has the potential for adverse
effects on endangered species living within the raptors' view from the perch site.
According to CEQA Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, any action
that threatens an endangered species is significant.
114 Predator management programs are site specific. In this situation, a predator
management program is currently being formulated for Chula Vista Investors
proposed project in the larger Midbayfront area. Rohr Industries would be a
participant in this or another program developed in the area; however, since Rohr's
proposed project affects only a small portion of the Bayfront's sensitive wetland
areas, Rohr Industries would bear a minority of responsibility under a Bayfront
predator management program. Refer to Recommendations 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and
17 of Section 3.2 of the EIR.
II5 Responsibilities for ongoing mitigation requirements are anticipated to fall on
whomever owns the developed property.
116 Table 3-1 has been moved forward in the text to follow its reference in response to
the comment.
II7 Acknowledged. The segment of Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F' Street
was inadvertently omitted from this figure. However, the daily traffic volume on this
segment is correctly labelled as 9,800.
II8 As stated on Page 3-52 of the EIR, the "E" Street/I-5 and 1-5/SR 54 freeway
interchanges were assumed to be completed and fully operational by Year 1992
which is the scheduled construction period for this Rohr Office Complex facility.
The completion of SR 54 and its connection to 1-5 will certainly reduce east/west
through traffic on major arterials in the northern portion of the City of Chula Vista
(Le., "E" Street and "H" Street). It has been estimated that this reduction may
amount to approximately 15 percent of the current traffic load on "E" Street due to
the diversion of east/west through trips to the new SR 54 facility. Also, by
comparing the values for "E" Street east of 1-5 from Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 you
will notice that future traffic volume projections are in fact reduced.
II9 Rohr has submitted a table showing projected uses. This table is located at the end
of the responses as Attachment 1.
120 The SDG&E right-of-way is located adjacent to the project immediately east of the
eastern edge of the project site. If the City of Chula Vista determines, through the
monitoring program, that parking demand at this site exceeds the supply, it is
possible that an agreement could be reached between SDG&E and Rohr Industries
90-14 02/01/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
and the City to allow Rohr to lease a portion of the right-of-way for overflow parking
in excess of the estimated demand.
121 The Clean Air Act of 1990 has not yet resulted in any revisions to the federal air
quality standards. Thus, the California standards remain, in most cases, more
stringent than the federal standards, and in a couple of cases, equal to the federal
standards.
122 Page 3-71 describes mitigation required of the applicant pertaining to transportation
control measures. And, as stated on this page, in order "to be most efficient, these
measures must be integrated into a comprehensive transportation system
management (TSM) program," which would relieve existing congestion to some
degree. Additionally, this project would be required to conform to regional
transportation demand management strategies established by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) Transportation Demand Management
Model Ordinance and/or other ordinances adopted by the City of Chula Vista in the
future.
123 See Response 12.
9<i-14 01/25/91
I '1- r 1
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
124 The applicant's objectives are stated in the EIR exactly as they were presented to the
City (no more explanation was provided, nor necessary). The off-site alternatives
considered these objectives as far as to what degree the objectives were
accommodated by the alternatives, but the major focus of the off-site analysis was to
compare environmental impacts of both similar and different types of locations.
125 See Response 12.
126 The Mitigation Monitoring Program would begin after certification of the EIR and
approval of the project. A statement regarding this procedure has been added to
Section 1.0 of the EIR.
127 This comment is noted.
90-14 01/25/91
Comment 1
COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS - DRAFT EIR-90-10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
January 9, 1991
Decker: Table I-I, page 6-10, predator management program. Mitigation measures
not as detailed as in others.
11
Full er:
J2
Decker:
J3
Suggested closing parking lot when people weren't there to keep people
out. .
Are predator management programs site unique, or generic.
(Keith Merkel, biologist, explained predator management programs are
specific to the site on the resources to be protected. In this specific
situation, the predator management program is specific to the Bayfront
resources, not specifically the Rohr site. Rohr would be a participant
in the pro~ram which is focused on the entire Bayfront, not just the
Rohr site.)
Page 3-37. Full time enforcement staff of two more officers WOuld be
funded by revenues generated by the project and other development
within the Bayfront to conduct the predator management program. Is
this included in this particular EIR and project since it is the beginning
of management for the entire Bayfront project.
(Keith Merkel answered in the affirmative. They anticipated a two-person
staff requirement for the overall project. Rohr happens to be the first
one in on a much larger ica1e, a participant in a much larger program.)
Upon Commissioner Fuller's query, Mr. Merkel answered it would start with
two, but there may be more and Some part-time specialists. Two is
anticipated to be the minimum number.
Page 3-28, third paragraph, "human pet presence impacts." This is an office
building, and people don't generally bring dogs and cats to offices.
(Merkel:
outside.
Is an office building, but they have lunchroom facilities
People feed cats and dogs at the location.)
Carson: Why in the letter from the Chula Vista Elementary Schools it is indicated
that approximately 162 new elementary children will be generated from the
project, since it is an office building. People that will be employed?
New employees coming into the area that would generate the elementary
children?
J4
(Diana Richardson; Yes, indirect generation of students from new
employees.)
Where are the employees coming from--within the present structure of the
Rohr Corporation, closing up some buildings and transfer employees, or??
(Diana Richardson: The draft EIR aSsumed that because there would be
no guarantee that they would be all transferred Rohr employees from the
campus next door that they could be all new employees from a different
area. The EIR assumes this worse-case position because we have no
guarantee that all these employees will be transferred. There is no
commitment, not guarantee to do so in the future.)
It:t- :r7'
Carson:
Fuller:
Ca9111 as :
Carson: J5
Decker: J6
.Rohr has no game pla~? . Shouldn'.t they be able. to tell us that tonight?
(Richardson:. Rohr. has' indicated to "the City that they would be
transferring employees over; however. she understood from City staff
there had been no commitment to do so. The draft EIR needed to look
at the i~pacts if in the future Rohr sold.)
First letter in the packet from Kate Shurson indicates the relationship
betweer. non-residential development and student enrollment has been
clearly recognized by the State Legislature through authorization of
collection. of school fees. A oint stud s onsored b the five South
Ba School Districts re ared ear ier t is ear SourcePoint further
documents and demonstrates t is re ations lp. Based on this study,
the proposed 211,500 sq. ft. of office space will generate approximately
162 new elementary age children. SHr WANTED TO SEE A COpy OF THE
REPORT. How did they arrive at these figures.
Applicant may be required to pay fees that they should not be paying,
based on their figures.
Height of building - consistency.
Estimate of ADT - which estimate is being used? Two different estimates.
Grasser: J7 Traffic projection assumption - before or after total completion of SR 54.
(Dan Marum. from JHK & Associates. answered the assumption was what the
benefit would be on the total completion of SR 54 in the year 1992,
about a lS~ benefit on so~e of the east/west streets in the northern
portion of Chula Vista as a result of the connection to I-5.)
Decker: J8 Page 3-45. there will be a significant change in traffic patterns.
Was off-ramp onto liE" Street considered.
(Dan Marum answered the off-ramp would be reconfigured as a new
intersection at Bay Boulevard and "En Street. There would be a direct
connection into Bay Boulevard for the traffic that will be coming down
to Rohr.)
Decker: J9
Assumed there would be an increase in the number of trolley scheduling.
Understands there will be 8 per hour for peak. The EIR shows about
12.
Projected there would be a reduction in traffic volumes on "E" Street
to be as much as 15~. SR 54 is hooked up except for part of the last
interchange. We should have seen SOme kind of reduction on liE"
Street now.
(The Traffic Engineering Dept. of CV is currently conducting an after-
study; had done extensive before-study work on many east/west and
north/south arterials immediately south of 54. Good data base of before
conditions. They will prepare a report on the impacts of the opening
of 54 which currently exchanges traffic only to and from the north at
1-5 and doesn't allow the exchange to and from the south yet. They
assumed a full interchange at that location for the EIR.)
Tugenberg: ' Suggested that the EIR address the troffic impact at the intersection
J1'0 of Woodla'wn 1\ "F". ,It is practically impoSSible to make a left-hand
turn (going east) from Woodlawn onto "F" Street between 4 & 6 p.m.
Why wasn't consideratlon given to EastLake Industrial Park and the
El Rancho del Rey Office Park instead of San Vsidro and National City.
(Commission decided not to ask for more comparison because of cost.)
Letter from Dr. Gordon Snow, Dept. of Conservation, points out there is
no geology section in this ErR. He feels there is some sort of seismic
11quefication, etc.
(M~yAnn Miller: That will be responded to in the Final EIR.
Page 3-7 - how much does it cost the City to retain the biolgical
trained construction monitor to monitor the grading? Does that come
out of the fee that Rohr pays, or out of our tax dollars?
(MaryAnn Miller: The City would assume the overall responsibility
for making sure the monitoring is taking place, but it would be an
additional cost to the applicant.)
Casillas: 200 sq. ft. per employee - standard figure used for office buildings?
What is going to be done with the building?
J11
Decker:
J12
ea rson:
J13
J14
(MaryAnn Miller: That would have to be addressed in the Final EIR.)
Maximum number of employee~? Answer: Most recent figure 1,184 total
employees to occupy the building.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Ian Gl11 of Starboard Development
Corporation, office at 1202 Kettner Boulevard in the City of San Diego. I'm here
representing Rohr Industries as their developer. We also have members of the rest
of the design team here. We've got the president of BSHA, the architectural firm,
Gordon Carrier, and the project architect, Mike Gilkerson. We have representatives
from Rick Engineering, and from WRT, the landscape architect on the project. We
J15appreciate this opportunity of addressing you, and maybe I can provide a little
bit of clarification on a couple of the concerns that have been expressed here.
You1re absolutely right that lt would be foolish of Rohr not to have a detailed
plan in terms of how they are going to move into this building and, in fact, we
have been assisting them for the last 12 months in devising a detailed program
for relocation into this facility. And you're absolutely correct. For now, and
for the foreseeable future, it is anticipated that this is a relocation. There
are approximately 1200 employees from three critical business groups within Rohr--
commercial business, government business, and new technology--that are going to
be relocating into this new facility.
As to some of the questions relative to the trip generation factors and so on,
in point of fact I would like an opportunity, we would like an opportunity of
working with Keller's consultant to give some more information that might be
helpful in determining what the appropriate trip generation factor should be.
Because in point of fact what's being used is a stock SANDAG factor which probably
wouldn't be appropriate for this particular bUllding, even, although there is
certainly the possibility that has been pointed out. that long-term part of the
J ,- f(O
facility might be sub-leased, It probably would not be a true multi-tenant
facflity in which you might have 20 tenants. , It would stlll be more of a , .
corporllte-tjpe",tacflftY'becali'S61t"f.s. a_~igh~QuaJ1ty office bullding and so the
number of ,users would be more restricted as dictated by a higher economic rent.
So we'd certainly like the opportunity of working with staff and their consultants
to ensure that appropriate numbers of utilized prior to finali~ing the EIR.
In terms of Some of the other elements, the higher 200 sq. ft. per occupant number
relates to the fact that there is a cafeteria in the building, which is actually
a COmbined cafeteria and auditorium space for employees, and there are other
support spaces within the facility that in fact are not just primary office space.
In fact, if you look at what is primary office user space within the bUilding,
it isn't the 245,000 sq. ft. of space, which is actually the gross space in the
bUilding, but more like 153,000 sq. ft. And if you then apply the City's parking
standard to what would actually be more like the number of occupants in the building
and the real"usable office space, the number of spaces as proposed in the alternate
in the EIR of 760 should more than comfortably accommodate a ratio of more like
5 spaces per 1,000 rather than the City's minimum of 3.3.
We're basically here to ~nSwer any other questions you might have, and we'd be
delighted to provide any clarification you might desire.
Commissioner Tugenberg: Maybe you can clarify it. These 1200 employees. Are
they presently on-site at the Rohr facility in Chula Vista?
Mr. Gill: Yes.
COmmissioner Tugenberg: They all are. They will not be coming from Arkansas,
or Los Angeles, or outside the area. It shouldn't be an incremental addition to
the present-day traffic.
Mr. Gill: No. rn point of fact, it will be a direct transfer. Long-term there
will even be some demolition of existing buildings on the campus and probably
conversion, at least in the median term, to some additional parking or some other
use. So you're absolutely correct. Staff obViously has had to take the most
conservative viewpoint that, at least, theoretically, at some point in time Rohr
might sub-lease part or maybe even all of the office space in this faCility.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chair Grasser Horton directed staff to take the comments and written communications
and incorporate that into their final EIR.
Commissioner Fuller reminded staff that they would like staff to request from the
Chula Vista School District a copy of the report referred to in the letter from
Kate Shurson.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Co=ent J - Comments from Commissioners. Planning Commission Meeting of January 9.
1991
Jl Predator management programs are site specific. In this situation, a predator
management program is currently being formulated for Chula Vista Investors
proposed project in the larger Midbayfront area. Rohr Industries would be a
participant in this or another program developed in the area; however, since Rohr's
proposed project affects only a small portion of the Bayfront's sensitive wetland
areas, Rohr Industries would bear a minority of responsibility under a Bayfront
predator management program. Refer to Recommendations 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and
17 of Section 3.2 of the ErR.
J2 See response to comment J1 above. A rrurnmum of two full time predator
management officers for the predator management program is anticipated for the
entire Midbayfront area, however, additional personnel may be needed as the
magnitude of the anticipated predator problems becomes known. Also, part-time or
contract specialists may be needed for specific problems that the full-time staff
cannot alleviate.
J3 Co=ent noted; however, outdoor lunchroom facilities have the potential for
attracting wild and domestic predators and scavengers. Furthermore, where office
complexes provide such lunchroom facilities, feral animals tend to be promoted by
well meaning individuals that leave food out. Refer to Reco=endations 13 and 14
of Section 3.2 of the EIR.
J4 As stated in the minutes, the Draft EIR assumed that all employees in the building
would be new, as there is no guarantee that Rohr would always occupy the building.
The student generation is an indirect result of new employment. As stated in the
DEIR, Section 5.0, Schools, the applicant is currently negotiating with both School
Districts regarding appropriate fees for the anticipated impact to the Districts'.
90-14 01/25/91
1'1-1/
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
J5 The EIR has been corrected to accurately reflect the proposed 42-foot building
height.
J6 The proposed project will generate approximately 4,165 daily trips. This calculation
was based on a large commercial office building (in excess of 100,000 square feet)
trip generation rate of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet, as recommended by SANDAG.
The discussion of project impacts under built-out conditions contained on page 3-56
of the EIR discusses the future trip generation from this site as modified by the trip
generation that was included in the regional model for this zone prior to the
initiation of this project. Thus, an estimate of the difference between the previously
coded land use in this zone and the new land use proposed by this project for this
zone is calculated. However, the total trip generation for the site remains at 4,165
daily trips for the proposed project.
17 Refer to Response No. !l8.
J8 As stated in Response No. !l8, the interchange improvement project currently under
construction by Caltrans at I-5/"E" Street was fully accounted for in the Year 1992
traffic projections for this project and the circulation system in the project study area.
In other words, the direct connection of the 1-5 southbound off-ramp to Bay
Boulevard at "E" Street was utilized in our traffic analysis. This improvement project
will create a new intersection and the existing traffic signal at the southbound on-
and off-ramp intersection will be relocated to this new location. Also, the provision
of a loop ramp for westbound "E" Street traffic to access southbound 1-5 was included
in our analysis as well. As stated on page 3-47 of the EIR, at the present time,
approximately eight trolleys cross major east/west arterials in the City of Chula Vista
in the AM and PM peak hours. However, in the near future, one to three years,
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) anticipates the addition of two
more trolley vehicles per hour on the south line through Chula Vista. In the long
term, the number of trolleys on the south line could be increased further (potentially
16 trolley vehicles crossing these arterials in the AM and PM peak hours), resulting
in an additional loss of available capacity on these arterials due to the amount of the
accumulation of gate down time.
J9 The City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Department is currently conducting a
study to determine the impact of the completion of SR 54 between 1-5 and I-80S. The
study will also be conducted when the full interchange at 1-5 and SR 54 is completed
to connect with 1-5 to and from the south. At the present time the connection from
SR 54 limits access to and from the north on 1-5. The City Traffic Engineering
Department has completed an extensive study of the major circulation element
facilities in the northern portion of Chula Vista immediately south of SR 54. This
existing data will be used as the base condition to define baseline data prior to the
opening of this new facility. A series of reports on the positive impacts of the
90-14 01/25/91
RESPONSES TO COMMENfS
JIO The intersection of Woodlawn and "F" Street was included in the traffic circulation
analysis for this Rohr Office Complex Development. The most difficult movement
is ty'flieltily tfl~ mast 8iffi~lt mS",fillRfilritat this unsignalized intersection today is the Y-
southbound left-turn maneuver from Woodlawn Avenue to proceed eastbound on "F"
Street. This particular movement is typically the most difficult movement to execute
at T-intersections which are controlled by a stop sign for the minor street approach
(i.e., Woodlawn Avenue). This movement will continue to be difficult as additional
traffic is loaded onto "F" Street in an east/west direction.
The long term solution to the impact caused by higher volumes on "F" Street would
be to install a traffic signal at this location. However, the impact from this Rohr
Office Complex Development was not significant enough to warrant the installation
of a traffic signal at this location. The City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering
Department will continue to monitor traffic flow at this location to determine when
signal warrants may be met in the future and the intersection will be placed on the
list of potential candidates for signalization.
JIl The comment refers to the alternatives analysis in the ErR, Section 4.0. The purpose
of the alternatives analysis is to compare environmental impacts of those at the
project site against those in a different location. This analysis chose two bayfront
locations, and two entirely different ecosystem locations in order to see the difference
in types and numbers of impacts from these both similar and very different
ecosystems. Certainly, there are a number of locations which could have been
chosen for study, but it was not the purpose of the analysis to look at every potential
site, but, rather, to provide an evaluation of differences between different types of
ecosystems.
JI2 See Response Cl.
JI3 As Ms. Miller stated in the response in the minutes, the applicant would pay for the
mitigation monitoring, and the City would be responsible for coordinating its
implementation.
JI4 See Attachment 1, which shows the anticipated uses of the building.
JI5 These comments are noted.
90-14 01/25/91
J If-1J.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
completion of SR 54 in its various phases will be generated by the Traffic
Engineering Department and reported to the Planning Commission and City Council.
This report will define the beneficial impact of the new SR 54 facility based on the
anticipated diversion of east/west through traffic on major circulation element
facilities in the northern portion of the City of Chula Vista.
Also refer to Response No. 118 for additional discussion of this topic.
9<1-14 01/25/91
Comment.K
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource COIlBervatlon Commiaaion
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday, January 7, 1991
Conference Room 1
Public Services Bulldlna
CAll MEETING TO ORDERIROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order with a quorum ht 6: 10 p.m.
by Chairman Fo~. City Staff Barbara Reid call1ld roll. Present: Conunissioners Ray, Johnson, Hall, Fox,
Kracha. Absent: Ghougll8slan, Stevens.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUP (KrachalRay) to approve the minutes of November 1:2, 1990
with one correction: the word "Permits" should be added Sl the bottom of Page 1. The minutes of
November 19, 1990 were unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Lance Fry, Assistant Planner, provided follow-up information on Chula Vista 2000. After much
discuulon. the following recommendatioIIJ were made:
1. It was MSUP (Ray/Krach a) to support staff recommendation on the recycling effort.
2. It wu MSUP (Ray/Kracha) that council direct thlf pn~paratiun uf a citywIde open space and
parkland master plan and to emphasize l\le W~llIm area of the city for the purpose of further review
of the feasibility of open space and parkland acquIsition and development.
3. It WlI8 MSUP (Johnson/Hall) that Council support staff assistance to city volunteers dedicated
to the city trails tree plantlni program and other public lands; and identify a program coordinator
for this effort.
4. It Wll8 MSUP (KrachalRay) to encourage placement of citizens from envirunmentalgroups on
city committees and commissions dealing with environmental and open space Issues.
B.
The Rohr Office Complex EIR 90-10 was reviewlld by staff. After much dis~ussion, a motion was
made (Fox/Ray) to include the following: to recnmm~nd to lh~ Plarullng COlnmissi;m that Ktacha's
comments of inconsistencies of th~ EIR b~ Incorporated with the ex~~ption of the last ~omment
regarding support of Alternate 2; that Hall's question regarding paragraph 3-50 be clarified; that Ray
requesu that the Planning Commission not close the publlc review hearing until the Inconsistencies
and issues in the EIR are resolved; motion passed unanimously,
Kl
A motion was made by Hall 10 recommend an off-site alternative listed as #1 on page 4-7; motion
died due to lack of second.
C. It was MSUP (Fox/Ray) to continue the item regarding "Environmental Agenda for the 90s" to the
next meeting with review of previous minutll& back to July 1990.
D. It Wll8 MSUP (Ray/Johnson) to continue the budget dIscussion to tho next meetinll and have staff
clarify items regarding prlntlnll and binding. photography. and postage.
1<7-8'3
._____n _.. _.._._
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment K - Minutes. City of Chula Vista Resource Conservation Commission
K1
.
Kracha's comments are indicated as comment Letter I.
· Regarding the question on page 3-50 of the EIR, the text has been modified
on this page to amend this inconsistency.
· The public review period was closed on January 9, 1991.
90-14 01/01/91
ATIACHMENT 1
ROHR PROPOSED BUILDING SPACE UTILIZATION
I 9-'11./
LJ
~'J> 1;' ~,.: E
Ji t, _.)
tJ' ''? r ~:} "',
~. . '.'; i';...
API( ~ c' 1990
STARBOARD Community De\!r.I(lya;~!11 Gup.
STARBOARD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
April 24, 1990
VIA FACSIMILE
Pamela R. Buchan
Senior Community Development Specialist
city of Chula vista
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vieta, CA 92010
De~r P~m;
Enclosed is a copy of the preliminary building program recently
completed by our architect defining space utilization and
allocation for the new Rohr office complex.
When we talked by telephone last week, you indicated that your
planning staff hact the perception that the uses for the new
facility were indulStri~l or R&D in n~ture, which called into
question the actequacy of the proposed parking ratio (one space per
300 square feet of building area). Their feeling was, as you
relayect it, that this parking ratio requirement is relevant and
adequate only if the uses to be housed within the new structure
will be commercial Office-type activities.
The detailed program enclosed not only lists the specific
dep~rtments which will be relocated into the new facility, but also
breaks down each department's functions and their related space
requirement.
As mentioned in our recent meeting with you, one of the major
reasons Rohr is anxious to see the new office complex completed as
soon as poro:ro:ible is to effect a relocation of the many office
staff, detailed in the enclosed program, who are currently located
in industrial type space allover the Rohr campus.
Rohr recognize5 the increa3ed productivity and efficiency which
will result from relocating their scattered office groups to an
appropriate office environment under one roof.
'202 KETTNe~ BOULEVARD. FIFTH FLa~R. S~~Ga, CALIFORNIA !:::H:::~'U'-:.:i:.:i88
'~"~l ,....,~.. 0-,.......-. I 7-- r::::J ....... ".' ..-...,..... .-.......... .......-.,....,,...,
Pamela R. Buchan
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Chula vista
Community Development Department
April 24, 1990
Page 2
You can clearly see from the enclosed program information that the
intended use tor the new buildings is pure office in a
predominantly open space system furnished environment.
If you would be kind enough to give your planning staff a copy of
the enclosed program, we believe it should completely address their
concern related to the adequacy of the on-site parking proposed for
the project.
If you or any of your staff have additional questions or require
furt er clarification on the enclosed information, please do not
hesi at 0 contact me or Ian Gill.
AS:moh
enclosures
ee: 109-10.2
1 COMMERCIAL BUSINESS
EMPLOYEES/ROOMS
Senior Vice President
Vice Presidents
Directors
Managers
EmployeesfProgram Support
,Customer Reps & Support
Staff (estimate)
% Orowth/Set up area
Coffee c;enter
1/10,000
Research LJlbrary
Storage/supply room 1/20,000
Vuult
Mail stations
Reproduction/Plotter Rooms
1/20,000
a. xerox machine
b. paper storage
c. plotters
Small Conference Rooms
(for 6-8 people)
Medium Conference Rooms
(for 18.20 people)
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
320 s.f.
280 sJ.
150 s.f.
150 8.f
90 s.f.
100 s.f.
SUBTOTAL
~5 @ 2S s.f.
8 @ 192 sJ.
4@ 8s.f.
6 @ 320 s.f.
9 @ 144 s.f.
3 @ 364 s.f.
I qo-flD
NO. OF:
EMPLOYEES TOTAL
1 320 d.
4 1,120 s.f,
9 1,350 s.f.
62 9,300 8.f.
....211 87.390 s.f.
1047 99,480 s.c.
JQ.... 3.000 d.
1077 102,480 s.r.
5,124 sJ.
375 s.f.
200 s.f.
1,536 sJ. .
2,000 sJ.
32 s.f.
1,920 s.f.
1,296 s.f.
1,092 s.f.
Commercial Business Continued:
Large Conference'room
(for 30 people) 3 @ 624 sJ. 1,872 s.f.
Large lounge 1/20,000 3 @ 600 sJ. 1,800 s.f.
MIS Engineering Computers 1 @ 3,500 s.f.
Hard Files & Training Rm 3,500 s.!.
. Engineering Support
Computer 1 @ 2750 2.750 R.f
SUBTOTAL 11.5/177 ..r.
Circulation Factor @ 1.24 30.234 sJ.
Core Factor @ 1.165 25.775 d.
TOTAL 181/186 s.r.
2 TECHNOLOGY & NEW PRODUCTS
SQUARE NO. OF
EMPLOYEES/ROOMS FOOTAGE EMPLOYF.ES TOTAl.
Vice Presidents 280 s.f. I 280 s.f.
Directors 150 sJ. 3 4$0 s.!.
Managers 150 s.f 9 1,350 s.f.
Employees 90 s.f. ill 10.440 d,
SUBTOTAL 129 12,520 s.r.
% Growth/Set up area 626 d.
Coffee centers 1/10,000 2 @ 2S s.f. 50s.f.
Storage/supply room 1/20.000 6 @ 192 s.f. 1,152 s.f.
Mall stations: 8 s.f.
Tempest Rooms 2 @ 4,000 8,000 s.f.
Vault 500 s.f.
Library 1,000 s.f.
Reproduction/plotter Rooms 320 s.f.
1/20.000 320 s.f.
a. xerox machine
b. paper storage
c. plotters
Small Conference Rms 3 @ 144 d. 432 sJ.
(for 6-8 people)
Medium Conference Room 1 @ 364 s.f. 364 s.f.
(for 18-20 people)
Large lounge 1 @ 300 s.f. 300 s.f.
SUBTOTAL 25,272 s.r.
Circulation Factor @ 1.24 6,065 s.f.
Core Factor @ 1.165 ~71 ~.f.
TOTAL 36.508 s.fa
19-!:r
3 GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
SQUARE NO. OF
EMPLOYEES/ROOMS FOOTAGE EMPLOYEES TOT'~
Vice President 280 s.l. 1 280 s.l.
Director 150 d. 3 450: '.
Managers 150 s.f 9 1,350 r'.
Employees 90 s.f. fZ 4.230 s.f.
60 6,310 r ".
Government Reps
(estimate 2) 100 s.f. ..2 200 r "
SUBTOTAL 62 6,510 s.t.
% Growth/Set up area 325 s ,
Coffee center 25 s.f. 2S s'
Storage/supply room
(10 x 20) 192 s.f. 192 8 .
Mail station 8 sJ.
Reproduction/Plotter Room 320 sJ. 320 s
a. xerox machine
b. paper storage
c. plotter
Small Conference Room 144 s.f. 144 s .
Medium Conference Room
(for 18-20 people) 364 sJ. 364 s:
large lounge 300 s.f. 300 s.f.
SUBTOTAL 8,188 s
Circulation Factor @ 1.24 1,965 s:
Core Factor @ 1.165 1.675 s.c.
TOTAL 1J,.828 S,
4 CAFETERIA (service for 400 personnel)
EMPLOYERS/ROOMS
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
NO. OF
EMPLOYEES
TOTAL
Dining Room 6,000 s.f.
. Servery 1,200 d.
I<itchen, Dishwnshlng 2,600 s.f.
Kitchen Personnel
Restrooms/Change Rooms 200 d.
TOTAL 10,000 8.r.
I ,- it
DRAFf
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcr REPORT
EIR # 90-10
SCH # 90010623
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
January, 1991
10,-f9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Title
Pa~e
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARy...................... 1-1
1.1 Scope and Purpose of the Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
1.2 Summary of Impact and Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-2
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................. 2-1
2.1 Project Location and Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
2.2 Proposed Project ................................... 2-1
2.3 Consistency with the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-3
2.4 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-4
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALySIS................. 3-1
3.1 Drainage/Groundwater/Grading ....................... 3-1
3.2 Biology ......................................... 3-10
3.3 Aesthetics/Visual Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-41
3.4 Traffic Circulation/Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-46
3.5 Air Quality ...................................... 3-64
4.0 ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-1
4.1 Alternative 1 - No Project ............................ 4-1
4.2 Alternative 2 - Modified Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-2
4.3 Alternative 3 - Reduced Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-6
4,4 Alternative 4 - Off-Site Alternatives ..................... 4-7
4.5 Conclusions ...................................... 4-10
5.0 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT........... 5-1
6.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL........ 6-1
IMPACTS
7.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM........ 7-1
USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
8.0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT . . . .. 8-1
WILL RESULT FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT
9.0
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
10.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................. 10-1
9-1
11.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED............ 11-1
12.0 CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND LIST OF........ 12-1
PREPARERS
ii
111- (( 0
Figure
No.
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
4-1
4-2
4-3
liST OF FIGURES
Title
Project Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Vegetation and Sensitive Resources
Expected Zone of Perceived Threat Impacts
Key Observation Points
A: Southern View of Site From "F" Street
B: Southwest View From Nearby Restaurant
C: Northeast View Towards Site
From Bayside Park Near "G" Street
D: Southwest View Towards Site
From Interstate 5, Southbound
E: Southeast View Towards Site From
Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center
F: Southwest View of Site From "D" Street
Adjacent to Jade Bay Mobile Home Park
G: Southwest View From Condominiums
Located at Chula Vista Street/Woodlawn Avenue
H: Northwest View Toward San Diego
Bay From Project Site
Existing Year 1990 ADT (in Thousands)
Existing Street Network and Traffic Volumes
(in Thousands) Year 1990 Conditions
Future Street Network and Traffic Volumes
(in Thousands) Year 1992 Conditions
Future Street Network and Traffic Volumes (in Thousands)
Buildout Conditions With Project Trips
Alternative 2 - Modified Design Site Plan
Alternative 2 - Modified Design Grading Plan
Alternative 2 - Modified Design Subterranean Garages
Cross Sections
III
I f1 - 91
Follows
~
2-1
2-1
3-11
3-33
3-41
3-41
3-41
3-42
3-42
3-46
3-49
3-54
3-57
4-2
4-2
4-2
Table
No.
2-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
UST OF TABLES
Title
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Existing Year 1989 Roadway Segment Levels of Service
1990 Existing Levels of Service, Year 1990 Conditions -
Signalized Intersections
Existing Year 1990 Conditions Unsignalized Intersections
Levels of Service
Segment Volume to Capacity Analysis, Existing And
Year 1992 Conditions with Project Trips
Summary of Study Area Intersections Levels of Service
Segment Volume to Capacity Analysis, Build-out
Conditions with Project Trips
PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU Analysis Build-Out Conditions
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Chula Vista Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary --
1984-88
iv
I q - 9~
Follows
Page
1-2
3-49
3-50
3-51
3-54
3-54
3-57
3-58
3-66
3-66
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A Notice of Preparation and Comments Received During Circulation
B Update Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Rohr Industries Office
Complex Southwest Corner of "F" Street and Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista,
California; Drainage Study; Foundation Design Criteria
C Report of Biological Resources and the Potential Impacts of Development of
the Proposed Rohr Office Complex Site, Chula Vista, California
D Circulation/Parking Technical Report
E Air Quality Impact Analysis, Rohr Office Complex EIR, Chula Vista,
California
v
/ &(- 93
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
19-94/
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF TIlE REPORT
All governmental discretionary actions defined as projects by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) require environmental assessment. Those actions which could result
in significant physical impacts to the environment require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
This document is a focused EIR which addresses the potential impacts associated with
development of an office complex on an 11.6 acre site in the City of Chula Vista. The
purpose of this EIR is to provide an accurate and concise informational document which
analyzes the environmental consequences of approval and development of the proposed
project. The EIR is not a decision-making document, rather, the information herein is
intended to provide guidance to the City of Chula Vista decision-makers in their
consideration of approval of the proposed Rohr Office Complex.
The scope of the EIR was determined by the City of Chula Vista after preliminary
evaluation to identify issue areas of potentially significant impact (see Section 5.0 of this
document for issue summaries of topics not further addressed). Potentially significant issues
include:
. Hydrology/Drainage/Groundwater
. Biology
. Visual Quality
. Circulation/Parking
. Air Quality
The EIR also examines alternatives to the project, growth inducing impacts, and other
environmental summaries as required by CEQA.
The lead agency for this project is the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. CEQA
defines the lead agency as "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project." The City has solicited comments from responsible
1-1
90-14.003 01/24/91
J '1-9s
agencies and interested parties regarding potential environmental effects by use of a Notice
of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and comments received as a result of its circulation
appear in Appendix A.
The environmental consultant responsible for the preparation of the EIR is Keller
Environmental Associates, Inc. of San Diego, California. Preparers of and contributors to
this report are listed in Section 13.0.
This report is a Draft EIR. Upon completion of the public review period of the Draft EIR,
the receipt of public comments, and the Planning Commission hearing on the Draft, the
Final EIR will be prepared. The Final will include this Draft as well as the public
comments, and responses to the comments. Prior to making a determination on the project,
the EIR will be reviewed and considered by the Chula Vista City Council (decision-makers),
who then have the authority to certify the EIR. Project approval is a separate action. If the
Council approves the project, and the EIR defined significant, unmitigable impacts, then
Findings of Overriding Considerations must be made, with substantial evidence present to
support the Findings. ~p.;y~n~. .P~gj.'~...~~I.!~~pp~o. v. .e.........i;YJ.n~p. 1,h..~~tty......Wm~mRt~m~i;!~~
...,........................................................................................................-..-.--..--.--,-........-,...-.......................".".
~~~. gil:. gg. n.....~.gm~grt. nggfg8I1t9~ff~$gy~!~$~r0i9ij,finlmQmtQttn~$i!~~$$fj.U
. .
9g!#P~~H9Ai9R~~~]lg~~!qDm~!i'!i~~i
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACfS AND MfTIGATION
This section provides a summary of the environmental analysis that was conducted for each
of the issue areas. Table 1-1 lists the potential impacts of the project and the mitigation
measures recommended to reduce or eliminate the impacts. As stated throughout the
report, all mitigation measures must be implemented and monitored via a Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
1-2
90-14.00] 01/24/91
/9-9"
Table 1-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
/mpads
lLv</ of Signiru:ona
After Miligalion
Mitigation M<asures
DRAINAGE/GROUNDWATER/GRADING (Section 3.1)
Drainasre
Less than significant impacts are expected from storm-
related surface flooding given the extreme conditions
necessary to generate such flooding in conjunction with
site elevation and a project-proposed protective berm.
Incremental contributions to cumulatively significant
flooding impacts may be associated with exceeding the
capacity of existing storm drain facilities (currently
operating over capacity).
"-
...n
,
....0
1
Significant impacts resulting from contaminated runoff
from washing of a paved lot with oil, grease and other
automobile,..relatcd solvent deposits would occur to the
"F' & "G" Street Marsh if runoff is allowed to flow in the
existing pattern.
Groundwater
Less than significant impacts are expected to the project
from the Bay deposits (potentially saturated soil) located
on site. A small portion of these deposits would be
graded. At present, no foundation work is anticipated for
this area. Should building foundations located below
groundwater or on highly saturated soils be necessary,
special precautionary measures should be taken to
counteract post-construction uplift pressures and
settlement.
No measures are necessary.
Project specifications propose a storm drain system and detention basin
sufficient to accommodate a worst-case 100-year flood event.
The storm drain system and detention basin noted above are proposed
to prevent runoff from entering the Marsh. The storm drain system will
route waters from roof drains and parking areas through a filter system
(cleaned each October) designed to capture grease, heavy metals and
other contaminants. The detention basin is designed to accommodate
2-acre-feet of water (sufficient to accommodate a 100-year storm event).
All recommendations regarding earthwork and foundations in the 1990
Woodward-ClydeConsultantsgeotechnical report must be followed. The
study must be reviewed/approved by the City's Engineering Department
and recommended mitigation measures must be a condition of project
approval, and must be included (or referenced to) in the Grading Plan.
NA
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 1 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impacts
Level of Significana
Aftu Miligatiotl
Mingatjon M.asures
Soils and Geolo1lic Units
-
...0
I
-..0
OQ
Potentially significant impacts may result due to
approximately 11.2 acres being graded to provide flat pads
for parking and the building. A total of 18,500 cubic yards
of cut and fill will be generated. The maximum depth of
cut and fill will be 6 feet, with the average depth
approximately 2 feet.
Significant impacts may occur if surface runoff carries silt
and sediment into the Marsh during grading. This is
particularly problematic if grading occurs during winter
months, when the heaviest rains occur.
Building on bay deposits will require subgrade modification (removal,
compaction, and/or use of surcharge fLIts) to improve support capacity
and reduce long-term, post-construction settlement. All remedial
measures must be incorporated into the Grading Plan.
Saturated soils encountered during grading/construction must be dried
and de-watered prior to use as fLIt This measure must be included on
the Grading Plan.
All recommendations regarding grading and earthwork, surface drainage,
foundations and pavements contained in the 1990 Woodward-Clyde
Consultants geotechnical report must be followed.
Engineered fills, embankments, roadways and/or structural elements
encroaching into areas of bay deposits will require subgrade
modification (removal, compaction and/or surcharge fill) to improve
capacity of existing soils for use in ultimately supporting additional
engineered fill and/or structural improvements and to reduce long-term,
post -construction settlement.
To eliminate the possibility of silt and sediment entering the Marsh, a
barrier system must be placed between the property and the wetland
prior to initiation of grading and remain until the drainage diversion
system is in place and operating. If project grading occurs during the
winter season, the special provisions contained in Section 87.19.07
(Grading and Drainage) of the City of CllUla Vista Specific Land Use
Plan must be implemented. This measure msut be included on the
Grading Plan.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 2 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impaas
Uvd of Signiftcanu
Aftu Mitigation
Mitigation M<DSUTU
Significant impacts to the wetlands area on site could
result if adjacent grading introduces additional soils to
this sensitive area.
BIOLOGY (Section 3.2)
Drain3l!C and Water Quality Impacts
......
~
,
~
'l)
The proposed project would modify drainage patterns
within the Rohe property away from the wetland areas
west of the site into drains and a project constructed
drainage basin. Site runoff is currently the major surface
watershed source for the wetlands.
Less than significant impacts are expected to the 0.16 acre
of brackish marsh and the "P & "G" Street Marsh due to
the limited contribution of surface/freshwater input
relative to groundwater and tidal sources.
Significant impacts could result from the loss of seasonal
freshwater input, resulting in a reduction in extent and
vigor and potentially complete loss of the 0.14 acre willow
riparian grove located in the National Wildlife Refuge.
To prevent grading impacts to the wetland, a protective berm must be
constructed along the entire western boundary of the site, avoiding the
wetland. During construction of this berm, the City must enter into a
three-party contract with a biologically trained construction monitor to
observe the grading and ensure the integrity of the wetland. To
guarantee that the berm itself does not introduce sedimentation into the
wetland, the western slope of the berm must be hydro-seeded and/or
covered with plastic sheeting.
No proposed mitigation.
Establish a minimum of 0.14 acre of riparian grove within the adjacent
drainage swale. Vegetation types must be included in the Landscape
Plan, with sandbar willow used as the principal species used in this
habitat area. Management of this riparian grove to retain wildlife
resources must occur through coordination with the National Wildlife
Refuge Manager regarding maintenance.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 3 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impacts
lLvel of Significance
After Mitigatiotl
Mitigation M<asur<s
Potentially significant impacts resulting from
contaminated runoff (gas and petroleum residues) and
trash from streets and parking areas may inhibit
behavioral response and/or even result in death of species
in the Marsh.
Significant impacts could result from the influx of
pesticides and fertilizers into the Marsh via runoff,
resulting in direct death or the increase of some species
to a level either directly (if preyed upon), or indirectly (if
there is a loss of available suitable habitat), harmful to
others.
.......
..0
I
"
o
~
Significant impacts to local water quality as it relates to
biological resources due to changes in sediment transport
may occur. Such sediment has the ability to change
patterns of erosion or deposition as well as elevating
levels of turbidity in the bay. These impacts would occur
during grading, and, after grading as a result of the
project alteration of drainage patterns and flow volumes.
Wildlife Resource Inwacts
Less than significant impacts to avian flight patterns,
(disruption of raptor hunting activities and gull flight
corridors), are expected.
Waste such as paper, plastic and other human-source debris must be
removed from the runoff. The project applicant proposes to use oil traps
at points immediately prior to the flow of runoff into the Marsh. Traps
must be regularly cleaned (via removal rather than flushing) so that they
remain effective. A large drainage swale will serve to capture any
sediments passing through the traps.
Pesticides and fertilizers must be used appropriately and by professionals
(i.e., a state-certified applicator). This would result in a low likelihood
of compounds reaching the Marsh in quantities significantly deleterious.
Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides must be rapidly biodegradable and
noted on lists of chemicals acceptable for use near wetlands provided by
the EPA.
The project applicant has proposed the implementation of silt fencing,
sandbagging and erection of a protective berm with a capacity sufficient
to hold site runoff. If, during construction, substantial de-watering is
required, containment of silts and suspended sediments must be handled
through the desiltation basin (the drainage ~ale) or through partitioned
basins and stand-pipe drains.
Additionally, a "biologically aware" construction monitor must be present
for all phases of grading and installation of drainage systems. This
measure must also be included on the Grading Plan. The monitor must
be employed through a three-party contract with the City, reporting
directly to someone in the Engineering, Planning or Community
Development Department. The monitor must continue monitoring on
a reduced basis during actual construction.
No mitigation necessal)'.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
NA
Page 4 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
lmpods
Levt!l of SigniJi=
After Mitigation
Mitigation M<~
A potential significant impact - the possibility of collision
with the building - may occur should large amounts of
reflective glass on large windows (resembling open sky or
water) be used.
Potentially significant impacts due to the human-
associated presence of dogs and cats, as well as people
themselves, could lead to site degradation due to prey
flushing, nest destruction and disturbance from the
presence of individuals on the low-lying patios.
"'"
.0
,
"""
\::lo
"""
Potentially significant impacts due to the generation of
food and/or trash attracting opportunistic scavengers
(e.g., ravens, gulls, starlings, black rats and opossum)
known to be aggressive predators/competitors may occur.
Use of non-native plants may also attract predatory or
competing species.
The project applicant has submitted a design which does not use
reflective materials or glass on the west side of the building where the
building will be adjacent to highly renective water.
Mitigation of animal-related degradation is possible through
implementation of an effective predator management program which is
not only necessary for mitigation for this project, but any project which
potentially impacts the resources of the National Wildlife Refuge. The
cities ofChula Vista and National City, as well as the San Diego Unified
Port District and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will need to cany
out a joint powers agreement in order to successfully implement the
mitigation measures. The Conners (1987) predator management plan
should be used as a basis. The final plan must include the use of fines
and must include management of predators within the marsh as well as
on site. Two or more National Wildlife Refuge officers should be hired
(paid for in part by th< applicant) to cany out the program.
Human impacts would be reduced by buffering the patios from direct
view of the adjacent Marsh lands by hillocks of native scrub vegetation.
Outside lighting must be directed away from Marsh areas or any
reflective surfaces on the western side of the building. Lights should be
limited to the minimum required for security on the westerly side of the
structure.
Maintenance of covered trash containers in the patio area via a
janitorial program sufficient to keep the containers from exceeding
capacity must occur. The project applicant has suggested landscaping
materials compatible with the region and of minimal concern with
respect to providing predator habitats.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 5 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impacts
Uvd of SigniJicanu
Aftu Mitigution
Mitigation M<asures
Though the 44 !!}foot high building is not expected to be
used as a primary perch for hunting peregrine fa1cons, it
may be perceived as a threat, resulting in avoidance of
the area by birds sought by raptors. This would affect not
only the prey species, but also the predator population.
This is considered potentially significant.
Elimination of fallow agricultural fields currently used for
raptor foraging and replacement of them with
approximately 9.5 acres of developed land would result
from project construction. Because of the limited extent
of similar coastal habitat and the absence of currently
accepted mitigative measures, the impact is considered to
be cumulatively significant and unmitigable.
-
...n
,
......
~
JJ
A beneficial impact is that the presence of the proposed
project could decrease current acts of vandalism, illegal
dumping and habitat degradation on site. Illegal off-road
vehicle use would probably also decline.
Threatened and Endaru!ered Soecies
Less than significant impacts on a project level are
expected to the Peregrine Falcon from loss of foraging
habitat.
Potentially significant impacts are expected to occur to
the light-footed clapper rail from further inhibiting their
re-establishment in the "F' & "G" Street Marsh.
Potentially significant impacts to the Belding's savannah
sparrow would occur from enhancement of predator
activities.
Implementation of effective predator control measures is necessary (see
discussion above). In addition, no ledges on which raptors can perch or
nest can be located on the west side of the building. The roof crests
exposed to the wetlands must be nixalite. Rohr must commit to
correcting problems which may be noted.
No proposed mitigation.
No mitigation necessary.
No mitigation necessary.
Predator management program and restrictions on human and pet
presence must be implemented.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact on a
project specific level, but
cumulatively significant.
Beneficial effect.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 6 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impacts
lLv<1 of Signifirona:
AftO' M"lligation
Mi6gatiotl M.=
AFSI1IETICSfVISUAL QUAUfY (Section 33)
Less than significant impacts would occur from
construction of the proposed office building. The
proposed building will be visible to residential viewers as
well as to short-term viewers traveling along roadways,
dining at area restaurants and/or staying in a project area
mote\. In some cases, the proposed building will partially
block existing views to the bay. Overall, views in the
direction of the proposed office complex are light
industrial to industrial in nature, consistent with the Rohr
project.
CIRCUlATIONfPARKING (Section 3.4)
......
..()
,
"-
C)
Ua
1992 Conditions
"Ft Street and roadway segments west of 1-5 would
operate at LOS B or above with the exception of Bay
Boulevard between "E" Street and "P Street, which will
decline from LOS C to F with the inclusion of annual
growth and the project. The intersection of Bay Boulevard
and "F' Street would decline from LOS B to D with the
project responsible for 53 percent of this impact.
No mitigation is necessaty as no significant impacts have been identified.
However, further screening is inherent in the project design's vegetated
dirt berm along ~F' Street. In addition, trees and native shrubs will
partially shield the building and provide some continuity with the
adjacent Marsh vegetation.
Bay Boulevard north of "F' Street should be designed for traffic only
and on-street parking should be restricted. The 8-foot wide parking
areas adjacent to the east curb line must be dedicated to normal traffic
flow. "F' Street (Lagoon Drive) must be re-striped to the east and west
of Bay Boulevard to provide for two lanes of travel out from the
intersection, and three lanes in toward the intersection. The three
inbound lanes would be comprised of one left-turn only lane, one
through-lane, and one shared through- and right-turn lane. The
westbound and northbound approaches will also require modification to
provide one left-turn lane, one through, and one right-turn lane.
Signalization is necessary at the intersection. An additional 6 to 12 feet
of pavement on Bay Boulevard for 100 to 200 feet north of the
intersection would be necessary to accomplish this measure. These
measures would improve the LOS to C. The applicant is responsible for
providing 53 percent of the funds for this mitigation based on the
recommended Benefit Assessment District (discussed in Section 10.0 of
this report).
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 7 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impaas
~l of Significmra
After Mitigmion
Mitigmion Measura
[-5 northbound at "E" Street: Incremental contnbution
(4.6 percent) to a cumulatively significant impact will
result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
-
~
I
.......
~
~
1-5 southbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution
(4.5 percent) to a cumulatively significant impact will
result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
1-5 northbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution
(0.9 percent) to a cumulatively significant impact will
result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
Broadway and liE" Street: Incremental contribution (4.7
percent) to a cumulatively significant impact will result
from the proposed project and annual population growth.
Implementation of two improvements must be made prior to, or
concurrent with, development of the Rohe project, which is necessary
due to the near-term extremely poor conditions at this intersection.
These improvements are to (1) widen westbound "E" Street at the
northbound 1-5 ramp to provide a separate right-turn lane from
westbound "E" Street; (2) restripe the northbound 1-5 off-ramp at "E"
Street to provide an exclusive right-turn lane and a shared left- and
right-turn lane. The applicant is responsible for providing a
proportional amount of funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit
Assessment District.
Double left- turn only lanes on "H" Street to southbound 1-5 should be
provided to improve the operation to LOS C. The applicant is
responsible for providing a proportional amount of funds for this
mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment District.
Double left turn only lanes on "H" Street to northbound ]-5 ramp
should be provided. This mitigation measure would improve intersection
operation to LOS C. The applicant is responsible for providing a
proportional amount of funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit
Assessment District.
An exclusive right turn lane from eastbound "E" Street to southbound
Broadway should be provided. This additional lane would facilitate
smoother traffic now from 1-5 and improve the operation LOS to C.
The applicant is responsible for providing a proportional amount of
funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment District.
Less than significant impact at a
project level. Once mitigation is
achieved, cumulative impacts
would be less than significant.
Less than significant impact at
the project level. Once mitigation
is achieved, cumulative impacts
would be less than significant.
Less than significant impact at a
project level. Once mitigation is
achieved, cumulative impacts
would be less than significant.
Less than significant impact at a
project level. Once mitigation is
achieved, cumulative impacts
would be less than significant.
Page 8 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
Impacts
Level of Significanc<
Aft",. MitigaJion
Miligation M<OSU1'<S
A significant patking deficiency of 79 to 115 spaces (10 to
13 percent) under the proposed project, or 49 to 85
spaces (6 to 10 percent) under Alternative 2 would occur.
AIR QUALITY (Section 3.5)
VehiaJ1ar Emissions IrnoadS
'"
~
I
......
~
Incremental contributions to a cumulatively significant
impact will result from build-out project traffic adding
approximately 0.5 ton of CO, 0.04 ton of NO, and 0.03
ton of ROG daily to the airshed. The NO, and ROG
counts (the main ozone formation precursor pollutants)
are less than those noted for the APeD's insignificance
threshold.
Less than significant impacts would occur from emissions
at the large surface parking lot. The practice of "cold-
starting" vehicles at the end of the work day would result
in a worst-case hour1 CO level of 10 mgjm3. The state
standard is 23 mg/m .
The applicant must meet the City's standard by either providing
additional permanent offsite parking; or by reducing the size of the
building; or limiting the number of employees consistent with the City's
employee-based parking standard. This limit could be increased if the
proposed parking (730 spaces, or 760 spaces under Alternative 2) is
found to be adequate, or if additional parking could be provided. In
order to determine if the parking is adequate, the parking demand
should be monitored over a one year period following 90 percent to full
occupation of the building.
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) such as ridesharing. vanpool
incentives, alternate transportation methods and transit utilization must
be incorporated into the project.
No mitigation necessary.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 9 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
Table 1-1 (continued)
lmpacts
Level of Significana
After Mitigation
Miugmion MetlSU<<S
Construction Imoacts
Less then significant impacts will result from equipment
exhaust released during construction activities. Because
daytime ventilation in Chuta Vista is more than adequate
to disperse any local pollution near the project site,
project emissions would not be in sufficient concentration
to expose nearby receptors to air pollution levels above
acceptable standards.
-
...c
I
......
~
It
Incremental contributions to potentially significant
regional impacts resulting from the clearing of existing
site uses, excavation of utility access, preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly creating
temporary emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust
and other air contaminants during project construction
will occur. Construction dust is an important contributor
to regional violations of inhalable dust (PM-tO) standards.
Typical dust lofting rates from construction activities are
assumed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre
disturbed. If the entire 11.6 acre project site is under
simultaneous development, total daily dust emissions
would be approximately 1,200 pounds/day.
No mitigation necessary, however, measures should be incorporated into
project construction pennits to reduce interference with existing traffic
and prevent truck queuing around local receptors. Operations should
be limited to daytime periods of better dispersion so that localized
pollution accumulation is minimized.
Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust abatement
measures required by the APeD can reduce dust emissions by 50-70
percent.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Page 10 of 10
90-14.014 01/24/91
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I 9 -If:) 1-
2.0 PROJECf DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECf LOCATION AND SETfING
The applicant, Rohr Industries, Inc., is proposing development of an 11.6 acre parcel with
an office complex. The project site is located in the City of Chula Vista, approximately 10
miles south of downtown San Diego and four miles north of the Mexican border (see Project
Vicinity Map, Figure 2-1).
The site itself is located just east of San Diego Bay, west of Interstate 5 (1-5), south of "F"
Street (Lagoon Drive), and north of existing Rohr facilities (see Figure 2-1). An SDG&E
transmission line extends north/south along the eastern property boundary; limited parking
is allowed within the transmission line right-of-way (ROW) for Rohr employees only. The
"F' & "G" Street Marsh, a component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR), is contiguous with the western property boundary. The NWR is considered a
sensitive estuarine environment, as it provides habitat for many types of plants and animal
species, including species listed as endangered by state and federal agencies.
The site is currently undeveloped, but has historically been used for agriculture.
Agricultural and household debris litter the site, particularly in the west-central area.
Abandoned irrigation lines criss-cross the site. Several unimproved dirt roads are located
around the perimeter and transect the parcel. A fence exists on the southern property
boundary and the southern portion of the eastern boundary, between the site and the
existing Rohr facility. The site elevation varies between 8 and 20 feet above Mean Sea
Level (MSL) and slopes gently to the southwest.
22 PROPOSED PROJECf
The proposed project involves development of an office complex with surface parking for
730 automobiles. In conjunction, "F" Street would be improved to a Class I collector street
as designated in the Chula Vista General Plan, and a drainage system would be installed
to convey site drainage away from the "F" & "G" Street Marsh.
2-1
90-14.004 01/24/91
,q-lfJl
ROHR INDUSTRIES OFFICE COMPLEX
Vicinity Map
RJ"mi4.C"""ry
,---.,.----~
""I ~ Ior",,- _ .~__
rI:>>/~ -......1 -
~ri<'--' 0 tJ \,",.:.
J'<f+-(l"'-~_r
,-
I
I
I
Itn
\~
.'Z
I
I
\'0
-
. ~
I. Q
10
\\
Ii
Ir
Ig
I~
I
i\
.......
..:..'.-....
.:::~r;Ci?~.
..........
.":.";'"
'I:P
~
/9 -/09
N
~
Figure 2-1
........
~
,
"
.....
~
~.------.,.:: '
-... -.....,...., ..:/'~.. ". ..
'-.. .. .
L;;i~.m
/ ~,~;;j-- ~~~~~.>.-i
. DRAINAGE ~
. SWALE
/"
'1
!
'-... .<Ji
~/7.
~.('O
'~-',""". "J
.......-.
"
I
, ,
"\'
EXTE~.;-?--
L,DECK. '_.Jj.
~-c....'
""
----- -
!
J
I
.~-
Ir.""t-
~.'
.-' .
.
",
"
mADITlONAL
lANDSCAPE
ENTRV
FEATU~
.. .. , .
.- ......
f"". ._... _..
~ROS --~y. ...~~~~~..~.. ...,. -.,. '.
-=-~. EN1'RY
~SIGN
, STM,lP[O
_ l~ -CONCRETE
, PP,VING
SHRUB
SCREEN
~~'f,t...
Site Plan
Figure 2-2
The proposed office building would contain a maximum of 245,000 square feet (gross) of
floor area with a 0.48 floor area ratio. The building height would not exceed 42 feet. As
illustrated in the site plan (Figure 2-2), the building would be placed on the western portion
of the site, with surface parking to the east. This placement of the structure is intended to
provide a buffer between the parking area and the marsh. The majority of the site (11.2
acres) would be developed with the proposed building, parking and landscaping; a 0.4 acre
marsh area would remain undisturbed.
"F" Street, which borders the site to the north, would provide access at two ingress/egress
points. Currently "F" Street is not improved to City standards. As part of the project, the
south half of this street would be improved to Class I Collector Road standards (74 feet of
pavement in a 94-foot right-of-way, 2 lanes in each direction with a 10-foot center turn lane,
8 feet of parking adjacent to the curbs, and an 8-foot landscaped buffer easement at each
side). The improvement would involve installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, a bike lane,
streetlights and landscaping. The bike lane would require an additional 5 feet of pavement
within this ROW on the south side.
In addition, a drainage system would be installed to convey storm runoff and irrigation
runoff. This system would involve creation of a linear landscaped detention basin on the
western property boundary. Water would be conveyed from the site, via storm drains, to
the northern end of the basin. Grease, oil and other contaminants would be trapped by a
triple baffle box at the point of discharge. Water would then enter the detention basin, and
travel slowly to the southern end. This slow flow would allow silts and other particles to
settle. During the dry season, all irrigation water would percolate and/or evaporate.
During storm events, water would be conveyed to a storm drain in "G" Street. No runoff
from the site would be allowed to enter the "F" & "G" Street Marsh.
To create the western slope of the detention basin and provide a physical separation from
the Marsh, a 3- to 5-foot high berm would be formed along the western boundary of the site.
The base of the berm would vary in width from 20 to 50 feet. Slopes to the west would be
no steeper than 3:1. The detention basin between the berm and the building would vary in
width from 50 to 80 feet. To ensure no access to the "F" & "G" Street Marsh along the
western boundary, a 6-foot high chain link fence would be located near the toe of the west-
facing slope of the berm.
2-2
90-14.004 01/24/91
I q -II/
23 CONSISTENCY WITH 1HE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN (LCP)
The project site lies within the coastal zone of Chula Vista and is subject to the Chula Vista
Bayfront Local Coastal Program (LCP). An LCP, as defined by the California Coastal Act,
is "a local government's land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and
implementing actions which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement
the provisions and policies of, The Coastal Act at the local level." The Chula Vista Bayfront
LCP is divided into six subareas for planning purposes and the site is located within the
Midbayfront subarea. The project site is designated Industrial: Business Park in the
Midbayfront LCP. The SDG&E ROW easement to the east of the site is designated as
landscaped parking and the "F" & "G" Street Marsh is designated wetlands. A strip of open
space between the site and the Marsh is designated on the LCP as a wetland buffer. This
strip is located on the recently established Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
The Industrial: Business Park designation allows for the following uses as defined in Section
19.84.09 of the LCP:
Administrative Commercial
Food Service Commercial
Convenience Sales and Service Commercial
Business and Communication Service Commercial
Retail Business Supply Commercial
Research Development Commercial
Automotive Fee Parking Commercial
Custom Industrial
Essential Service Civic
Parking Services Civic
Community Assembly Civic
Special Signs
Realty Signs
Civic Signs
Business Signs
Development intensity is also regulated under the LCP. The Industrial: Business Park
designation allows a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a floor area ratio (FAR)
of 0.5. The front set back must be a minimum of 30 feet, side set backs must be a minimum
of 15 feet for exterior and 20 feet for other side yards. The building height limit is set by
Section 19.85.01. The subject property has a maximum building height !~m~~ of 4 stories or
44 feet, whichever is less.
The LCP also contains a Circulation Element and roadway cross-sections are established by
Section 19.86.01. "F" Street, also called Lagoon Drive, is described in the LCP with a
prototypical cross-section within 95 feet of right-of-way (ROW). The cross-section includes
a median, two traffic lanes, a bike lane, a sidewalk and landscaping.
2-3
9O-14JJ04 01/24/91
I 9 -lla
The proposed project is generally consistent with the LCP. It is an industrial/business
facility with an FAR of 0.48, less than the maximum 0.5 allowed under the LCP. Its
proposed building height (approximately 42 feet) does not exceed the height allowed under
the LCP and the set backs are consistent. The landscaped open space and 0.4 acre marsh
area would provide buffer between the building and "F" & "G" Street Marsh. Proposed road
improvements would be consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan; however, the General
Plan cross-sections vary from the cross-sections contained in the LCP. While the ROW is
the same in both documents, the median, lane and bike lane widths are slightly different.
This issue is addressed fully in Section 3.4, Traffic Circulation/Parking.
2.4 ALTERNATIVES
Four alternatives are evaluated in the EIR (Section 4.0). One of these, the proposed
Modified Design Alternative, is analyzed on the same level of detail as the proposed project.
The three alternatives are:
1. No Project - this alternative would leave the site in its present condition, and no
development would occur.
2. Modified Design - this alternative is shown on Figure 4-1, and is a design proposed
by the applicant to mitigate potential parking impacts of the proposed project.
Impacts from this alternative are addressed in detail in Section 4.0.
3. Reduced Density - This alternative would reduce the proposed building ~il. site from
245,000 square feet to 228,000 square feet. The purpose of this alternative would be
to avoid the parking deficiency impact by meeting the City's minimum requirements
for parking.
4. Possible Locational Alternatives - Four locational alternatives were evaluated to
determine whether the applicant's proposal might result in fewer environmental
impacts in a different area. The impacts from these alternatives are also discussed
in Section 4.0.
2-4
90-14.004 01/24/91
/9 -113
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
/9-11'1-
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf ANALYSIS
3.1 DRAINAGE/GROUNDWATER/GRADING
The following discussion is based on several technical reports prepared for the Rohr project,
the latest of which are contained in Appendix B. Rick Engineering completed a report
entitled Drainage Study, Rohr's Corporate Facility (May 14, 1990) and Woodward-Clyde
Consultants prepared the Update Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Rohr Industries
Office Complex, Southwest Comer of "F" Street and Bay Boulevard (Jlily 24, ~Rt~mp~r0i
1990).
EXISTING CONDmONS
Drainage
The 11.6-acre project site is located near the eastern shoreline of San Diego Bay, south of
the mouth of the Sweetwater River. A salt marsh, the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, exists just
west of the site, but the site itself is typically higher in elevation, varying from 8 to 20 feet
above mean sea level (MSL). The project site slopes gently to the southwest and
approximately 75 percent of the area is covered with vegetation, primarily grasses and small
palm trees. There are no drainage facilities onsite, so all runoff flows overland. Runoff
from the site flows south to an off-site swale located within the existing Rohr facilities, just
north of Building 61 (located southwest of the project site). From this swale, runoff flows
west into the "F" & "G" Street Marsh at the southwestern edge of the project.
The existing storm drain system in the area includes a 42" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)
located in "G" Street, just south of Building 61, which connects to a 54" RCP that conveys
flow into the salt-marsh. An 84" RCP is located in "H" Street that conveys additional storm
flows from the existing Rohr facilities into the bay, south of the project site. Both of these
facilities are near capacity.
3-1
90-14.00911/09/90
/9 -I/S
Groundwater
The site is located in the coastal plain adjacent to southeast San Diego Bay and within the
Lower Sweetwater Hydrographic Sub-unit. Groundwater in this sub-unit is designated by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as having existing beneficial uses for
municipal, agricultural and industrial service applications. The groundwater underlying the
site is beneficial primarily for groundwater recharge applications.
Borings to locate and monitor groundwater' were undertaken by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants {~ffiM) in March 1988 and in March and April of 1989. Groundwater was
encountered in all wells and the measured depth to groundwater varied from 5 to 16 feet
below the surface. The groundwater gradient flows to the southwest, similar to the existing
topography. tNr~Y!~Wgf)~R~~%Bt~R9!ftHii~!gqj.l~~Hg~~9~%9iiHR\n~~~9n~~~~
~~I~i~nt~{f!}Yi,~!}gIH&B~~~I~gl!~!nllJ9~~~~~P;~~19g9Wg~~fgHtn~~!~~!ii~~g~~p
!mP~9~~q;~B%~~~1~A~9Rti9g~f9r~n~~~~~9n!n~~9Rr~~f~i~gq9~~~m~~~~~r
~~lpl~~!P;~~~!iig!~p~!9Y;rw~!!~;~~~~f~~mRli~!gi~pt~~gf)~g~'f9i'!r'\Y~I!~pp~i~!}9
99n~~~!~1~9~~gtttfi919fq~!9~l1iR#%Pil~!1~K~~~19f~Hi~~1lj~Ei~~~9~!9nliKi!
q~%m!!8)!g~~m~R~fi!!~~f\H~t!)i9f9fiB!Hgg}y~!~[~!~Bg~rA~i
Soils and Geologic Units and Site To!,ography
Elevations on site vary from 8 to 20 feet MSL and slope gently from the northeast to the
southwest. The site is underlain by the Bay Point Formation (a Pleistocene age Marine
Terrace deposit) which consists of medium dense to very dense, silty to clean sands with
interbeds of silt and clay. A surficial soil is present that consists of a silty sand topsoil layer
overlaying a clayey sand to sandy clay residual soil layer. The topsoils were found to be up
to 2 feet thick and the residual soils up to 4 feet thick.
The sandy portions of the Bay Point Formation soils are suitable for use at finished grade
without remedial measures. The clayey portions of the surficial soils are moderately to
highly expansive and should not be used at finished grade. The residual soils are also
slightly expansive. Excavation can be accomplished with light to heavy ripping using heavy-
duty excavating equipment.
3-2
90-14.00911/09/90
J '(-lIb
Soft, unconsolidated, compressible estuarine "bay" deposits appear to encroach across the
westerly site boundary near the northwest and southwest corners. Loose, porous slope wash
soils may exist in the topographic low near the center of the southerly site boundary.
IMP ACfS
Drainage
Site hydrology poses three potential constraints to on-site development in the Bayfront area:
. Flooding of low-lying areas from tidal highs, resulting from extreme
barometric lows, combined with wind-driven waves
. Flooding associated with exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain
facilities
. Contribution of contaminated runoff into the sensitive "F' & "G" Street Marsh
The site itself is located on relatively elevated land, east of the extremely low-lying marsh.
The building pad is proposed for 13.2 feet MSL. Along the western property boundary, a
5 to 6 foot high berm is proposed between the Marsh and the detention basin. The
conditions necessary to create on-site flooding include extremely low barometric pressure
combined with high velocity wind-driven waves. Given the extreme conditions necessary to
generate such flooding, the elevated condition of the site, and the protective berm, this
potential impact is considered remote.
The existing 42" RCP located near Building 61 in the Rohr facilities is currently operating
near capacity. If overtaxed by contributions from the proposed project, flooding could occur.
Because the detention basin and flow conveyance facilities have been designed to
accommodate the additional flow given the worst-case lOO-year flood event, the potential
impact is regarded as less than significant.
Development of the site with an office complex would result in paving and otherwise
covering a major portion sr tHe elcitiag 9(~R~~jq~~~Hg ground surface, thereby reducing
infiltration and ultimately resulting in increased runoff. Also, the constituents of the runoff
would be altered. With the creation of a paved lot, oil, grease, and other solvents from
3-3
90-14.009 11/09/90
19-1lr
automobiles would join storm runoff. If this runoff is uncontrolled and allowed to flow in
the existing pattern, this contaminated runoff would enter the sensitive "F" & "G" Street
Marsh, which is regarded as a potentially significant impact.
As part of the project, a storm drain system and detention basin is proposed to prevent
storm runoff from entering the Marsh. The storm drain system would consist of a series of
inlets and pipes to convey all the water from roof drains and parking areas into the
proposed detention basin. This basin would be located to the west of the office complex,
adjacent to the marsh. Before discharging into the basin, the water would be filtered
through a cleansing system consisting of a triple box with baffles serving to trap suspended
grease and heavy metal particles. The baffle box and basin would be cleaned ~~ each
X~~i~HI'~;Slj~~ October.
During dry weather periods, from May to October, flows would be retained within the
detention basin and reduced by evaporation and percolation. During the October
maintenance period, the stop gate would be removed and winter storm flows would be
conveyed out of the detention basin. An 18" RCP would carry site flows south to the
existing 42" RCP near Building 61.
The detention basin has been designed to accommodate 2 acre-feet of water, which is the
lOa-year storm event. Because the existing 42" RCP is approaching capacity, the conveyance
system has also been designed to maintain the water surface elevation in the detention basin
equal to, or below, the lOa-year hydraulic grade line. This design is intended to allow
gradual draining to the existing system, without flooding.
As currently proposed, the storm drain system and detention basin would capture all
contaminated runoff, remove the grease and heavy metals and divert the runoff away from
the Marsh. With implementation of the storm drain system as designed, there would be no
adverse impacts to the Marsh from contaminated runoff.
Groundwater
The presence of groundwater affects both the construction and design of foundations for
structures if the foundations are located below groundwater level. Subterranean slabs and
3-4
90-14.00911/09/90
It:; -/1'1'
other foundation elements located below groundwater levels experience buoyant forces
which can result in uplift pressures. Special precautionary measures to restrain the slab
from lifting must be incorporated into project design. The presence of a high groundwater
table also results in saturated soils. Saturated soils, without remediation, are all jj:!iy
#q%\#!~\#~*~~~~FfD!J:l!i1g~gpRgm!H!qgj,~MJ:1~gp unacceptable material for building support
and fill.
soils sf tRe Bay c:leI3Bsits. Based BE a J3relimiBary re~:ie'N of the site, Bay depesits ".vere
ideHtified iIl tile HElrtllY/est IlIld sOl:ltll'''''est eElrRers Elf tile site. BilGed ElIl a re'/ie',,\, Elf tile
gradiag plans f-or the site, the detention basin may encreacll en these dellS sits, tllereBY
reEj1:liriag remeElial graEling. Otller;;ise, tile rest wS1:lld remain in its earreIlt state. If
saturated soils are encountered dming grading, then this sail ffiUGt Be dried and de watered
prior to l:lse as fill.
1,I:;w.Pp~tlS!'!I~~t*Qt~~@r~!ffi!;~p::11Y:l:!!~l1P~~qi~~R~~;~p!'i~1~Y~lg~p~!9~tgt~g~p!M;~il
~~19'fil~p.~g~gg:tgl~~1!gl:9~~iQfI,il:J:l~;&I'~~t:~9t!P.~D'g!tp.,~!1Y~n9~gHlg;IYP~rgmg
~~I:.r~~i;%~p~~~y~!*;ii!~Bgt~HgtIYl:!lgmii::I~~flI,$~Ht~ffl:AE~!'inyptgP9~~~~!;!R~
~j.'!'PP!i!f~~q9P~Pt~~q~ri?p!!!'IH9~I'iil~pi~gj!iq~g~PYf~~YI~H99!~lp~j.'~nt~~y:~g!i
Kg.YP~I~94~im~p.@P9~~g!Ptpt;tt;ggyp.g~1~Yfl,Y9~gt;~i~l~~1(1i~&~i
~~~giD'llq9pgl~9A~9tPpirt~l~Y~Y9Ptqtn~~9Ylgi!in9@1~~itp~t;!9f!~9f:lA~~9p.;9~rly
~~I:~~t~w.f!11~~!YR~~q~!~~PRYHP~ly%t~1~~~!9~$9Ip!~~~~~ls~19:P~~~I~~~t~~~
H~'i#~gp~~!ntp~1[p;~$~1j.~$!;!P91~tQtf%9[1n~A!11~~~gpP!i!;~gf1n~Rj:igp~.~9~~gstg~~i
W9H~!g~f!!~!~n~~lrf~A~lY9~~Rgg!Y~H!gq~~p~n~II9ggY~BY9'9!!II'9g~mifl,~jj,~I~m~q
9~~!qRPj:i~l!!~[~!PR~g!p~p~~Ptg~~~j:jnq~rl.YipgJ:g.t!9jj,!!~~9n~igf~yppq~~~~~~P;9P9~~q
~;i)~gt~ip~pil~~{)gng~~igg~;!?~~n~gFi;jpy%,qt!9rtll~fiit~Hiii~lq~f!i~~lYP~f!~~[g!~tn~
mgY;p.gi~~~f~gp~$i!p~r$9Yn~I~!t~~III1%!PP9rm$!;!~1I!illgg9!l'ig~~npg!{)Kqr9l!!B9
S9~1IStf9gn9~nqn~1~I~g~iR1I~~9Hnq~l!9j'i$i!~g.lg%9[~HPP9~9~1g~~9g1g%t~Yl1l19,ijg
~tI9!~[~iig't!I9:'9~y!~gRil~lpRgtt9m@~~y~ngng~;~;Lf~%W~~~t!l'1i[~gRsin&~p~
I11{~n~gI!1p!!tl~!PP9t~lpq~~flI,~1!9j'i9~~%~!l'j:i!II~gq~~~f!l'9:HH;!l'pi
3-5
90-14.00911/09/90
I f:J -119
D~~sri~~eria'."'ar~..pi:o\Tidedin'.tht\.JUlY"1990 .'~O(:idW#~~gY<l~~n~u,lt~ts~~poi:1~(:it
foutidatiotidesJ:gn, With ~ons1detatiori being giv(iritqyatiatiCinSfritli(igro)itidVffl#~rtiible; and
d~~Jg~'FPt~riaar~!l1SgproVi~~g1qr~~piP9~,ary!=~~~~9Jl9(iVf~t~rlIlgJr~wtatt;<lsq4s~~~
eri~o1int~reti4~ripg ..thec6nsti'ti!:tioIiaCti'vUie!:Ori~it~:
Soils and G~ologic Units and Site Topograpby
'f"- CCUJcte (J
Construction of th~ offic~ complex would involve grading to flrc:PAIC- lI. Rat ~ad for saffat"e
parkin~~~bUilding~Ei1il-- Approximately 11.2 acres would be graded and tbe
remaining 0.4 acre would remain in its natural condition. After grading to prepare the site,
elevations would vary between 10 aReB ~~p9.lg feet, except in the detention basin where
elevations would vary between 6 and 12 feet. The building complex would sit at an
elevation of 13.2 feet Msq~nq~p~1'9RW;jg~*1i!~~~~9nI9~~~g~~~~I~Y~;igg9.t~iQ
~R4~*r~~;9r;H~~p.m'i@F1Yi!!.TI9~qR1!!~Ilyp~*ipg~~IF]H~~~i:t~~p~F]!y~ly.
l. total of 18,500 eHBie }'ards of eHt aRe fill WaHle Be geReratee aRe grlleiRg VloHle Be
balaReed OR site. The mwcilRHm deptH of CHt aHe fill wOHle Be II reet, '",itH tHe II'Jerage
deptHltflprolflmately 2 reet.
If9]~q~~~J~Q~I~!s'yw;~~p.~I~!!.TI9'~11~919IRli~_t$g'~!\9~PPF!Il;1~!ly.:g!mQ
SHP!BYi~9~g~~rnpglw;9Hlq~[~9M.~[~ql9.~Y~I9.PIH~p'[qRp.~~ggr~g~~i.~I_yi
9~p1!!g~.I~~Aq~UW;9HI4flii~;~t~n90~~~~!EiB~~~x~lY:i~I~B~M@t~g,~Ii~Bg~!P
~~~~...q~~pP:r~m~t~!Ye~~~ti
There is the potential for impacts to the Marsh if surface runoff carries silt and sediment
into the marsh during grading. This is particularly problematic if grading occurs during the
winter months when the heaviest rains occur, and this is considered potentially significant.
Also, on-site soils are identified as compressible and expansive, and are not acceptable lB
rn~l.tPt~~~!\.t.!19H9!~!!-lB for structural support, thus, potentially creating significant impacts
to structures. As previously discussed, there is the potential that saturated soils may be
encountered during grading. Bay deposits have been identified in the westerly site
boundary, and loose porous slopewash soils have been identified in the topographic low near
the center of the southerly site boundary,
3-6
90-14.00911/09/90
"-I,tJ
MITIGATION MEASURES
A ge~i~~9graqiJlg.and .~ri~~~pl~l}W:U$tl1~P"~Pffi:~~}4~Flig~qlW9#~t!:l~~~4~~Yjl\}~
Miiiiidg~1.Coae;.Su.6di\iiSiriri.~~~lj.llli..~ppli~able Qi'9iriillices,po1ici~s;.~~(l.lid~p~~4~~a*iiafdS~
Said p]ilptiluSfbel,ipproved ari.dii:.petniitissuedqy ~1l~ElJ$.irieedrigDMSip#pfi!:lfto the
start o(~iiy .gTaa1rig work..iindl9(iJl5t~latiQn. ora#YQr~iriiige ..~triictUres.
Drainage
Potential significant impacts to drainage resulting from project construction and operation
include contaminated runoff into the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, and potential flooding of low
lying areas. Inherent in the project design are measures, listed below, that would ensure
that all runoff from the site is captured, cleaned and diverted away from the sensitive "F"
& "G" Street Marsh, and that runoff would be detained during storm conditions:
1. minimum storage capacity of 2 acre-feet
2. a cleansing system at the point(s) of discharge into the detention basin to
capture grease, heavy metals and other contaminants
3. a regular maintenance schedule to service the cleansing device I1pg~y#1
at tHe eRe ef tHe eTy seaseR (!*!:lg!m~n{! October) .... ..... ... ... ...
4. a conveyance system from the detention basin to the existing Rohr facilities
that is capable of delivering flows under the IOO-year flood conditions without
flooding
Also, development must comply with all applicable regulations;~i;!9lH9~pg!:Ag~ established
by the Environmental Protection Agency as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for storm water discharge.
Groundwater /Soils and Geologic Units
Potentially significant impacts were identified: (1) to the Marsh from grading, and (2) to
structures from compressible, expansive, and/or saturated soils. Mitigation measures 4,5;
Q~n9i fIftEI-6 would reduce Marsh impacts to a level below significant. Mitigation measures
I, Z;?!m9~ ftftti--3 would reduce structural impacts to a level below significant.
3-7
90-14.009 1l/09/90
19 -/~
1. The "Update Geotechnical Investigation...." (Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
1990) must be reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department.
All recommendations contained within the study must be implemented by the
applicant. This measure must be made a condition of project approval, and
must be included (or referenced to) on the Grading Plan.
2. Engineered fills and/or any structural elements that encroach into areas
overlain by bay deposits 9~9IgtPQI~t~~U:!1!!:g'l~r~~~M~ will require
some form of subgrade rnodifiCaiioriioirnproveihesupporicapacity of the
existing soils for use in ultimately supporting additional engineered fill and/or
structural improvements. Soil improvement may include partial or total
removal and recompaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to pre-compress
saturated bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table; or foundation
elements must be designed to extend through these soils into competent
bearing formational soils.
3. If encountered, roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching
onto existing compressible bay deposits will likely require subgrade
modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce
long-term, post-construction settlement. Soil improvement would likely
include partial or total removal and recompaction, and/or the use of
surcharged fills, to pre-compress saturated bay deposits.
tll'II'IIIIRr~\1~1~111~llilrill~llllfI11~9m~~9f
$)) If project grading occurs during the winter season, the special provisions
contained in Section 87.19.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the City of Chula
Vista Bayfront Specific Plan must be implemented, and these must also be
included (or referenced to) on the Grading Plan.
pi To eliminate the possibility of silt and sediment entering the Marsh, a barrier
system must be placed between the property and the wetland prior to
initiation of grading and remain until the drainage diversion system is in place
and operating. This measure must be included on the Grading Plan.
1i'1 To prevent grading impacts to the wetland, a protective berm must be
constructed along the entire western boundary of the site, avoiding the
wetland. During construction of this berm, the City must retain a biologically
trained construction monitor to observe grading practices and ensure the
integrity of the wetland. To guarantee that the berm itself does not introduce
sedimentation into the wetland, the western slope of the berm must be
3-8
9O-14JJ091l/09/90
/ 9 - I ~~
hydroseeded and/or covered with plastic sheeting. This measure must be
included on the Grading Plan.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The project site currently drains via overland flow to the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. With
project development and reduction in surface permeability, the amount of flow would
increase. The resultant drainage would contain potentially harmful contaminants and would
result in potentially significant impacts to the Marsh. As part of the development, a
drainage system is proposed to capture, clean, and divert drainage away from the Marsh.
This diversion and detention system would mitigate impacts to below a level of significance.
Silt and sediments could enter the Marsh during construction and be carried with site
drainage after construction. Recommended measures, including placement of a construction
barrier, development of the westerly berm, revegetation of the berm's west side immediately
after grading and compliance with all city LCP requirements for grading during the rainy
season, must be implemented to reduce the potentially significant impacts to a level less
than significant.
Saturated, expansive, and/or compressible soils may be encountered, potentially creating
impacts to structures. Remedial measures as outlined in the 1990 Woodward-Clyde
Consultants report, and as listed in the mitigation measures, would reduce these impacts to
below a level of significance.
3-9
90-14.009 11/09/90
I 9 -1;;.3
3.2 BIOLOGY
The following information is summarized from a study prepared by Pacific Southwest
Biological Services (PSBS) describing the existing biological conditions on the site and the
potential impacts associated with development of the proposed office complex. The
complete report is contained in Appendix C.
The site was surveyed six times between July and September, 1989, and again in July and
August, 1990, by biologists from PSBS. The site surveys were focused on verifying a
previous vegetation map (Sanders, 1989), and examining the current status of the wetlands.
In addition to these field investigations, data collected during previous studies of the site and
surrounding area were utilized to provide seasonal information regarding distribution and
use patterns of the various sensitive species known to occur within the study area. Primary
among these other studies are two biological technical reports prepared for the Chula Vista
Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 (PSBS, 1990a and 1990b). Other surveys are listed in
Appendix C.
EXISTING CONDmONS
The site has a long history of agricultural use. Much of the wetland area around the "F" &
"G" Street Marsh has been filled in the recent past. Dumping of trash has been common
practice in the area and vegetable fields were historically treated with pesticides. Recent
studies have identified the presence of residual low concentrations of DDT and DDE in the
surface soils of the site (Woodward-Clyde, 1990). The remnant fields currently support
stands of Russian Thistle and Five-hook Bassia. Trash dumping continues to occur in areas
along "F" Street; however, a recently installed guard-rail along "F" Street has limited this
action somewhat.
Botanical Resources
Vegetation
The historically high levels of agricultural use has resulted in disturbance of the majority of
the uplands within the Rohr site. Naturally vegetated lands of the site are limited to the
existing brackish marsh and small riparian grove along the western boundary of the site.
3-10
9O-14.()0701/24/91
19-1.2 J/.
Adjacent to the western edge of the property lies the coastal salt marsh of the "F" & "G"
Street Marsh (Figure 3-1). Although the previous agricultural use of the site is not a direct
benefit to most of the marsh species, the presence of weedy plants along the wetland
periphery indirectly benefits marsh species by allowing unrestricted movement between
foraging areas, by providing a buffer from human-associated activities and by providing many
species with forage (seeds) and cover.
Disturbed Fields
The predominant vegetation within the Rohr parcel consists of disturbed fields dominated
by weedy plant taxa including Russian-Thistle (Salsola australis) and Five-hook Bassia
(Bassia hyssopifolia), Short-pod Mustard (Brassicageniculata), and Sweet Fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare). Also present are several exotic grasses including bromes (Bromus spp.), Slender
Oats (Avena barbata), and Bermuda-Grass (Cynodon dactylon) which occurs extensively
along the lower portions of the site.
Riparian Grove
A small grove (0.14 acre) of young Sandbar Willows (Salix hindsiana) occurs at the far
southwestern corner of the site and straddles the boundary between the Rohr property and
the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. This stand is quite young and may be expanding
based on previous reports which mapped its location approximately 100 feet west of the
Rohr property line (Sanders, 1989). While the dense growth of the grove precludes most
understory plants, species associated with the fringes of this vegetation include Tree Tobacco
(Nicotiana glauca), Bermuda Grass, Saltgrass, Curly Dock and Telegraph Weed (Heterotheca
grandiflora) .
Brackish Marsh
Brackish Marsh occurs within a small swale at the northwestern corner of the site. This
area, formerly a portion of the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, was historically isolated by the
deposition of fill and is now fed by freshwater runoff from the adjacent fields and fill area.
This area supports such alkaline tolerant species as Southwestern Spiny Rush (funcus
acutus), Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and Curly Dock (Rumex crispus). Also present in this
drainage swale is an abundance of Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon) and Johnson
3-11
90-14.00701/24/91
11-1;)S-
200
o
400 Feet
",;--"~..:.-.' . 10':::::>;
...'.,.... J ." .,...",,"
1!1~IKi~ll
,f''''~,~''''''-'' ..."...} "'1'''''
~ '~~:~':;:~{'~:i":\:~f,+~;f,',:,2~
",,~~~t '~"',' .,' ",l'" 1 ,I" - ;l-:':T-~
: ;t~'~~~{~' ,~:~?~f\~X/~1, '- '" ',-' -, ,
'I.:
I "
. " I
. i ,-'
;
I.'
'" :lli~~
I ."....,...... ..,.
It .,~;~.,~?;~'f::!;f:::!:~
f I Rg:iff'B/:;'X ';
~, ,,'
.:~ ~
.,
...;~~'gi'!:!~.::..~;.;.~'.r~.,..'.:'.t:.'~..;..~!,.,.....:.;.1.~.............~..:..,d....}.: :
..".-:.;,,:,:;,,!,:.},/\-,: ~~
'-:;":':/~;::'-;/-~<>;::.i~~'b:~'_;rl\~ S'x.}?:!;. . :'~
. F ~ClJljJ&'~ ...., ",'" i:::i;;;~: {,
. .!i!iil!l :ri~::~r:'~:::~,::,,::::,::~,; Iii i
r
. "\ . .ii:-'--'. Li:"~~!:.~!Y~{~~~1)~i1~~~~{iii~~~~;.~.:r.~>>.~~~:iitl'.J1f~~tt\~i&r.t'.ti~gt~~ffi ~~~~ :~~~;j;j.f11~.~~..~;'/. ~..
"1:'\ f . : ' ' ";':; ;' " ",' _1,"";'- J '[': ", '\);>'Xf, '
VE~~^~L-I'c" ". .i~~~E~:':RES:RCES ". [vY~~':,-\;:,'~~l!'
E2l Disturbed Yields Ita Blending'. Savannah Sparrow ~\,I .' . 'I t;,..' '
ffil Utbaoized Areal; ~ SOulh......m Spiny Rush ~ jJ.,',.. .....::.
~ ::::hs::arsh 00 California Sea-bllte ""cC:=::;;:~~;~ . Ci::t:::~:::~~O
1m Willow Riparian GfOIYC
Vegetation and Sensitive Resources
Jf1-Ij.f,
Figure 3-1
Grass(Sorghum halepense). Other species such as Cocklebur (Xanthium strnmarium), Curly
Dock (Rumex crispus), Sea-blight (Suaeda califomica), Goosefoot (Chenopodium murale),
and Dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) are also represented in this area. This area has
retained the wetland soil characteristics associated with its salt marsh origin and vegetation
diversity appears to be limited both by competition for primary space as well as soil
salinities.
Coastal Salt Marsh
The "F" & "G" Street Marsh located just west of the property boundary is dominated
primarily by Pickleweed (Salicomia virginica), but also include a diverse assemblage of
subordinate elements including Annual Pickleweed and Glasswort (Salicomia bigelovii and
S. subterminalis), Arrow-grass (Trigloclzin maritima), Saltwort (Batis maritima), and Sea-
lavender (Limonium califomicum). At higher elevations, unvegetated salt panes are
common. Vegetated areas in these locales include Salt-cedar (Monanthochloe littoralis),
Saltgrass, Alkali-weed (Cressa truxillensis), Sea-blight and Alkali-heath (Frankenia salina).
Numerous tidal channels meander through the adjacent marshlands, both increasing the
complexity of the dominating mid-marsh habitats and providing unique resources for fish
and invertebrate fauna. Along the channel meanders and in low-lying bench areas near the
larger tidal channels, vegetation is dominated by Cordgrass (Spartina foliosa). Within the
upper fringes of this marsh the uncommon California Sea-blight (Suaeda esteroa) occurs.
Flora
Fifty-one plant taxa were observed on the Rohr property area (see Appendix C, Table 1).
Of these, 36 are non-native weeds, and an additional 9 are opportunistic natives typically
associated with disturbed or successional habitats. The large number of non-native plants
is due to the extensive prior agricultural use and the high level of disturbance which has
occurred in the area. The sensitive Southwestern Spiny Rush and California Sea-blight
(Suaeda esteroa) are also present. Sensitive plants are discussed in more detail in the
Sensitive Biological Resources section of this report.
3-12
90-14.00701/24/91
J' -/~?-
ZooloiPcal Resources
General Wildlife Habitat
The primary wildlife habitat occurring on the Rohr site is disturbed fields. Minor elements
of Brackish Marsh and Willow Riparian Scrub overlap the western boundary from the
National Wildlife Refuge. Also considered in the proposed site development were the
Coastal Salt Marsh habitats of the adjacent "F" & "G" Street Marsh as the proposed
development may result in off-site impacts.
Disturbed Fields
Disturbed uplands occupy over 99 percent of the site. These areas are typically
characterized by dense weedy vegetation and narrow dirt roadways. Weed abatement
activities occur on an infrequent basis as ordered by the Chula Vista Fire Department. The
fields are occupied by an abundance of rodents and lagomorphs including the California
Ground Squirrel (Spennophilus beecheyi), Botta's Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae), Desert
Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and Brush Rabbit (S. bachmani).
Raptors were observed to forage extensively over the open fields with the predominant use
being by the American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) and Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus).
This pattern of heavy raptor use was observed throughout the Midbayfront region (Pacific
Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). Seed-eating birds, including numerous finches
(Carduelis and Carpodacus spp.), Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), and a variety of
sparrows, make use of the fields while insect gleaners utilize the fields, shrubs and trees.
The few scattered Acacia and palm trees and tall shrubs are important structural elements
in the upland habitats which provide singing, foraging, and sentry points to numerous avian
species.
Brackish Marsh
These marshlands exhibit several characteristics similar to those of the salt marshes;
however, the wildlife species making use of these areas differ sufficiently from that of the
classical salt marsh areas to warrant separate consideration. The Brackish Marsh areas of
the Rohr property are limited in extent and support extremely short-lived seasonal surface
3-13
9O-14.(J()701/N/91
/9 -1,;;1
water. These areas are visited during the rainy season by herons and egrets, Red-winged
Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) and song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Because brackish
marshes do not receive regular tidal flushing, they lack the macro-invertebrates and fish
found in the salt marsh habitats. Most of the vertebrate species utilizing these areas rely
on the seasonal productivity of marshes. Mammals found in association with these areas are
similar to those observed or expected in and around the salt marshes. These include the
Raccoon, California Ground Squirrel, and a variety of small rodents. Stands of Saltgrass
occurring in this wetland harbor the sensitive Wandering Skipper (Panoquina errans).
Riparian Grove
The small grove of Sandbar Willow located at the southwestern site boundary supports
limited wildlife activities. These trees are densely growing seedlings and clonal divisions
typically associated with emerging riparian habitats. The small size, low stature and
monospecific nature of this area limits its value as a distinct community. During the course
of the survey, avifauna detected in this grove were limited to Song Sparrows, House Finches,
and Lesser Goldfinches. An unidentified medium-sized mammal was also present in the
thicket. As this grove matures it would be expected to attract substantially more use by
wildlife.
Coastal Salt Marsh
Coastal Salt Marsh wildlife habitat is coincident with the distribution of salt marsh
vegetation (Figure 3-1). Characteristic species of these habitats include the Belding's
Savannah Sparrow, which occurs as two resident pairs in the "F' & "G" Street Marsh, the
Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), the Marbled Godwit (Limosafedoa), the Great Blue
Heron (Ardea herodias) and the Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus). Along the
fringes of the marshlands, terrestrial mammals including the Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus
audubonii), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and Botta's Pocket Gopher
(Thomomys bottae) forage on the lush marsh plants; also present in these areas is the
sensitive Wandering Skipper Butterfly (Panoquina errans).
Restricted circulation at the "P" & "G" Street Marsh plays a great role in limiting the
diversity and productivity of this marsh relative to other marshes in the Sweetwater Marsh
complex; however, this area does provide supporting refuge, foraging grounds and spawning
3-14
90-]4.00701/24/91
1'-/~'7
grounds for numerous species more typically associated with open water or shoreline areas
of the bay and coastal areas.
The tidal channels, creeks, and even frequently exposed portions of the marshes are utilized
as spawning areas and nursery grounds by numerous coastal fish and invertebrates. A
diverse and abundant community of resident invertebrates persists in the salt marsh habitats
as well. Most notable are the concentrations of California Horn Snails (Cerithidea
californica), Fiddler Crabs (Uca crenulata) and Yellow Shore Crabs (Hemigrapsis
oregonensis ).
Resident bivalves and tidal channel polychaetes (marine worms) and crustaceans are
generally restricted to the tidal channels near Marina Parkway.
Fauna
Amphibians
Only a handful of amphibians are expected to make use of the Rohr site and these would
be restricted to the wetland areas on the western boundary of the site. They include the
common Pacific Treefrog (Hyla regilla), Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps spp.) and
Western Toad (Bufo boreas). Because of the marine influence of the wetlands on the site,
amphibian activities are expected to be extremely low. No sensitive amphibians are
expected to occur on the property.
Reptiles
Five reptilian species have been noted on the Rohr property (see Appendix C, Table 2).
These include such common species as the Southern Alligator Lizard (Gerrhonotus
multicarinatus), the Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and the Common
Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus). The high degree of disturbance would be expected to
limit the potential for other species. No sensitive reptiles would be expected to occur on
the Rohr site.
3-15
90-14.00701/24/91
/9-130
Birds
Fifty-seven avian species have been observed or reported from the Rohr property (see
Appendix C, Table 2). In addition, a host of other birds which would not be expected to
make use of the site have been observed as fly-overs or within the adjacent "F" & "G" Street
Marsh. Some of these birds reflect migratory movements of passerines and/or incidental
transitory occupancy by other species. A variety of the species noted are all but extirpated
from the Chula Vista Bayfront region, although they occur more frequently at interior
locations.
Eleven raptors, and four species of owl have been recorded in the northern Chula Vista
Bayfront in recent years (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990a). Of these, nine
raptors and all four owls have been observed to forage over the Rohr site at one time or
another.
There has been an apparent decline in usage of the area by several of these species over
the past few years. Notably, these include the Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Red-
shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Black-shouldered Kite (Elanus caeruleus) and American
Kestrel (Falco sparverius) (Merkel, pers. obs.). These declines are probably related to the
reduction of prey (including Desert Cottontail, California Ground Squirrel, and Pocket
Gophers) associated with the more frequent and intense management of field habitats in
the Bayfront. There has been an increase in the activities of the endangered Peregrine
Falcon, an event undoubtedly related to the 1989 successful nesting of the species on the
Coronado Bridge, the first in San Diego County for over 40 years. Other raptorial birds
have maintained an apparently stable level of incidental occurrence in the Bayfront region
as migratory movements and wide' home ranges carry them over the Rohr site. Raptor
nesting in and around the Bayfront is limited to that of the common Red-tailed Hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis), the American Kestrel, the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularis) and
possibly the Red-shouldered Hawk; however, none of these raptors nests on the Rohr site.
Also nesting in the area are Common Ravens (Corvus corax), Scrub Jays (Aphelocoma
coerulescens) and Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus); three semi-raptor-like species
which constitute important predators in the area. Burrowing Owls have been known to nest
on the steep banks of the northern Bayfront, throughout the disturbed lands on Gunpowder
Point, and on the "D" Street Fill. Efforts to eradicate owl nesting on the "D" Street Fill,
3-16
90-14,00701/24/91
/q -13/
near the California Least Tern Nesting Colony, have been fairly successful, and currently
nesting burrowing owls are a fairly uncommon sight in the Bayfront (E. Lichtwardt, K.
Merkel, pers. obs.). This species is, however, more commonly seen on the Chula Vista
Wildlife Reserve Island.
Several sensitive birds occur in the Bayfront but do not occur on the Rohr site. Where
potential for impacts to these species exist, the species are discussed. Breeding pairs of the
state-listed Belding's Savannah Sparrow are known to be present within the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh. Also of concern are potential impacts to marshlands where the re-establishment of
Light-footed Clapper Rail populations might be possible. These and other sensitive avian
species are discussed separately within the text of the Sensitive Biological Resources Section
of this report.
Avian flight activities in the area have been investigated previously (Pacific Southwest
Biological Services, 1990b) and the results of that study have been incorporated into the
current study.
From October 1989 through April 1990, an intensive field study was conducted to determine
the levels and patterns of avian flight activities over the Chula Vista Midbayfront --
including the project site (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). This study focused
on the movements of waterbirds and raptors within the region. The study documented
extremely low levels of flight activities within the Rohr parcel for all shorebirds, wading
birds, waterfowl and terns. On the average, the numbers of birds within these groups which
were observed to pass through the study site fell well below one bird flight per hour for all
elevation ranges combined. For gulls, an average of over 330 flights per hour crossed the
site, of which between 12 and 24 occurred at levels below 50 feet and could potentially be
affected by the proposed project. Raptor activities were predominantly present along "F"
Street and within the fields located on the site. More restricted use of the site was made
by the Northern Harrier which foraged widely over the Bayfront. Other raptor activities
were more or less incidental to the site, as has been previously discussed.
Mammals
Fourteen mammalian species were detected on the site (see Appendix C, Table 2). Of
these, all are common to San Diego County. Notable among the native species are the
3-17
90-14.00701/24/91
,q -13~
infrequent occurrences of large mammals such as the Coyote (Canis latrans) and the Gray
Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). In addition to the native species occurring on or in the
vicinity of the site, five introduced or domesticated species also occupy various areas within
the Bayfront and its immediate vicinity. These include the naturalized Virginia Opossum
(Didelphis virginianus), the human-associated Black Rat (Rattus rattus) and House Mouse
(Mus musculus), and the Domestic Dog (Canisfamiliaris) and House Cat (Felis domesticus).
The introduced species tend to be the most destructive of the mammalian predators. These
species account for the majority of the mammalian predation on avian nest colonies, sites,
young, and adult birds throughout the Chula Vista Bayfront area. No sensitive mammals
are expected to inhabit the project area.
Sensitive Biological Resources
Sensitive Habitats
Coastal Salt Marsh
While Coastal Saltmarsh communities do not occur on the Rohr site, the presence of such
areas within the watershed of the property is a concern. Such habitats are naturally limited,
highly productive ecological systems which persist at the interface of marine and terrestrial
systems in sheltered bays and estuaries. The pattern of intermittent drying and saltwater
inundation creates a situation favoring holophytic (requiring saline soil) vascular plants
tolerant of frequent inundation and soil anoxia (absence of oxygen). Such conditions also
favor marine algae and invertebrates resistant to stresses due to the intermittent drying.
The regular tidal exchanges of nutrient rich seawater promotes high primary productivity
and provides the basis for an important detrital based food web.
The salt marshes of the "F' & "G" Street Marsh are home or provide important habitat to
several sensitive species including a state-listed endangered species (Belding's Savannah
Sparrow). In addition to playing host to sensitive species, saltmarsh communities provide
important nursery grounds and foraging areas for a host of other organisms including fish,
terrestrial and marine invertebrates, and birds. These areas are important to the continued
survival of several non-nesting migratory bird species as well, providing food, shelter and
resting habitats.
3-18
9O-14.(XJ701/24/91
I q-/33
These coastal wetlands have suffered a tremendous decline in the recent past due to both
direct and indirect impacts. Development and agricultural pressures have lead to the filling
of such areas, marine development has led to the dredging of these areas, and watershed
development has led to the introduction of numerous contaminants, modified the erosion
and accretion patterns, and greatly altered the freshwater hydrologic character of most
coastal wetlands. It is estimated that over 75 percent of the coastal wetlands in California
have already been lost and the future of the remaining wetlands is tenuous at best (Marcus,
1989).
Due to the high value of these systems and the rapid losses they have undergone, almost any
impacts to these systems would be considered significant. In addition, in most cases such
impacts would be subject to permitting requirements of various federal, state and local
entities outside of the CEQA review process.
Brackish Marsh
These habitats are frequently associated with estuarine or drainage systems which receive
freshwater input but which maintain an alkaline condition due to either saline soils or
evaporative concentration of runoff which is rich in salts or alkalide minerals. Within the
potential impact area (both on and off site), these areas are limited in quantity to a small
swale supporting 0.16 acre of highly degraded habitat which has been heavily infested with
Bermuda and Johnson grasses.
With the tremendous coastal development which has occurred over the past several years,
many of these area have been lost or highly modified. Unlike the larger brackish marsh
located north of "F" Street, this marsh supports no substantial seasonal surface water and
receives only a limited amount of seasonal use by avifauna. It does, however, exhibit high
potential for enhancement and could be improved by the activities within the adjacent
NWR.
Riparian Grove
Riparian wetlands are a naturally limited habitat which has been heavily impacted by
agriculture, urbanization and hydrologic development. These areas tend to be extremely
productive and support a high faunal diversity.
3-19
90-14.00701/24/91
1,-13'1
On the Rohr site, riparian habitat is represented by a small portion (0.007 acre) of a
recently emergent willow grove which extends onto the adjacent "F" & "G" Street Marsh for
a total size of 0.14 acre. Plants, though dense, appear to be stunted by limited water
availability and lower fringes of the grove support a variety of dead trees with an understory
of newly emergent Sandbar Willows. These trees were most probably killed by saltwater
intrusion during recent (1986-present) drought conditions. This grove is of low stature and
lacks a diverse faunal association.
Sensitive Plants
Prior disturbances of the majority of the area is probably the reason for a lower rare plant
density. Table 3 (see Appendix C) lists sensitive plants known in the region. Plants marked
with an asterisk indicate those that might have been found on site prior to disturbance.
Currently, the only plants considered to be sensitive that occur on the site are Southwestern
Spiny Rush and California Sea-blight. The status of these species follows.
Spiny Rush (Juncus acutus var. sphaerocarpus)
Listing:
Status:
CNPS List 4
Apparently stable.
R-E-D Code 1-2-2
State/Fed. Status -- None
A small population of spiny rush is found within the small swale located at the northwestern
boundary of the Rohr property near "F" Street. While this stand represents the largest stand
of Juncus within the Chula Vista Bayfront, it is of negligible size relative to other wetlands
found throughout the plant's range. Populations of this size are not generally considered
to be significant or of consequence to the overall survival of the species; however, Rohr
Industries have committed to maintaining this population in its current state.
California Sea-blight (Suaeda esteroa)
Listing:
Status:
CNPS List 4 R-E-D Code 1-1-1
Declining. More information needed.
State/Fed. Status -- None
Suaeda esteroa seems to be presently expanding into peripheral upland areas adjacent to
undisturbed areas of Sweetwater Marsh. The population on the Rohr site is fairly small and
is not independently significant; however, this population could be enhanced through careful
management.
3-20
90-14.00701/24/91
1'1-135
Sensitive Wildlife
Few sensitive animals occur or have the potential for occurring within the project
boundaries; however, sensitive animals which occur outside the boundaries may be affected
by development of the project. For this reason, sensitive wildlife from the surrounding area
are discussed, with their sensitivity status and on-site status, in Appendix C, Table 4.
Species warranting additional consideration are discussed below. Agency listings include the
California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the San
Diego Non-Game Wildlife Subcommittee.
Liilht-footed Clapner Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes)
Listing:
Status:
CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered
USFWS (1986) - Endangered
SDNGWS (1976) - Special Concern
Everett (1979) - Threatened
The Light-footed Clapper Rail is one of the most endangered birds in the
United States with only 277 pairs found in a 1984 survey of California
marshes (Zembal and Massey 1985). Recent estimates for the Sweetwater
Marsh complex are 5 pairs.
This federally-listed endangered bird occurs in the "E" Street and Sweetwater marshes. It
is likely that this bird will begin to be found in Vener Pond as well, due to the continuing
conversion to saltmarsh. The "F" & "G" Street Marsh has been historically utilized by this
species; but several recent investigations have failed to locate any birds in this area. The
degraded conditions and high level of disturbance at this site may preclude the presence of
this species.
California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni)
Listing:
Status:
CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered, Fully Protected
USFWS (1986) - Endangered
Everett (1979) - Threatened
Breeding colonies are limited in extent, and fledgling rates are highly variable
and recently very low, primarily due to heavy predation from domestic cats,
dogs, horses, ravens, crows, and small raptors. Off-road vehicles have also
had deleterious effects on the nesting areas.
This species forages over the open water along the Chula Vista Bayfront and nests on the
"D" Street Fill area. Formerly, the Least Tern was a fairly cornmon forager over Vener
Pond; however, this pond is returning to salt marsh and the birds are now infrequent here.
The bird is only an infrequent forager within the tidal channels of the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh and does not utilize the site.
3-21
90-14.00701/24/91
19-/ ~~
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Listing:
Status:
Audubon Blue List (Tate 1986)
Everett (1979) - Declining
Remsen (1980) - 2nd Priority
This raptor has declined as a breeder in southern California due to loss of
habitat.
The Northern Harrier frequently forages over the site but does not nest on site or within
the immediate area.
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Listing:
Status:
CDFG (1988) - Endangered
USFWS (1986) - Endangered
This falcon has declined as a breeder in California due largely to the use of
DDT.
Since DDT has been banned, their number has increased in California (Cade 1982).
Peregrines have been observed on the site as migrants. A pair of Peregrines nested this
year under the Coronado Bridge and may forage as far south as the site and the salt works.
These falcons are often associated with bodies of water; the presence of the Sweetwater
Marsh complex and San Diego Bay mudflat areas may attract them to the site as a
foraging ground.
Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)
Listing:
Status:
Audubon Blue List (Tate 1986)
USFWS (1986) - Category II
This species is considered down in numbers by many observers; however, it
is still a fairly common wintering species along the coast in San Diego County.
Found in low numbers within all of the saltmarsh habitats of the bayfront, this large
marshbird is infrequently observed in the "F" & "G" Street Marsh -- possibly as a result of
lower productivity and higher disturbance levels than the other bayfront wetlands.
Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi).
Listing:
Status:
CDFG (1977, 1988) - Endangered
USFWS (1986) - Category II
SDNGWS (1976) - Special Concern
Everett (1979) - Threatened
The 1986 census estimated 2,274 pairs in 27 marshes in southern California.
Eight marshes have populations of 100 pairs or more, comprising 75 percent
of the total. The upper marsh habitat is rare in southern California, being the
easiest to fill and claim for land uses. Extirpations have occurred in at least
three locations in the last 10 years. Sixty-three percent of the marshes
3-22
90-14.00701/24/91
J9-/3:r
containing 40 percent of the individuals are in private ownership.
Development proposals exist for several of these marshes; continued planned
restoration activities and public acquisition are needed.
One hundred forty-five pairs are known from the Sweetwater Marsh complex (Zembal et
at. 1988); up from 74 pairs found in 1977. With only 2.4 percent of the total marsh area
considered, Sweetwater Marsh hosts a density of 2.3 pairs per hectare and 5.2 percent of the
state's total number of Belding's Savannah Sparrows. The Belding's Savannah Sparrow
inhabits salt marsh areas below the confluence of Nestor Creek and the Otay River. It has
also been observed on sparsely vegetated levees within Western Saltworks.
Surveys conducted in the spring of 1990 place the resident "F' & "G" Street Marsh
population at two pairs (Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990b). This is below the
site's presumed carrying capacity; it is believed that disturbance and predation are the
principal factors limiting population levels at this location.
IMPACfS
Development of the project would result in the construction of a three-story office complex
and surface parking to cover the majority of the site. The project applicants have
incorporated a number of measures into the project to minimize biological impacts and
enhance the quality of buffers between the project and sensitive wetland areas. These
include (Sadler 1990):
. Control of runoff and sediment during the construction of the project l!.PU
over its life ..........
. Enhancement of the weedy buffer area
. Expansion of wetlands along the western boundary of the site in conjunction
with site drainage improvements
Where these proposed measures serve to reduce impacts associated with the project, they
are specified in the mitigation section. Specific measures proposed by the project applicant
include Mitigation Recommendations No.1 through No.5. The following impact analysis
assumes implementation of all proposed measures.
3-23
90-14.00702/0]/9]
1&J-/~8
Drainage and Water Quality Impacts
The proposed project would modify the existing drainage patterns within the Rohr property
in a manner that would divert surface drainage from the site away from the various wetland
areas located to the west. Instead, this drainage would be directed through a series of filters
and a vegetated swale prior to directing discharge into existing storm drains. The amount
of runoff flowing into the "F" & G" Street Marsh from the project is relatively
inconsequential; however it constitutes the major surface watershed for the brackish and
riparian wetlands present both on site and within the adjacent refuge lands.
Decreased Freshwater Input
It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in a decrease in surface water
discharge from the site to all existing wetland areas. This discharge is currently very minor
due to the loose and highly permeable soils found on the site, the small drainage basin, and
the lack of well-defined drainage courses. On- and off-site potentially disrupted watershed
basins for the various wetlands include 9.3 acres to the 0.14 acre willow riparian grove; 3.3
acres to the 0.16 acre brackish marsh; and, 2.1 acres to the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. Impacts
to the watershed of the brackish marsh and "F" & "G" Street Marsh are expected to be
minor due to their limited contribution freshwater input makes relative to groundwater and
tidal sources. The loss of seasonal freshwater input to the riparian grove would be expected
to result in a reduction in extent and vigor of this grove, but would be unlikely to result in
the complete elimination ofthis stand. The losses and degradation anticipated could include
from 0.05 to the entire 0.14 acre, including 0.007 acre of direct grading losses. Loss of the
amount of riparian grove on site (0.007 acre) would not be considered a significant impact.
Impacts to the portion of the 0.14 acre willow riparian grove on NWR would, however,
constitute a significant adverse effect.
Contaminant Discharge
Identified with the development of residential, commercial, or other human high use areas,
is a corresponding increase in the presence of automobiles, fertilizers, pesticides and other
human-associated practices and products. Features such as irrigation and development-
related impermeable surfaces create additional amounts of freshwater runoff, thus providing
effective means to transport any human-associated byproducts.
3-24
90-14.00701/24/91
/9-/39
Gasoline and petroleum residues, particularly from automobiles, are associated with streets
and parking areas. These products are typically derived from a slow and regular process of
vehicle emission and engine dripping composed of the less toxic fractions of fuels, as the
more toxic fractions vaporize very quickly. Nevertheless, the potential level of disturbance
caused by such chemicals draining into the Marsh is considerable. The fact that these
chemicals are not easily broken down, and further, that they are not water soluble, allows
these products to persist in a more-or-Iess original state as they are transported by
freshwater runoff to downstream wetlands and waterways. Once in the wetlands, these
pollutants can have a wide range of effects upon resident organisms. These effects range
from behavioral responses such as emigration from, lack of immigration to, or modified
utilization of polluted areas; to reduction of growth rates and reproductive success, increased
susceptibility to parasitism or disease, and in the extreme case, death of respective
organisms, species, and/or replacement of representative dominant species by more
pollutant resistant species. Hydrocarbons have been identified as effective inhibitors of
chemoreceptors (nerve endings or sense organs sensitive to chemical stimuli) which may
further inhibit an organism's abilities to locate food, detect predators, or identify potential
mates.
The use of fertilizers and pesticides by local residents also holds potential for altering the
diversity and abundance of the organisms occupying the Marsh. Fertilizers supply one or
more nutrient sources which are normally limiting to maximum plant growth; typically
nitrogen (in the form of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, or urea), phosphorus (in the form of
phosphate), sulfate, "B" vitamins and trace metals. The consequences of these excessive
nutrients entering wetlands or waterways will be an accelerated eutrophication (the process
of producing an environment that favors plant over animal life) of the system. Under
minimal input conditions, there would be a promotion of the growth of plants in excess of
that which would be possible under the normally nitrogen-limited conditions prevailing
within the wetlands (Zedler, Williams and Boland, 1986). In an extreme case, oxygen levels
in the water can be so reduced that the result is a massive die-off of the fish and
invertebrates. The large amounts of decaying organisms also promote excessive bacteria
growth which further unbalances a marsh habitat.
Another possible consequence of the influx of excessive nutrients into the Marsh is that it
may allow plant species, which normally would be unable to compete with the normal
environmental dominants, the ability to out-compete and displace resident species. A
3-25
90-14.00701/24/91
1f1-/~t)
change in the flora would result in the alteration of the representative fauna inhabiting the
wetlands. Many organisms are intricately tied to a particular plant for food, shelter, or to
fulfill requirements for reproduction. Loss of a particular plant or suite of plants may
therefore foster the elimination of the expected fauna of an undisturbed wetland system.
Influx of pesticides into wetlands or waterways through freshwater runoff can also have
devastating effects on the Marsh community. The effects can be manifested in the outright
death of organisms or impacts such as loss of reproductive success. While the historic
examples of DDT on avian reproduction are unlikely to be repeated, they remain classic
examples of potential hazards.
Despite these concerns, the fertilizers and pesticides used today are generally safer in terms
of their consequences to untargeted species, and application methods have advanced to the
point that their use by qualified horticulturists allow them to be used more safely than in
past years. Used properly, there is generally low likelihood of such compounds reaching the
wetlands and waterways in quantities which could prove significantly deleterious to wildlife,
or to the point where the balance within the marsh might be upset.
Sediment Accretion and Erosion
As indicated, the proposed project would alter the existing drainage patterns and surface
flow volumes on the Rohr parcel. These changes could potentially lead to increased erosion
within the uplands and deposition of sediments within the lower wetland basins.
While sedimentation and erosion are natural occurrences and even required for the
development of coastal wetland systems, the rate of sedimentation experienced by coastal
systems has been drastically altered by human activity. Agricultural activities, urbanization,
stream channelization, and construction activities have all served to increase erosion and
sediment transport rates throughout the drainage basins feeding coastal wetlands. This
. increased rate of erosion has led to a corresponding increase in sedimentation rate within
alluvial portions of the drainage system. These areas are characteristically the wetlands.
Deposition of sediments within coastal wetland areas has been identified as a critical
problem in numerous portions of southern California, including the nearby Tijuana Estuary
(Zedler et ai., 1986). Even the Sweetwater Marsh has been heavily impacted by sediments
transported from upstream areas. Most recently, the joint I-5/SR-54 freeway/flood control
3-26
90.14.00701/24/91
l'i-IIII
channel project has introduced heavy sediment loads into the river and the marsh system
(Merkel, pers. obs.). Both gradual and rapid sediment depositional patterns are active in
most areas.
Construction Impacts
The construction phase of the proposed project has the potential for the greatest impact to
the natural systems, is likely to lead to the most rapid changes in sediment transport, and
has the highest potential for effecting a change in the local water quality as it relates to
biological resources. Such changes have already been discussed and include increased
potential for changes in the pattern of erosion and deposition and potential for both
elevated turbidity levels in the bay and releases of toxins from the construction area into the
surrounding wetlands.
The project applicants have proposed the implementation of silt fencing, sandbagging, and
erection of a protective berm with a suitable capacity to hold site runoff. The drainage
swale is to be constructed early in the site grading to serve as a large capacity desiltation
basin. These measures would function to control sedimentation and erosion resulting from
natural rainfall events. In the event that substantial construction de-watering is required,
however, containment of silts and suspended sediments would be required. It is unknown
whether these measures would be capable of adequately controlling sedimentation from
these sources, although suitable control capabilities exist through partitioned basins and
stand-pipe drains. For this reason, impacts of the project on sedimentation and erosion are
considered to be significant and mitigable.
Wildlife Resource Impacts
The proposed project would alter the character of the "F' & "G" Street Marsh region in a
variety of ways, including increasing human presence in the area and converting habitat
areas. Approximately 11.5 acres of disturbed open field habitat would be converted to 9.4
acres of urbanized land and 2.1 acres of enhanced upland and wetland habitats. The 800-
foot long and 42-foot high structure would be located on the project site. This building
would be isolated from the majority of the existing wetlands by a minimum 100-foot buffer
zone, and would be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the boundary of the NWR (the "F"
3-27
9O-UJJ0701/24/91
/1-14/~
& "G" Street Marsh). For most of its length, the building would be over 200 feet from the
eastern boundary of the Marsh.
Avian Flight Patterns
Because of the proximity to areas of high waterbird use, disruption of flight patterns was
considered to be a major concern associated with the development of the open lands of the
Bayfront. Prior investigation in an adjacent parcel addressed this issue and determined that
development of a higher intensity than is proposed for the project site would not result in
significant adverse impacts to avian flight patterns (Pacific Southwest Biological Services,
1990b) with the exception of raptor activity and broadly defined gull flight corridors.
In the case of raptors, building placement is considered secondary to the loss of foraging
habitat usage which would result from development of the site and general human
encroachment. This point is discussed below. Because of the overriding issue of habitat
unsuitability for raptors under developed site conditions, impacts to raptor flight activities
are not considered to be significant.
For gulls, flight patterns appear to be regional in nature and not specific to any set
corridors. Further, numerous studies have cited the structure avoidance behavior of gulls
wherein they tend to fly around or rise over impediments. Collisions with structures by this
group have been reported to be extremely low. Under the currently proposed project, gull
flights would also be little affected.
Although reported collisions with structures have been extremely low, the use of reflective
glass on large windows and the resultant resemblance of the glass to open sky or water can
lead to inflation in the mortality of numerous bird groups, including a host of waterbirds.
Because of this, sites located adjacent to highly reflective water with structure orientation
towards the west, could encourage collision impacts if reflective glass were used on the
buildings. In the absence of such reflective materials in the proposed project, collision
impacts would be insignificant.
3-28
9().14.00701/24/91
J q-/~.3
Human/Pet Presence Impacts
The construction and continued presence of the proposed project could result in a variety
of negative impacts on the quality of the adjacent NWR and could decrease the use of the
area by both resident and migratory avifauna.
Development of the area would reduce the shoreline buffer zone and make the wildlife area
more prone to the long-term impacts associated with habitat dynamics. Large stands of
habitat can withstand minor disturbance and still sustain a population which is large, healthy,
and diverse enough to ensure the long-term survival of the species in the area. Deleterious
edge effects and fragmentation caused by roads and development in such areas can make
some species much more vulnerable to local extinction (Soule & Wilcox, 1980).
!;Ji9qg~~~!$r~!lQgiR~~H~~~~FQ~~M1gP9IH~Rql[qlP:&!P1qi'ig~~:t~~~q~P:~i~[prpJ~9~i the
presence of a large number of people in the area could eventually lead to site degradation
by humans and human associated animals, primarily domestic dogs and cats, which inevitably
find their way over, through, and under even well-tended and mended fences. In similar
habitats on Delaware Bay researchers found that only 30 percent of the shorebirds present
remained undisturbed on a beach when human activity was allowed (Burger, 1986). Dogs
not only flush birds along shorelines, but are also prone to swimming or wading to otherwise
isolated nesting areas and can accidentally or intentionally destroy nests. Secretive rails are
very sensitive to human presence and, if not killed, will leave a site if disturbed regularly.
Such is likely to have been the case at the "F" & "G" Street Marsh (Jorgensen, pers. comm.
1988). In the bayfront, it is not uncommon to see persons with multiple dogs turn their
animals loose to chase birds. Feral dogs and apparently abandoned animals are also quite
common in the area. Domestic cats have been found to be major predators in some
suburban residential areas. One study estimated that domestic cats in Britain account for
over 70 million deaths to small vertebrates annually (Churcher and Lawton, 1989), thirty to
fifty percent of which are birds.
Although the proposed development would not result in the direct increase in domestic
animals associated with residential development, human activities, including providing food
and shelter for wandering and/or homeless animals, ifwp\lXa tend to result in increased
...-.........;...;..'.............
densities of domesticated animals. Adverse effects of the increased densities of these
animals could include losses of small shorebirds, the Belding's Savannah Sparrow, and
3-29
90-14.00701/24/91
19-1'1'1
juveniles of all species from the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. Indirect impacts of enhanced pet
and human associated predator attraction to the area are considered significant.
The increase in human activities on the site would be expected to lead to little if any
disturbance of existing wetland habitat usage, however it could potentially affect the values
of future enhancement efforts on the eastern boundary of the NWR. As designed, the
project has limited access on the western side of the proposed building to low lying patio
areas within the central portion of the building. These patios are to be buffered from direct
view of the adjacent marsh lands by mounds supporting native scrub vegetation. Properly
implemented, this design would provide suitable buffering of wetland habitats from human
disturbance associated with the proposed project. The potential impacts of increased human
activities normally associated with a project in such a sensitive environment are considered
to be adequately mitigated by the proposed project design.
A beneficial impact is that it is probable that the presence of the professional center project
would decrease the amount of vandalism, illegal dumping and habitat degradation. Illegal
off-road vehicle use of the project area would also be eliminated with site development.
Alteration of Predator /Competition/Prey Regimes
Of primary concern for this issue is the generation of food and/or trash which will attract
opportunistic scavengers, such as Common Ravens, a variety of gulls, European Starling,
Black Rats and Virginia Opossum; all of which are known as aggressive predators/
competitors. Their increased presence could adversely impact the more sensitive species in
the area.
The effects of non-native plants used in landscaping designs may also serve to attract
predatory or competing birds and mammals; however, the landscape materials proposed for
the project (Wallace, Roberts and Todd, 1990 as cited in Sadler, 1990), are considered to
be compatible with the region and of minimal concern with respect to providing predator
habitats.
The proposed office building itself, however, would be located adjacent to the buffer zone
for the NWR and would have the potential for creating both real and perceived threats of
predation. Such structures may provide suitable hunting perches and nest sites for avian
3-30
90-14.00701/24/91
I '1-/ '15
predators such as the American Kestrel, Red-tailed Hawk, and Common Raven. All of
these species have keen vision and are effective hunters both from perches and on the wing
(D. Grout, pers. comm.).
Under the project development plan, the proposed 42-foot high building encroaches as close
as 50 feet to the NWR, with a set-back from existing sensitive wetlands of approximately 250
feet. In the case of coastal locations such as the Chula Vista Bayfront, it has been suggested
that buildings of 4 stories or higher provide effective predator perches for Peregrine Falcons
which normally opt to hunt from the highest available structures (P. Bloom, pers. comm.).
In the case of the project proposed 4~ 44-foot building, however, Peregrine Falcons are not
expected to be among the raptors using it as a primary perch as they would probably focus
on the existing nearby, and higher, Building 61 (approximately 73 feet).
Regardless of the issue of real threat, the proposed structure was also evaluated as a
perceived threat that would result in avoidance of the area by birds frequently sought by
avian predators. Habituation (development of tolerance through prolonged exposure) to
predators and predator-like objects has been demonstrated in some avian species (Schleidt,
1961 and Hinde 1954a, 1954b as cited in Morse 1980), but in other instances, birds
confronted with changing stimuli or new stimuli tend to be slower to habituate or in some
instances wrongly habituate and are more readily preyed upon. The results of non-
habituation to unreal threats can also have serious consequences on prey species. A species
which spends much of its time reacting to "ghost-predators" is re-allocating time that could
be spent on other behavioral requirements. Morse (1980:133) noted that:
A prey species that must spend most of its time foraging, as often happens
during winter or the breeding season, could be excluded from an area even
if it was rarely taken by the predator. Harassment by the predator [or a
"ghost-predator"] could have an effect on the size of the prey population
similar to that which would be caused by actual predation, although the
predator population would gain nothing.
Shalter (1975, 1978) has examined the habituation of members of the family galliformes
(e.g., coots and rails) and flycatchers in the field and has determined that habituation results
where stimuli are static in position. The threshold beyond which birds will significantly alter
their use patterns as a result of building placement and associated stimuli is highly variable.
Types of structures, extent and type of associated human activities, and the avian species
3-31
90-14.007 01/24/91
I q - 1'1 (,
considered, all play key roles in determining the impacts of building placement. Some
"human resistant" birds such as Killdeer, Mallards and a host of gulls may not vacate the
area under even the most intense development. Other birds, which are highly sensitive to
human intrusion, may completely disappear from the area with even minor development.
Still others may modify their behavior in proximity to the structures to a degree resulting
in detrimental effects.
Belding's Savannah Sparrows have been found to readily abandon egg incubation when nests
are approached (A. White, 1985 pers. comm.). The effects of buildings, bridges, or other
large structures in the absence of human activities have not been well studied, however,
there is indication that these features may play important roles in bird behavior. The
general lack of avian nesting adjacent to the Rohr Building 61 bordering the "F' & "G"
Street Marsh is believed to be the result of both real and perceived threats of predation;
however, in the absence of any predator controls in this area, these factors are not readily
separable.
Based on the information available, and an examination of "height:bird distance" ratios for
nine large bayfront structures, an attempt was made to identify patterns of avian use in the
vicinity of structures. The lack of pre-structure bird utilization and behavior data, the wide
diversity of habitats adjacent to the structures, and the lack of control over non-structure
associated disturbances all limit the applicability of this comparison. For lack of more
comparable examples with both pre-project and post-project quantitative data, however, this
information has been used in this analysis and prior analyses (Pacific Southwest Biological
Services, 1990a). Figure 3 in Appendix C identifies the results of the site examinations
conducted.
The results of this study indicated that for tall buildings (e.g., over 50 feet), a constant 0.6
height:distance ratio appeared to hold true. When buildings were lower in stature (e.g., 30-
50 feet), the patterns appeared to breakdown and structure encroachment was less of a
factor in determining bird usage. Gulls and more disturbance tolerant species were found
to uniformly range closer than would be dictated by strict adherence to the extrapolated
ratio, and some more intolerant species would engage in active behaviors (Le., foraging,
display) within this range; however, few observations were made of species engaged in such
non-wary behaviors as loafing.
3-32
90-]4.00701/24/91
/9-/~'"
Applying the 0.6 height:distance ratio to the proposed project indicated that perceived
threats might be expected within the swale and buffer zones of the project site as well as low
utility uplands of the NWR, but these threats would not be expected to extend into the
sensitive wetland areas (see Figure 3-2). The extent to which the proposed development
would manifest true predator threats is difficult to determine, but is of high concern due to
the potential for losses of endangered species from the NWR marshlands. For these
reasons, impacts of the project on the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey
are considered to be significant.
Alteration of Habitat Use Areas
The proposed project would result in the elimination of approximately 11.6 acres of
overgrown fallow agricultural fields. This area would be replaced by approximately 9.5 acres
of developed lands and 2.1 acres of native succulent sage scrub and seasonal freshwater
wetlands.
There is expected to be a decrease in open field associated species and an increase in urban
affiliates such as House Sparrows and Rock Doves (domestic pigeons). Such conversions
could result in both losses of prey species and encroachment impacts to foraging raptors.
Due to the limited extent of similar coastal habitats, and the high diversity and numbers of
raptors utilizing the undeveloped areas of the Chula Vista Bayfront, the loss of the site for
raptor foraging would be considered an incremental adverse effect of the project. By itself,
this loss would not be considered significant due to the existing availability of the remainder
of the Bayfront uplands which support high raptor use. The development of this area would,
however, incrementally contribute to the significant cumulative erosion of these resource
values.
Threatened and Endangered Species
While the Rohr property does not support any federal- or state-listed endangered species,
those which occur in the vicinity and have the potential for being impacted by the proposed
project have been considered in this analysis. The Light-footed Clapper Rail, California
Least Tern, and Peregrine Falcon, all carry both federal- and state-listed endangered species
status. The Belding's Savannah Sparrow is state-listed as endangered but does not carry
federal threatened or endangered status. The following section serves as a summary of
3-33
90-14.00701/24/91
/q-/~'
,
.......
't
-..a
Zone of Impacts
TRl\OIT1ONAL
lANDSCAPE
"mY
FEA1UflE
''''''
00.
~~"..
-
Expected Zone of Perceived Threat Impacts
Figure 3-2
expected impacts to these species. Detailed analysis should be reviewed in other portions
of this report.
California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni)
The California Least Tern occurs seasonally within the Chula Vista Bayfront and is a nesting
species on the "D" Street Fill north of the Rohr property, and on the Chula Vista Wildlife
Island south of the Rohr site. This species forages along the shallows of the San Diego Bay
shoreline and (infrequently) has been known to forage into the marshlands of the "F' & "G"
Street Marsh. This species is opportunistic in nature and is resistant to disturbance away
from the nest site. This species is not expected to be impacted by the proposed project.
Lii:ht-footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes)
The Light-footed Clapper Rail is a resident of the "E" Street and Sweetwater Marshes and
was historically a resident of the "F" & "G" Street Marsh. This species is rather secretive
in nature and tends to avoid areas of high or even moderate levels of human activity.
Nesting is typically accomplished in areas of high marsh hummocks or low lying upland
fringes. Nests are often susceptible to flooding and mammalian and reptilian predation.
Adults and young alike are susceptible to avian predation. During periods of extreme tides,
Clapper Rails are forced into upland fringes or onto floating/emergent debris where
disturbance and predation threats are magnified.
Because the Clapper Rail is not currently a resident within the "F" & "G" Street Marsh, the
effects of increased predator abundance resulting from the proposed project would not be
expected to lead to direct impacts to this species. Instead, an indirect result of the project
would be to further reduce the potential for ever re-establishing Clapper Rails in the "F' &
"G" Street Marsh. This impact is considered to be significant and rnitigable.
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
The Peregrine Falcon is a skilled avian predator which tends to hunt from high perches and,
primarily, takes birds in flight. This species is fairly tolerant of human activities and has
been successfully introduced into urban areas--preying primarily on pigeons. During 1989,
the first successful San Diego County nesting in a 47 year period occurred on the Coronado
3-34
9O-14.(J0701/24/91
/9-/5()
Bridge. Marshland and expansive mudflat areas found in south San Diego Bay attract
peregrines due to the abundance of waterbirds.
Due to the relatively low stature of the proposed development, it would not be expected to
provide perching sites or potential nesting habitat for this species. The loss of open field
habitat resulting from the proposed project would not be expected to substantially affect this
species. For this reason, no significant impacts to this species are anticipated.
Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus)
The Belding's Savannah Sparrow is a resident bird of all of the salicornia dominated salt
marshes found within the Chula Vista Bayfront. Two pairs were found to be active in the
"F" & "G" Street Marsh during the 1990 breeding season. This number is well below the
carrying capacity of the habitat and it is expected that disturbance and predation are the
principal factors acting to limit population size in this area.
This species, like the Clapper Rail, has been characterized as being relatively secretive in
nature and rather susceptible to human and pet impacts. Approaches to the nest site may
lead to nest abandonment or accidental nest damage (A. White, pers. cornrn. 1985, Zembal
et al. 1988). Also similar to the Light-footed Clapper Rail, the Belding's Savannah is
susceptible to predation at or near the nest by mammals, reptiles, and wading birds such as
the Great Blue Heron. The proposed project would be expected to have significant impacts
on this species through the enhancement of predator activities, including those of domestic
cats. This impact is mitigable.
Construction Impacts
The construction of the proposed project will involve substantial earthwork, de-watering, and
building construction. This project is expected to generate considerable noise and increased
human activities for an extended period of time. While evidence suggests that continuous
or repetitive noise has little effect on avian activities (Pacific Southwest Biological Services
1987a, b, and c; Dooling 1982; Dooling et al. 1971; Awbrey et al. 1980; Awbrey pers. cornrn.
1986), inconsistent noise or noise associated with visual stimuli may have cumulative impacts
on avian behavior.
3-35
90-14.00701/24/91
It! -IS-/
Human activities within the development area are likely to be extremely high during the
construction phases. Limiting work areas under such conditions is often times difficult and
"wandering" contractors may cause substantial damage without recognizing their impacts.
This is especially true during avian nesting seasons when birds are establishing nests through
the actual fledgling of young.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential impacts of the proposed project have been identified in the preceding section.
Many of these impacts may be lessened or mitigated to a level of less than significant
through the project design itself. Some of these measures (1-5) have already been discussed
or proposed through a variety of interactions between the developer, the City and the EIR
consultants. These are stated below where they are of value in off-setting or minimizing
potential for impacts of the proposed project.
Potentially significant impacts resulting from project construction and/or operation include:
. Loss of freshwater input to the 0.14 acre riparian grove located in part on
adjacent NWR lands (mitigable through implementation of Mitigation
Measure No.7).
. Contamination of the Marsh by parking area and street runoff (mitigated
through the incorporated project design element of silt and grease traps
[Mitigation Nos. 2 and 3] and through Mitigation Measure Nos. 11 and 12).
. Modification of increase in the rate of sedimentation within alluvial portions
of the drainage system (mitigable through the incorporated project design
element [Mitigation Nos. 2, 3 and 4] of silt and grease traps and the
desiltation basin, construction of the applicant-proposed berm, and presence
of a "biologically aware" construction monitor [Mitigation Measure No.6]).
. Impacts of enhanced pet associated predator attraction to the study area, and
human presence (mitigable through implementation of Mitigation Measure
Measures Nos. 8, 9, la, 13 and 17).
. Impacts to the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey (mitigable
through implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16).
. An incremental contribution to cumulative losses to raptor foraging areas (no
mitigation proposed).
3-36
9(J.14.00702/01/91
J~-15~
. An indirect impact to the light-footed Clapper Rail by reducing its potential
for re-establishment in the "F" & "G" Street Marsh (mitigable through
implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17).
. Increased disturbance to, and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
(mitigable through implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 8, 9, 10 and
13).
Reco=endations:
1. The proposed project must include a buffer of restored native scrub
vegetation between the building and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer
must be isolated from human intrusion and should further be implemented
with swales and mounds as designed to reduce visual impacts from activities
occurring on the patio areas.
2. All post-construction drainage must be directed through large volume silt and
grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention swale. The
trap(s) placed on line(s) entering the detention basin must be triple-
chambered.
3. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly with thorough cleaning
to be conducted in late September or early October and as needed through
the winter and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of
wastes rather than flushing, as is unfortunately often the case. City
inspections of these traps must be conducted, possibly through the mitigation
monitoring program, to ensure that maintenance is occurring as required.
4. Desiltation basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be
maintained during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed to leave
the construction site. Construction and planting of the drainage swale early
in the project grading phase would assist in this measure. In addition,
construction de-watering should be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric,
gravel leach system, or stand-pipe drains, so that clear water is released from
the site through the regular desiltation basins.
5. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be from the
lists provided by the developer. Should species substitutions be desired, these
must be submitted to the City landscape architect for review. Plant materials
which are known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as
Limonium or Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive
as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or
Cortaderia, must be restricted from use.
3-37
90-14.00701/24/91
I It - /5..3
6. A "bio]ogically aware" construction monitor must be present for all phases of
grading and installation of drainage systems. The monitor must be employed
through the City and would report directly to a specific responsible person in
the Engineering, Planning or Community Deve]opment Department if
construction activities fail to met the conditions outlined or should unforeseen
problems arise which require immediate action or stopping of the construction
activities. This monitor must continue monitoring on a reduced basis during
actual outside building construction.
7. Re-establishment of 0.14 acre of riparian vegetation within the on-site
drainage swa]e must be accomplished to mitigate the hydrologic isolation and
direct impacts of the project upon the 0.14 acre of willow riparian grove
straddling the NWR border. Management of the riparian grove to retain
wildlife resources must be coordinated with the Nationa] Wild]ife Refuge
Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetation types must be included in the
Landscape Plan with sandbar willow the principal species used in this habitat
area.
8. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas must be restricted through
vegetation barriers and rails around the patio areas. Additional human/pet
encroachment must be restricted through fencing and native vegetation on
mounds along the western property boundary.
9. The project should be a participant in a predator management program for
the Chu]a Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators as well as wild
anima] predators. This program should utilize the Connors (1987) predator
management plan as a basis, but should be tailored to fit the needs of the
proposed development. This plan should include the use of fines as an
enforcement too] to control human and pet activities. The plan should be
comprehensive and should include management of predators within the
adjacent NWR as well as the proposed development areas.
10. A full time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by
revenues generated by the project and other development within the Bayfront,
or by other funding mechanisms, to conduct the predator management
program, ensure compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to
ensure maintenance of other mitigation requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap
maintenance, etc.). Such officers should work closely with the USFWS in
enforcement issues as they relate to Federa] Reserve Lands. Officers should
have training in predator control and should possess the necessary skills,
permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators. It is
recommended that these officers be accountable to a multi-jurisdictional
agency/property owner advisory board set up to oversee resource protection
of the entire midbayfront area. The midbayfront area is that area within the
boundaries of the Sweetwater River, Bay Bou]evard, "G" Street, and the San
Diego Bay. The jurisdictions/property owners which should be included in
this board are the City of Chu]a Vista, the San Diego Unified Port District,
3-38
90-14.00702/01/91
11-15'1
the Bayfront Conservancy Trust, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
California Department of Fish and Game, Rohr Industries, and the owner of
the majority of the Midbayfront Uplands (Chula Vista Investors).
11. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of
the project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and must be
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for use near wetland areas.
12. All landscape chemical applications must be accomplished by a person who
is a state-certified applicator.
13. Annual funds to be paid by Rohr into an assessment district set up by the
multi-jurisdictional/property owner advisory board should be designated for
the purpose of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities,
fencing, the predator control program and mitigation programs for the project.
14. Open garbage containers should be restricted and all dumpsters must be
totally enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and
scavengers to the area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as possible.
15. Buildings should utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which
are readily observable by birds. A film glass manufactured by 3M or a
suitable substitute are recommended.
16. No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest can be included
on the western side of the proposed building. Ledges facing the west should
not exceed two inches in width. Additionally, the roof crests which are
exposed to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as
Nixalite. A commitment to correct any additional problem areas should be
obtained should heavy incidence of perching be observed on the buildings or
in landscaping materials.
17. Outside lighting must be directed away from marsh areas or reflecting faces
of the western side of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the
minimum required for security on the western side of the building.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
To minimize the disturbance factors associated with construction, the project applicant has
proposed a variety of measures to control construction associated disturbances including silt
fences, work area delineation, desiltation basins, and construction monitors to control human
activities and ensure implementation of other mitigation measures. The inclusion of the
above recommendations would mitigate the expected impacts of proposed project
3-39
90-14.00701/24/91
Iq-/~5
construction and operation, and human encroachment to a level of less than significant at
the project level if properly implemented and well-enforced. These recommendations would
also mitigate the potential impacts of the project to drainage and water quality, as these
issues relate to biological resources.
One significant cumulative impact remains which is the incremental loss of raptor foraging
habitat. No mitigation is possible for this impact.
3-40
90-14.00701/24/91
19 - /15 "
3.3 AESTIIETICS/VISUAL ~UAliTY
EXISTING CONDmONS
The project site for Rohr Industries is located within the City of Chula Vista approximately
1,400 feet from the coastline of the San Diego Bay. A small area of tidal wetlands is
included within the southwestern boundary of the site. The project area consists of a
relatively flat and uniform upland that is currently undeveloped but has been historically
used for agriculture. Because of the relatively open nature of the project area, the project
locale can be seen from numerous off-site locations (see Figure 3-3). Current vegetative
cover includes tumbleweeds and immature palm trees (see Figure 3-4, photograph A). The
project site is located within the Midbayfront subarea of the Chula Vista Bayfront Local
Coastal Program (LCP) (refer to land use section and existing certified LCP [1985]).
The surrounding landscapes are diversified in character and include the San Diego Bay and
open space to the west and north, respectively, and industrial warehouses (Rohr) to the
south (see Figure 3-4, photograph A). Immediately adjacent to the eastern site boundary
are transmission towers, railroad tracks, a parking lot and additional Rohr buildings; further
to the east is a mix of urban residential/commercial uses across Interstate 5 (1-5). Several
restaurants are located to the northeast, along Bay Boulevard, which have open to partially
obstructed views of the project site (see Figure 3-4, photograph B) including the Soup
Exchange, El Torito, and Anthony's. Elevation and existing vegetation contribute to the
visual buffer between these uses and the project site.
The proposed project site is visible from a number of public viewing locations including 1-5,
Bay Boulevard, Bayside Park, "F" Street, the Chula Vista Nature Interpretative Center, a
small city park at "F" Street and Bay Boulevard, as well as a number of dispersed residential
development. The project site is currently visible from the northern end of Bayside Park,
located to the southwest, at a distance of approximately 0.5 mile from the site (see Figure
3-5, photograph C). Views of the site are possible. from along 1-5 southbound between 24th
Street and "E" Street (see Figure 3-5, photograph D). Unobstructed views are also possible
from the Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center located approximately 0.7 mile from the
site (see Figure 3-6, photograph E).
3-41
90-14.008 01/24/91
/q -/5?-
......
......
......
. :::.....
. . .: .. ~
" ...:.......
" .,* ','
'. .:<::;:.i:'(',;:-:'.:'::':.~.~:'
. ::. ','. :,:. ::.~::~.::.~.
:. " '.' I
.:.... '.'
~. - . . . . .:': ~",
~. ..': I
.,',,' ,':
.......:~~..
. ........0/ "'~ :.. .
.' .':1': .:.... .: .. \.~.
'.:::~:.;. ::));'~:.: PROJECf
. /ot -. .,..,
. . ". ......;:....~.:.~::.;'.:.>.::\
" .... ',' .
. .'
. :' .:': ~".,. #
....:,.:
.. '.'
. .........
-1" k -(1' street' Marsh
I\..f)
\'?
.Z
\
\
''0
\1-"-
. ~
\<::)
\0
\0
\l
\~
.~
\~
\0
'0
\%
\
.tP
\\
\~
i<
Chula Vista
Nature Interpretive Center
~
\:P
~
Key Observation Points
o
2000
4000 F..t
N
-----
Figure 3-3
~RohrB~
A. Southern view of site from "F" Street.
B. Southwest view from nearby restaurant.
/~-/~1
Figure 3-4
C. Northeast view towards site from
Bayside Park near "0" Street.
D. Southwest view towards site from
Interstate 5, southbound.
,q-I"()
Figure 3-5
With respect to residential areas, the project site can be seen from the Jade Bay mobile
home park, the Park Regency Apartments and from a condominium complex located along
Woodlawn Avenue. Views from both the Jade Bay mobile home park and the upper stories
of the unnamed condominiums, located along Woodlawn Avenue approximately 0.8 mile
northeast of the site, are intermittent in nature. Apartment windows with southern
exposures on third and fourth story levels would have the best possible views towards the
site (see Figure 3-6, photograph F and Figure 3-7, photograph G). Existing views from the
Park Regency Apartments, approximately 0.3 mile east of the site, are partially obstructed
by existing buildings, vegetation, the elevation of 1-5 and a bordering stand of eucalyptus
trees along the freeway.
Due to the proximity of the project site to the San Diego Bay, some views toward the site
are of high scenic interest. Views to the site from restaurants, a hotel and a small public
park to the northeast are open. Distant views to the San Diego Bay from these locations
are also generally open. Views to the north from the site are unobstructed (see Figure 3-7,
photograph H). Intervening industrial buildings, warehouses, and 1-5 partially obstruct views
from south and east of the site, and those structures dominate the landscape character in
these directions.
IMPACTS
Project Visual Characteristics
The office complex is proposed to be a total of 245,000 square feet, and a height of 42 feet.
The height and square footage of the office building for this site are in conformance with
the density, square footage, and height standards set by the City of Chula Vista LCP.
Exterior construction materials will include plaster and stone with earthtone colors. No
reflective glass will be used on the west face of the building. Glass specifications for the
other sides of the building have not been determined.
In the interest of protecting the 0.4 acre area of the tidal wetlands (located on the southwest
portion of the site) from polluted surface water runoff, the office building is proposed to be
placed between the marsh area and the project parking lot. In addition, a dirt berm and
fence are proposed between the building and the NWR to limit human encroachment into
the NWR. The berm is proposed to be approximately 5 to 6 feet high and would extend
3-42
90-14.008 01/24/91
,'-lip/
Project Site
E. Southeast view towards site from
Chula VISta NatuJ"e Inte1]Jretive Center.
F. Southwest view of site from wDw Street
adjat:ent to Jade Bay Mobile Home Park.
J'-I"~
Figure 3-6
G. Southwest view from condominiums located
at Chula VISta StreetjWoodlawn Avenue.
H. Northwest view toward San Diego Bay
from project site.
1'-/~3
Figure 3-7
the entire length of the site's west boundary. The proposed fence is 6 feet high, chain link
in construction and would be positioned near the toe of the west-facing slope of the berm.
A water retention basin would be provided between the building and the marsh buffer. The
buffer area would be landscaped with upland coastal sage scrub.
The parking lot is proposed to be east of the building, adjacent to the existing transmission
towers, and would provide 730 spaces. (Rohr Industries has estimated a need for 705
parking spaces for its employees - see Traffic Section.) Exterior lighting would consist of
high intensity discharge down-lighting and would be limited to illuminating the project site
only. Lighting on the western boundary of the site would be directed away from the natural
tidal wetlands to minimize the effect of light on the wildlife.
Landscaping planned for most of the site includes scrubs, groundcover and canopy trees.
The parking area would be divided into four separate "rooms" of landscaped areas to help
reduce its elongated appearance. Along the western boundary in the vicinity of the berm,
landscaping would be made up of upland coastal scrub to blend with the natural
environment. Along "F" Street, landscaping would consist primarily of trees to reduce
visibility to the site. All landscaping for the project would be in conformance with the City
of Chula Vista Landscaping Manual.
"F" Street is defined as a "gateway" to the Bayfront area, and is therefore an area of high
visitation and visual importance. Proposed improvements to "F" Street include two
entrances for ingress and egress, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights and a
bike lane. Rohr Industries would be responsible for upgrading the southern half of "F"
Street from the centerline to the site boundary. Road improvements are required for
conformance with Class I Collector Road standards as well as standards set in the LCP
Circulation Element (Section 19.86.01).
Visual Sensitivity
The visual effects of the proposed project depend upon the degree to which the project
complements the existing Rohr facilities and proposed Midbayfront development in terms
of architectural design and materials, and whether the project would have any adverse
effects on existing scenic views from public viewing locales and residential neighborhoods.
The building by itself, could result in an adverse visual impact due to its size and form;
3-43
90-14.008 01/24/91
I~ -/~~
however, the existence of other large buildings in the area reduce the significance of the
proposed project. The proposed building is 42 feet (in conformance with the City of Chula
Vista's height regulations) as compared with the adjacent existing Rohr building height
(Building 61) of73 feet. In addition, the proposed earthtones would blend with the visual
characteristics of the existing Rohr building. The proposed project consequently would be
complementary to the existing development and would contribute to the cumulative visual
change of the area from undeveloped land to industrial/business park development.
The proposed project would be visible from the northern end of Bayside Park (located
approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the site). The primary scenic amenity of the park is San
Diego Bay, while the area immediately to the east is existing vacant, disturbed land. The
proposed office building would be partially obstructed by the existing Rohr buildings to the
south, and views beyond the site are already currently developed. Given the planned
landscaping and visual characteristics of the area, views from Bayside Park to the site would
be altered, but impacts are not considered significant.
Views range from open to partially obstructed along 1-5 between 24th Street and "E" street.
While the proposed facilities would be visible to southbound travellers, the project would
not block any existing scenic views. In addition, the presence of the existing Rohr building
to the south, and the transmission towers to the east would result in the new structure
blending with existing facilities. Further, planned landscaping would effectively screen views
of the site to southbound freeway travellers. Visual impacts are considered neither adverse
nor significant.
From the small public park, Days Inn Hotel, Soup Exchange, El Torito and Anthony's
restaurants just northeast of the site, open views of the site and partially obstructed views
of the San Diego Bay are possible. The proposed building and landscaping would obstruct
Bay views from portions of these locations, however, due to the small amount of the views
that would actually be affected, no significant change in the existing views would occur.
Thus, project level impacts to these types of viewers are not considered significant.
From the Jade Bay mobile home park and adjacent unnamed condominiums located
approximately 0.8 mile northeast of the site, the proposed project would be visible; but the
new building would be substantially smaller in scale than the existing Rohr buildings to the
east and south. In addition, proposed landscaping along "F" Street would further buffer the
3-44
90.14.008 01/24/91
1'1 -- /1,5
view from this vantage point. Thus, views of the site from this location would be changed,
but these visual changes are not considered significant.
From the Park Regency Apartments located approximately 0.3 mile east of the site, views
of the proposed project facilities would be buffered by existing vegetation and buildings.
Although the building would be partially visible, the existing conditions to the east and south
along with the planned landscaping would render only slight impacts from this view. Visual
impacts from this location would not be significant.
Improvements to "F" Street would result in a conversion of approximately 30 feet of existing
disturbed land to pavement and concrete for road widening and sidewalks. Landscaping and
trees would border the project area and create a visual buffer to pedestrian, cyclist and
motorist traffic. Views from "F" Street to the site are open. The proposed project would
block some of the distant ocean views from the Bay Boulevard/"F" Street intersection to
0.1 mile west of that location. Impacts to these types of viewers may be considered adverse
but not significant due to the existing urban character south of "F" Street.
MITIGA nON
The proposed project is in conformance with the City of Chula Vista's standards for height,
square footage, and density as well as the planned land use for the area. Views will be
altered by the implementation of the project; however, no significant impacts have been
identified, therefore mitigation measures will not be required.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The applicant is not proposing a visually inconsistent use since the proposed office complex
would be adjacent to several existing, and in some cases larger, industrial-type structures of
similar architectural style and color. Although construction of the project would result in
partial loss of views to the bay, none of the possible impacts to viewers discussed in this
section are deemed significant; all are less than significant. In addition to proposing a
structure which is consistent with those currently existing, an extensive vegetation screening
and planting program has been developed which would provide some continuity with the
adjacent open space to the west.
3-45
9Q-14.008 01/24/91
l&j-I"~
3.4 CIRCULATION/PARKING
The following discussion is based on a study prepared by JHK & Associates analyzing the
existing and future circulation conditions in the study area and the impacts associated with
development of the proposed office complex. The study is summarized below and
reproduced in full in Appendix D.
EXISTING CONDmONS
Current Circulation System
The study area surrounding the project is defined as the area between "E" Street, "H" Street,
San Diego Bay and Broadway. Interstate 5 (1-5) bisects the study area in a north/south
direction. The circulation system within the study area is described below and illustrated in
Figure 3-8. The current ADT on roads in the study area are also provided.
Interstate 5
1-5 is an eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the Bayfront area. It extends south to the
California-Mexico Border and to the north through downtown San Diego, providing
interstate travel through California, Oregon and Washington. The current average daily
traffic (ADT) volume on 1-5 is 149,000 vehicles per day (vpd) north of "E" Street, 140,000
vpd between "E" Street and "J" Street, and 141,000 vpd south of "J" Street. An interchange
between 1-5 and State Route (SR) 54 is currently under construction just north of the 1-
5/"E" Street interchange. When this interchange is completed, the existing interchange
configuration and traffic volumes will be altered substantially. These improvements are
described in the discussion of planned improvements.
"E" Street
"E" Street is a four-lane collector street with an east-west orientation. It extends from its
current western terminus at Bay Boulevard to an interchange at I-80S. East of I-80S, "E"
Street becomes Bonita Road. West of 1-5, "E" Street has an ADT of approximately 10,000
3-46
90-14.01601/24/91
Jq -ll,r
'"
I
-
149.0
10.1 37.2 E Street
33.6
9.8
4.2 \ F Street
) 6.3 9.9
4.5
"0 144.0
~
cO
>. - G Street
-."
cO
- 6.5 H Street
30.6
>.
14 .0 ."
3.8 ~
>. " "0
~ > "'
.::< < 0
P- I Street ...
'" c cO
"' I
C - ~ -
.;: "'
-
"' "0
::; g
~
J Street
141.0
N
~
Source: City of Chula VISta Traffic Counts (Traffic Flow Report, June 30, 1990).
Existing Year 1990 ADT (in Thousands)
/9-//,1
Figure 3-8
vpd, and east of 1-5 the vpd is approximately 37,200. In the study area, "E" Street is
designated a four-lane Major Road in the City's General Plan.
"P' Street
"F" Street extends from its current terminus in the tidelands area west of Bay Boulevard to
Hilltop Drive in the middle of Chula Vista. Immediately adjacent to the project area and
west of 1-5, "F" Street is a two-lane road with an ADT of 4,200 vpd. East of 1-5, it exists
as a four-lane road with an ADT of 6,300 vpd. The Circulation Element of the General
Plan designates "F" Street as a Class I Collector between Broadway and Marina Parkway.
"If' Street
"H" Street is a four-lane collector street with an east-west orientation. It extends from its
current terminus at the Rohr Industries main gate to east of I-80S where it is known as East
"H" Street. ADT east and west of 1-5 is approximately 30,600 vpd and 6,500 vpd,
respectively. The portion of "H" Street in the study area is designated in the General Plan
as a six-lane Major Road east of 1-5 and a four-lane Major Road west of 1-5.
Bay Boulevard
Bay Boulevard is a two-lane street that extends from "E" Street to Main Street at the
southern end of the Chula Vista City boundary. The intersection of Bay Boulevard and "E"
Street is an unsignalized "L" configuration with unimproved dirt roads leading north and
west. Bay Boulevard provides the only continuous north-south route west of 1-5. Currently,
this collector facility carries an ADT of 9,800 vpd just south of "E" Street and 3,800 vpd just
north of "J" Street. It is designated a Class II Collector in the General Plan.
Broadway Boulevard
Broadway is a four-lane collector street with a north-south orientation. It extends from the
National City limits south to the south San Diego city limits. Broadway is a major element
in the west Chula Vista circulation network. Broadway provides continuous north-south
travel just east of 1-5.
3-47
90-14.01601/24/91
19-,r,e:;
Most of the traffic attracted to the project from locations outside Chula Vista will access the
site via the I-5/"E" Street interchange. "F" Street will provide the primary access to the site
for trips originating in Chula Vista.
San Diego Trolley
The San Diego Trolley runs parallel to 1-5 along the east side of the freeway through Chula
Vista with stations located near "E" Street, "H" Street, and Palomar Street. The capacity of
streets crossing the San Diego Trolley tracks and nearby intersections is reduced due to
stoppages in traffic as the trolley passes. This reduction in capacity is due to the impact of
gate down time. The available supply of capacity during peak hours is reduced by the
number of trolley crossings per hour. At the present time, approximately eight trolleys cross
these arterials in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The accumulation of gate down times
during either a.m. and p.m. peak hours equals approximately seven minutes per hour.
During this down time period all traffic operations along the east-west arterials in the study
area are restricted, thus reducing available capacity. Over the course of typical peak hour
gate down time, operations represent a reduction in available capacity of approximately 10
to 12 percent.
It is important to recognize that the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) has
installed electronic trolley vehicle tagging devices which reduce gate down time at all at-
grade crossings in the City of Chula Vista. This reduction in gate down time results in a
savings of approximately 30 seconds per trolley crossing (for trolleys which stop at near-side
stations in advance of the crossing gates) or two minutes of additional arterial and/or
intersection capacity on the street system. This new device restores approximately three
percent capacity to each intersection. However, in the near future, (one to three years)
MTDB anticipates the addition of two more trolley vehicles per hour on the south line
through Chula Vista. This increase in trolley frequency will negatively impact available
capacity and result in overall reduction in capacity of approximately ten percent (assuming
all gate crossings are operating with the new electronic delay device). In the long term, the
number of trolleys could be increased further, resulting in an additional loss of available
capacity. Currently, however, MTDB does not plan to implement additional trolley service
beyond the ten vehicles per hour which will be operating in the near future.
3-48
90-14.01601/24/91
I q -/=1-0
Current Roadway Segment Operations
To provide a baseline condition for evaluating impacts on the circulation system, an analysis
of existing operations on study area roadway segments was completed. The existing roadway
classifications are illustrated in Figure 3-9. As shown, the majority of the roadways in the
study area are classified as collector facilities, with the exception of Marina Parkway which
is classified as a four-lane Major facility. These classifications are for current 1990
conditions and do not represent the General Plan designations for build out.
The Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element establishes the desired threshold ADT
volume levels on each roadway classification for levels of service (LOS) A through F. LOS
refers to the operational capability of a roadway segment with a given volume of traffic. At
LOS A, traffic flows are uninterrupted and at LOS F, traffic is substantially hindered by the
number of vehicles. LOS C or better is the operation level typically considered acceptable
in the City of Chula Vista and this standard (LOS C) was the basis for developing the new
General Plan Circulation Element. The roadway capacity and level of service standards for
each functional class in the City's General Plan is provided in Appendix D.
Table 3-1 provides a comparison of the existing traffic volumes, LOS C traffic volumes for
that roadway segment and the actual operating LOS for several roadways in the study area.
As shown, roadway segments on "E" and "H" Streets east of 1-5, are currently operating at
LOS F which is considered less than satisfactory. Both "F" Street and "H" Street west of 1-5
are operating at LOS A and Bay Boulevard varies between LOS A and F. It is important
to recognize that this analysis is based on a comparison of volume- to-capacity (V Ic) at LOS
C capacity levels. Thus, the analysis gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity
in relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the actual (functional)
capacity of the roadway. To more clearly define traffic operations and performance, the
following analysis of study area intersections is provided.
Current Intersection Operations
An analysis of the existing operation of intersections in the study area was also completed.
This analysis used the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method to determine levels
of service for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The ICU method uses the ratio of
3-49
90-14.01601/24/91
I q -I rl
LEGE
'"
,..!.
149.0
10.1 37.2 33.6 "E" Street
-- ---
9.
4.2 " 6.3 9.9 "F" Street
.......
-- .......
-- .......
I *'{:}~:
4.5 144.0 fiG" Street
6.5 30.6 "H" Street
3.8 III
>i: .. >
0(
;to: .. C
,y.::
c.:: "0 140.0 ;t "I" Street
ftl:: ~ ftl
c.: lD :0
.-=: >, 0
...:. 0
ftl:: ftl ;. -
;:l;.. .. lD >,
::. .: ftl
::;. :::- ;t
':::. :::" "0
::::....::.. ftl
...... ..... "J" Street 0
NO ":::::::::.:;::~::~::::::~::::~:~:~:~:;:;:;:;:;:;: ..
lD
Lane Major
I Collector 141.0
N
...
Project Site
::::::::: Four
_ Class
_____ Class II Collector
_ Class III Collector
Source: City of Chula Vista Traffic Counts (Traffic flow Report, June 30, 1990).
Existing Street Network and Traffic Volumes (in Thousands)
Year 1990 Conditions
I q - l:r~
Figure 3-9
Table 3-1
Existing Year 1989 Roadway Segment Levels of Service
LOS Cl
Planning V/C2
Level Capacity Actual
Street SeRment ADT ExistinJ!, Conditions Ratio LOS
"E" Street
Bay Boulevard - 1-5 10,100 7,500 1.35 F
1-5 - Woodlawn Avenue 37 ,200 22,000 1.69 F
Woodlawn Avenue -
Broadway 33,600 22,000 1.53 F
"F" Street
Tidelands A venue -
Bay Boulevard 4,200 7,500 0.56 A
Bay Boulevard -
Woodlawn Avenue 6,300 22,000 0.29 A
Woodlawn Avenue -
Broadway 9,900 22,000 0.45 A
"H" Street
Bay Boulevard - 1-5 6,500 22,000 0.30 A
1-5 - Broadway 30,600 22,000 1.39 F
Bay Boulevard
"E" Street - "F" Street 9,800 7,500 1. 31 F
"F" Street - "H" Street 4,500 7,500 0.60 A
"H" Street - "J" Street 3,800 7,500 0.51 A
Notes: I. Currently the City of Chula Vista plans for LOS C operating conditions
as a minimum for all Circulation Element facilities.
2. The vie ratio is based on the capacity of the roadway segment at LOS
C. Thus, it gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity in
relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the
actual (functional) capacity of the roadway.
Source: Existing ADT data was derived from City of Chula Vista Traffic Counts
(Traffic Flow Report - June 30, 1990).
1&;-/':1.3
intersection demand to capacity for the critical movements to measure operation of the
intersection. A summary of the ranges of ICU for each level of service is provided below:
Level of Service
ICU
A
B
C
D
F
00.0 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
Greater than 1.00
To analyze existing conditions, turning movement volumes at key intersections were
compiled from previous traffic studies and the Chula Vista Public Works Department (see
Figures 3-3 and 3-4 in Appendix D.) Table 3-2 lists the existing levels of service at
intersections in the study area. All intersections~t. e at a LOS A 6ll~ring the a.m. peaf
~1t\1 -1
period. The intersection of "E" Str?J!.t a the 1- ~ound ramp and "H" Street at the 1-5
southbound ramp operate at La a uring t p.m. peak period, while the remaining
l\
intersections operate at LOS A dl: , during this time period.
) vI\- V
It should be noted that the existing turning movement counts on all streets were taken
during the normal peak period between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., and that the peak hour analysis
for the proposed project was conducted assuming this peak period. However, twenty-four
hour volume counts taken by the Chula Vista Public Works Department, in June 1989,
indicate that the p.m. peak hour on the Bayfront circulation system occurs from 3 p.m. to
4 p.m. The ramp volumes may also peak at this time, although the ramp volumes are
heavily affected by uses east of 1-5 that typically have later peak hours. The effect of the
proposed project and future development in the bayfront will be an extended peak period.
For unsignalized intersections and driveways, the LOS is correlated to the reserve or unused
capacity remaining after the demand volume has been served. The unsignalized analysis
procedure only applies to one- or two-way stop intersections. A formal procedure for the
determination of LOS for three- and four-way stops has not been established. However,
guidelines are available that allow for the evaluation of the capacity of these intersections.
For the T-intersection of Woodlawn Avenuel"F" Street, this analysis used the methodology
3-50
90-14.01601/24/91
I q-I '1-1
Table 3-2
'1-99& Existing Levels of Service
. Y car 1990 Conditions - Signalized Intersections
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak
N/S Street E/VI Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
1-5 Southbound
Ramps "E II 5 treet .40 A .62 B
1-5 Northbound
Ramps "E" Street .70 B .84 D
Woodlawn Avenue "E" Street .51 A .68 B
Broadway "F" Street .36 A .68 B
Bay Boulevard "H" Street .29 A .47 A
1-5 SCL:tbb.:>und
Ramps "H" Street .48 A .88 D
1-5 Northbound "H" Street .57 A .76 C
Broadway "E" Street .60 B .78 C
Broadway "H" Street .42 A .79 C
Source: JHK and Associates
I q - /1.5
recommended in the Highway Capacity Manual for unsignalized intersections. This analysis
revealed that this intersection operates at LOS A for the critical turning movements during
the AM and PM peak hour. ~Hfi9g:~n~:e.~p~M.P9Hf~P~~RHgjpq)'!9i;1;~~~\t\Hrn~~n~
9P~t~\~~t~$ii~~~~9'!!~l?gi9qiQgll!t!4m9R~f~t~$~tl~$th~R9!q~i,~t99HR9~~~t
(9in9~r{\.!~~g~~~.+!; The intersection of Bay Boulevard/"F" Street currently operates
at acceptable levels, based on the guidelines published in Highway Capacity Manual. These
guidelines indicate that this intersection currently operates at LOS C or better with reserved
or unused capacity.
Conformance with Threshold Standards-Existing Conditions
The following items identify the current "Threshold Standards" as they apply to the existing
traffic conditions. Standards are taken from the City of Chula Vista Growth Management
Plan, Exhibit "A," Traffic Element, dated November 17, 1987.
Threshold Standard:
1. City-wide: Maintain LOS 'C' or beller at all intersections, with the
exception that WS '0' may occur at signalized intersections for a
period not to exceed a total of two hours per day.
2. West of I-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet Standard
#1 above, may continue to operate at their current (1987) LOS, but shall
not worsen.
3. City-wide: No intersection shall operate at LOS 'F' as measured for the
average weekday peak hour.
As shown on Tables 3-2 and 3-3, all study area ~~~~fi~ intersections (~RtfP.%~H9mg~~~P
!n!~f~HpP.~l currently operate at LOS C or better. Thus, full conformance with the
adopted standards is achieved for existing conditions.
Planned Improvements to the Circulation System
Planned improvements to the circulation network include construction of Marina Parkway,
reconfiguration of the northern portion of the 1-5 interchange at "E" Street and completion
of SR 54 north of "E" Street. These improvements are described below and the
reconfigured intersections are illustrated in Appendix D.
3-51
90-14.016 02/01/91
,,-/1-"
Table 3-3
Existing Year 1990 Conditions
Unsignalized Intersections Levels of Service
Intersection
N/S Street E/W Street
Bay Boulevard "F" Street
Woodlawn Avenue "F" Street
AM Peak
v Ie Ratio
.63
LOS
B
PM Peak
v Ie Ratio LOS
.28
A
.61 B
.46 A
J Cf-I r:r
Marina Parkway
Marina Parkway is a planned extension of "E" Street that would extend west past Bay
Boulevard and turn south to connect with the existing Marina Parkway. Marina Parkway will
eventually provide an additional north-south access route west of 1-5 between "E" Street and
"J" Street.
State Route 54
A portion of SR 54 between 1-5 and its existing terminus near 1-805 is currently under
construction and will provide a major link between 1-5 and 1-805. "E" Street currently
carries a relatively high amount of through traffic between 1-5 and 1-805 and the completion
of this expressway is expected to reduce the amount of through traffic on "E" Street by
providing an alternate route. The reduction in traffic volumes is anticipated to be as much
as 15 percent.
"BOO StreetfI-5 Interchange Reconfiguration
As part of the SR 54 improvements, Caltrans is planning to reconstruct the southbound
ramps on 1-5 at "E" Street. The southbound off-ramp would be realigned to end at the
existing intersection of "E" Street and Bay Boulevard. The existing southbound on-ramp
would remain in place, and an additional loop ramp from westbound "E" Street to
southbound 1-5 would be added in the northwest quadrant of the interchange. This
reconfiguration would eliminate left turns at the existing southbound on-ramp from
westbound "E" Street. Bay Boulevard would remain as the southerly (northbound) approach
to the newly constructed intersection, but access to Bay Boulevard north of "E" Street would
not be provided at this intersection.
In addition, a direct ramp from SR 54 to the southbound 1-5 ramp will merge with the
southbound 1-5 to "E" Street ramp, and the northbound ramp from "E" Street will diverge
and connect with the northbound 1-5 to eastbound SR 54 ramp. This will provide direct
access to SR 54 from "E" Street without requiring merges on the freeway.
3-52
90-]4.01601/24/91
1'I-/=1g
IMPACfS
Impacts from the proposed project relate to traffic circulation in the project vicinity, and to
on-site parking.
The proposed Rohr Industries office complex would consist of a three-story building with
245,000 square feet of office space and 730 parking spaces. According to@j~~gA1Y!~g9
g,.%~99!gH9Ug;WPY~rQm~n~(~~~9) San Diego Traffic Generators !!qli!!q~, September
1989, this project would generate 17 trips per 1,000 square feet or roughly 4,165 daily trips,
11 percent of which would occur during the AM peak hour and 12 percent of which would
occur during the PM peak.
Traffic Circulation
To identify potential impacts to the circulation system, the anticipated traffic volumes
resulting from project development were distributed to the system within the study area.
The analysis was completed for two time periods, in the 1992 "near future" and at "Build-
out." Build-out represents a future date (i.e., beyond year 2010), when the City's circulation
system is constructed consistent with the build-out of the adopted General Plan.
PrQject Impacts - Year 1992 Conditions
Future Roadway Segment Operations
The proposed project would generate approximately 4,165 daily trips. This calculation was
based on a BtlsiHess j'lark/iHdtlstrial geHeratioH rate ~~[g~q9mm~[9!~M'91IPH!~!j.jHg(!H
~;9~~~gt~QQiQQQ~qH~r~~~~~J!r!Rg~#~r~!!pn!~~~ of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet
(SANDAG, 1989). To calculate the traffic volumes in the study area in the year 1992, a
three percent growth rate per year was assumed. Assumptions regarding lane and
intersection geometry are shown in the Traffic Appendix; generally the "E" Streetjl-5 and
1-5jSR-54 freeway interchanges were assumed to be complete and fully operational. The
Marina Parkway extension was not assumed to be completed by 1992. Traffic from the
project was distributed 75 percent to 1-5j"E" Street and 25 percent to other major cross-
streets. At the "E" Street interchange and 1-5, 54 percent of the traffic was assumed to go
3-53
90-14.01601/25/91
Ie; -1=1-9
north on the freeway, 36 percent was assumed to go south on the freeway and 10 percent
was assumed to go east on "E" Street. On other major streets, 15 percent was distributed
to "F' Street and 10 percent on Bay Boulevard south of "P" Street.
The future traffic volumes with the project trips distributed to the 1992 circulation network
are shown in Figure 3-10. An analysis of the LOS at several segments in the study area was
completed and the resultant V\C ratios and LOS classifications are summarized in Table
3-4. In general, roadways east of 1-5 would operate over capacity and there would be
congestion on these segments. "F" Street and roadway segments west of 1-5 would operate
at LOS B or above. These forecasted levels of service are a continuation of existing
conditions. The exception is Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F" Street which would
decline from LOS C to F with inclusion of annual traffic growth and the project.
As noted above, it is important to recognize that this analysis is based on a comparison of
V IC at LOS C capacity levels, thus giving an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity
in relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the actual (functional)
capacity of the roadway. To more clearly define traffic operations and performance, the
following analysis of study area intersections is provided.
Future Intersection Operations
An analysis of the resultant LOS at pertinent intersections in the study area was also
completed and is summarized in Table 3-5. The intersection geometry and a.m. and p.m.
peak period turning movement assumptions are provided in Appendix D. Development of
the project and anticipated growth in area wide traffic would result in a degradation of
service at several intersections. In the p.m. peak hour for 1992 conditions with the project,
the following intersections are projected to operate at LOS of D or worse. This is a
significant impact related to both the project and cumulative area development.
3-54
90-14.016 01/01/91
,'I-Iff)
Table 3-4
Segment Volume To Capacity Analysis
Existing And Year 1992 Conditions with Project Trips
Roadway ADT V!C
Capacity Volumes Ratio LOS
Segment Year 1992 92 + Project Year 1992 Year 1992
Bay Boulevard
"E" Street to "F" Street 7,500 13,500 1.80 F
"F" Street to "H" Street 7,500 5,200 0.69 B
"H" Street to "J" Street 7,500 11,200 0.56 A
"E" Street
Bay Boulevard to 1-5 22,000 13,700 0.62 B
1-5 to Woodlawn Avenue 22,000 311,600 1.57 F
"F" Street
Tidelands Avenue to
Bay Boulevard 22,000 5,100 0.23 A
Bay Boulevard to
Woodlawn Avenue 22,000 5,900 0.27 A
Woodlawn Avenue to
Broadway 22,000 11 ,1100 0.52 A
"H" Street
Bay Boulevard to 1-5 22,000 7,1100 0.311 A
1-5 to Woodlawn Avenue 30,000 32,500 1.08 F
Notes: 1. Currently the City of Chula Vista plans for LOS C operating conditions
as a minimum for all Circllla tion Element facilities.
2. The vlc ratio is based on the capacity of the roadway segment at LOS
C. Thus, it gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity in
relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the
actual (functional) capacity of the roadway.
* Sources: See Table 3-1, Figures 3-1 and 5-1.
** Source: JHK & Associates distribution of traffic based on existing
plus project conditions for Year 1992 (see Figure 5-11).
,&i-Itf
Table 3-5
Summary of Study Area Intersections Levels of Service
AM Peak Hour
Future
Year 1992
Existing Conditions
Year 1990 Plus Proposed
Intersection Conditions Project
N/S Street E/W Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
Bay Blvd.!
1-5 SB Ramp "E" St./Marina Pkwy 0.40 A 0.69 B
1-5 NB Ramp "E" Street 0.70 B 0.79 C
1-5 SB Ramp "H" Street 0.48 A 0.53 A
1-5 NB Ramp "H" Street 0.57 A 0.62 B
Bay Blvd. "H" Street 0.29 A 0.32 A
Woodlawn Ave. "E" Street 0.51 A 0.57 A
Broadway "E" Street 0.60 B 0.67 B
Broadway "F" Street 0.36 A 0.41 A
Broadway "H" Street 0.42 A 0.45 A
PM Peak Hour
Future
Year 1992
Existing Conditions
Year 1990 Plus Proposed
Intersection Conditions Project
N/S Street E/W Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
Bay Blvd.!
1-5 SB Ramp "E" St./Marina Pkwy 0.62 B 0.79 C
1-5 NB Ramp "E" Street 0.84 D 0.90 E*
1-5 SB Ramp "H" Street 0.88 D 0.92 E*
1-5 NB Ramp "H" Street 0.76 C 0.82 D*
Bay Blvd. "H" Street 0.47 A 0.59 A
Woodlawn Ave. "E" Street 0.68 B 0.75 C
Broadway "F" Street 0.68 B 0.75 C
Broadway "E" Street 0.78 C 0.85 D*
Broadway "H" Street 0.99 C 0.85 D*
Note: . IBaiente tjig!9\~J!)'~~#iji(~~J;H9#~W!A~W!~r~9.9!r~ mitigation to achieve acceptable levels of
service for Year 1992collditions.
1f:J-lg~
'"
I
-
Project Site
5.2
4.2
't>
~
a:l
>.
III
a:l
LEGEND
>t ".
,..: .:
~: :
c..:: :
. .
JI[J:::
.... ....
"::::~.::;::~:::~:;::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .
::::::::: Four Lane Major
_ Class I Collector
...._ Class II Collector
- Class III Collector
160.1
34.6
5.9
11.4
N
..
"E" Street
"F" Street
"G" Street
"H" Street
"I" Street
>.
III
:J
't>
III
o
..
a:l
FUTURE STREET NETWORK AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN THOUSANDS)
YEAR 1992 CONDmONS
Source: JHK & Associates
32.5
....
>
<
c
:J
III
148.7 =a
o
o
liJ
. "J" Street
149.8
J '1-11:;
Figure 3-10
Impact of Project Trips - Year 1992 P.M. Peak Hour
Impacted Intersections
Project's Contribution
1-5 Northbound Ramp at "E" Street
1-5 Northbound Ramp at "H" Street
1-5 Southbound Ramp at "H" Street
Broadway at "E" Street
Bay Boulevard at "F" Street
Broadway at "H" Street
4.6 percent
0.9 percent
4.5 percent
4.7 percent
53.2 percent
Not Applicable'
,
The contribution of projected traffic at this intersection is negligible. However,
annual growth will playa vital part in the deterioration of the intersection. This
intersection has been disregarded in this analysis but should be taken into account
for future Chula Vista expansion.
Future Parking and Access Operations
The proposed project comprises 245,000 square feet of office space for 1,268 employees, and
includes provisions for a surface parking lot with space for 730 vehicles. Appendix D details
the specific types of uses and office space by department, which in summary, reveals that
this project more closely resembles a typical description of a corporate office/research
development use. However, the approach for analysis was to review the project under its
ultimate potential use, which could be a general office commercial use, which is consistent
with the approach used throughout this document.
The City of Chula Vista Planning staff has concluded that the City's parking standard for
general office use of 3-1/3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area should be used as a
minimum based on the proponent's contention that the building could be converted to
general office use in the future. However, since Rohr has submitted a list of the number
of employees for types of uses in this building, it was determined that the appropriate
standard to use is one based on occupancy, which is the City's employee-based standard of
one space for every 1.5 employees.
A comparison of parking standards for the City of Chula Vista and five other coastal
jurisdictions in San Diego County was made. These standards are shown on the next page.
3-55
90-14.01601/24/91
/9- /g'l
Jurisdiction
City of Chula Vista
City of San Diego - Coastal
City of San Diego - Non-coastal
County of San Diego
City of Oceanside
City of Encinitas
City of Carlsbad
Parking Standard for
General Commercial Office
3-1/3 spaces/I,OOO square feet
1 space per 1.5 employees
5 spaces/l,OOO square fee
3-1/3 spaces/l,OOO square feet
4.5 spaces/l,OOO square feet
3-1/3 spaces/l,OOO square feet
5 spaces/l,OOO square feet
4 spaces/l,OOO square feet
Required Parking
(245.000 sq. ft.)
817
845
1,225
817
1,103
817
1,225
980
Based on the City of Chula Vista employee-based parking standard, the proposed project
parking supply is deficient by 115 parking spaces, or 13 percent; and is deficient by 79
spaces, or 10 percent, when compared with the City's minimum standard for general office
use. The ratio of standard sized cars to compact cars (80 percent:20 percent) is sufficient
to accommodate a varied mix of parked vehicles.
The only onsite traffic circulation design-related issue is the limited access to and from the
parking areas. Currently, the facility has two entrances/exits spread 210 feet apart on "F"
Street. The spacing is within the industry standard of 100 feet between access points.
However, with parking at 100 percent occupancy and commercial office traffic generation
peaking characteristics, delays may occur as vehicles utilize the only two egress points, both
leading onto "F' Street.
Bikeway Facilities
Two streets in the study area are targeted for bikeway development according to a Draft
Bikeway Plan (JHK, 1989): "F" Street, west of Broadway, and Bay Boulevard, both of which
currently have no bikeway facilities. In the 1989 report, it was recommended that Class II
bikeways should be provided on both roadway facilities. Class II bikeways are bicycle lanes
for preferential use by bicyclists within the paved area of the roadway. Bicycle lanes are
delineated by striping and signage. The City of Chula Vista Street Design Standards Policy
recommends that an additional total of ten feet of right-of-way be dedicated along routes
which are identified for Class II Bikeways. The Class II bikeways thus require five feet of
3-56
Iq-I'~
90-14.01601/24/91
dedicated pavement on each side of the street to provide the bike facility. Development of
this project would improve "F" Street to Class I standards and would also include a bike
lane. However, there is yet no provision for a bike lane along Bay Boulevard, which could
significantly impact the Bikeway plan recommendations.
Project Impact~--Build-out Conditions
Build-out Segment Operations
SANDAG has run a model to calculate traffic volumes given build-out of the Chula Vista
General Plan land uses and circulation improvements. In this model, the site and
surrounding area were anticipated to be developed with a park and retail center for a total
of 1,300 trips. It should be noted that the assumption used in the SANDAG model is
incorrect when compared to what was adopted. The General Plan actually designates the
site and immediate surrounding area for a park and industrial development. These uses
would generate 1,424 trips. Because of the very minor difference (124 trips) between the
adopted General Plan and SANDAG model, the model was used without correction.
To calculate the impacts under build-out conditions of surrounding cumulative development
and the project, the total number of trips anticipated by the SANDAG model (1,300) were
subtracted and the project generated trips were added (4,165), resulting in a difference of
unaccounted for trips of 2,865. The total number of trips resulting from surrounding and
project development were distributed to the build-out circulation system to determine
impacts. It should be noted that the project would generate a total of 2,865 trips that had
not been anticipated in planning by SANDAG, or by the City of Chula Vista in planning for
circulation under build-out conditions.
Figure 3-11 illustrates the project-generated trips distributed onto the build-out ADT as well
as future build-out road classifications. The distribution pattern of the trips generated by the
project was the same as the 1992 analysis. Given the future .ADT and classifications, an
analysis of roadway segments was completed. A summary of the results is provided in Table
3-6. As shown, the entire length of Bay Boulevard, "E" Street, "F" Street and "H" Street
would operate at LOS C or better and there would be no impacts.
3-57
90-14.01601/24/91
/ q-/~/P
'"
I
-
N
..
46.7
.... ",'
',' ,',
',' ,',
,', ','
::: :::
.:. :.: "'"'''' t
2.0 .. ........:... .~............"'......"..~l:~"...........:
...:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.....:...:..................... .................................................:;.
.... ,'.
'.:. .:.
:.: :.:
.:. .:.
11111: "F" Street
12.2
1l.2
LEGEND
_ Six Lane Major
::::::::: Four Lane Major
_ Class I Collector
_____ Class II Collector
_ Class In Collector
II
:::.:::
:~: ~~~
~~~ t.
',' ....
.... ....
',' ....
.... ....
,', ....
.... ,',
.... ','
.... .... ............,...:.;.; .;. :.:
.... .... ,
.... .... ,
.~:: .:::. ,
.... .... I
.::....::.. I
I
::; ':::: ~I
~.:: ~:
~:::: lC I
ol ~~: :;01
l... lC!
:i:.} I
~\:;::::::::::>:.:..:.:.:............................ t.... '. .........................~~:~.:s..~(.~~~................l~ t.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
....:.::.:.;.;::.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.;..: :.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::::::;::::: .:.:.:.:...:.....:.......................................::
I
I
I
6.91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.1i
,
,
,
'.:.:.:.:.:. '4. ...
... ,.,
II
.. .'
:: ::
-----------~ .:
.' .'
.: .:
:. :.
.' ..
:: ::
.: .:
:. :.
.. ..
:: ::
:: ::
j~~ j~
"G" Street
------------
Project Site
36.1
19.3
"H" Street
..
>
<
c
1J
.!
215.8 -g
o
~
)11 ili
:: :::
:: :::
'. ...
". .,
:. :.
"I" Street
-----------
-------------
Source:
JHK c!c Associates and City of
Chula Vista General Plan Circulation
Element, adopted June, 1989.
FUTURE STREET NETWORK AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN THOUSANDS)
BUD.DOUT CONDmONS WITH PROJECT TRIPS
I , - /<4 1-
Figure 3-11
Table 3-6
Segment Volume to Capacity Analysis
Build-Out Conditions with Project Trips
LOS Cl
Planning
Level
Capacity Additional
Builclout Builclout Project Total V/C2
Intersection Conditions Volume** Trips*** Volume Ratio LOS
Bay Boulevard
Between
"E" Street &.
"F" Street 12,000 11,200 3,1211 7,3211 .61 A
"F" Street &.
"G" Street 12,000 6,500 1116 6,916 .58 A
"G" Street &.
"H" Street 12,000 6,600 1116 7,016 .58 A
"E" Street
Between
Bay Boulevard
&. 1-5 30,000 8,500 3,1211 11 ,6211 .39 A
1-5 &.
Woodlawn Avenue 30,000 25,900 500 26,1100 .88 C
Woodlawn Avenue
&. Broadway 30,000 21,500 1150 21,950 .73 A
"F" Street
Between
Tidelands Avenue
&. Bay Boulevard 22,000 5,500 200 5,700 .25 A
Bay Boulevard &.
Woodlawn 22,000 10,800 1125 11 ,22.5 .51 A
Woodlawn Avenue
&. Broadway 22,000 11,800 1100 12,200 .55 A
1'J-ISg
Tablc 3-6 (continued)
SCDllent Volumc to Capacity Analysis
Duild-Out Conditions with Project Trips
LOS Cl
Planning
Level
Capacity Additional
Builclout Builclout Project Total V/C2
Intersection Conditions Volume"" Trips""" Volume ~ LOS
"H" Street
Between Bay & 1-5 30,000 4,484 400 4,880 .16 A
1-5 & Woodlawn 40,000 36,000 100 36,100 .90 C
Woodlawn &
Broadway 40,000 19,179 90 19,269 .48 A
Notes: 1. Currently the City of Chula Vista plans for LOS C operating conditions
as a minimum for all Circulation Element facilities.
2. The vlc ratio is based on the capacity of the roadway segment at LOS
C. Thus, it gives an indication of the roadway's carrying capacity in
relation to the City's minimum standards. It is not indicative of the
actual (functional) capacity of the roadway.
Notes: " Source: See Figure 5-7 and Table 3-1.
"" Source: SANDAG
""" Source: JHK & Associates Distribution of Traffic Based on Figure 5-7.
I q -/g,
Build-out Intersection Operations
An ICU analysis was also completed to determine the level of service at specific
intersections. In this instance only the "worst-case" p.m. peak hOUT was considered. The
results are summarized in Table 3-7. As shown, the following intersections would operate
at poor levels of service under build-out conditions:
Impact of Project Trips - Build-out PM Peak HOUT
Impacted Intersections
Proiect's Contribution
1-5 Northbound ramp at "E" Street
1-5 Northbound ramp at "H" Street
1-5 Southbound ramp at "H" Street
Woodlawn at "E" Street
Bay Boulevard at "H" Street
Broadway at "H" Street
4.9 percent
0.7 percent
2.02 percent
5.9 percent
7.1 percent
Not Applicable
As shown, these significant impacts are related largely to cumulative growth in the study
area. The intersections with unacceptable levels of service under build-out conditions (p.m.
peak hour only) are, with three exceptions, the same as those identified in the near-term
(1992) case. The intersections of Bay Boulevard/"H" Street and Woodlawn/"E" Street are
intersections which were acceptable in the near-term (1992 p.m. peak hour) yet worsen in
the build-out condition. The intersection of Broadway and "E" Street is slated for
improvement in the City General Plan following 1992. For this reason, it is assumed that
although the street will carry an LOS of D in 1992, service will improve in build-out.
Foi: .ili~bUild~oijt~orid.(di?~lit;~~el:nteh;ectlciii..i,lf .;.'WoOdlawn. AVenuer1)!Si,tul;..it. ..js
asiliime4tbatt~4e:yeIopirie*~Qt'tp4W {jpdliiwn A\!~!tu~. d:liijdor( aSretx>!liri)~P:(led ; iri . the
adQPtetlGllijlaY~$t~veii~i;lir?1!i:A);...'I011 . ~v#(l@rietl;..'l:'hii~i ilUs ...uri~g~aliie~. ''T'
ilitefseclionwiUbecome~typiC41Jour"way .int~rsecti!>ll,\\tithaMw .ti:~ffiesigha]iri
operati~n;
3-58
90-14.01602/01/91
1'1-/90
MITIGATION MEASURES
1992 Conditions
Traffic Circulation
There are six intersections identified in the near-term, 1992 case where intersections would
operate at a service level that is less than acceptable, i.e., LOS D or worse. With the
exception of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street, these intersections would operate at this level
of service even without project development.
The intersection of "E" Street and Broadway is projected to have a 1992, p.m. peak hour
LOS of D with annual growth and with project traffic. To mitigate this cumulative impact,
an exclusive right-turn lane from eastbound "E" Street to southbound Broadway must be
provided. This additional lane would improve the LOS to C, facilitate smoother traffic flow
from 1-5, and would reduce the impact to less than significant. Because of the project's
small contribution (4.7 percent) to this cumulative impact, the applicant should be required
to provide a proportional amount of funds for this improvement based on the Benefit
Assessment District (recommended in the Cumulative Impacts discussion, Section 10.0).
The intersection of "E" Street and 1-5 northbound currently operates at an LOS A. With
near-term, annual growth in the City of Chula Vista, the LOS will drop to E. The project's
contribution to this impact is 4.6 percent. To mitigate this cumulative impact, the
implementation of two improvements must be made prior to or concurrent with, the
development of the Rohr project. This requirement is necessary due to the near-term
extremely poor conditions at this intersection.
These two improvements include:
. Widen westbound "E" Street at the northbound 1-5 ramp to provide a separate right-
turn lane from westbound "E" Street.
. Restripe the northbound 1-5 off-ramp at "E" Street to provide an exclusive right-turn
lane and a shared left and right-turn lane.
3-59
90-14.01602/01/91
/q,./tf/
Table 3-7
PM Peak Hour Intersection lCU Analysis Build-Out Conditions
North/South Street East/West Street leu LOS
Bay Boulevard/
1-5 Soutbound Ramp "E" Street 0.&3 D*
1-5 Northbound "E" Street 0.91 E*
Woodlawn Avenue "E" Street 0.&& D*
Broadway "E" Street 0.77 C
Broadway "F" Street 0.66 B
Bay Boulevard "H" Street 0.&4 D*
1-5 Southbound "H" Street 0.&9 D*
1-5 Northbound "H" Street 1.15 F*
Broadway "H" Street 1.10 F*
Notes: Table constructed assuming 1992 Roadway Configurations without Project
Mitigation.
* Indicates those intersections which will require mitigation to achieve
acceptable levels of service in the future for buildout conditions.
/Cj-/t!J;}
These mitigation measures would improve the operation to LOS C in the near-term, and
would reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant. Because of the project's small
contribution to this cumulative impact, the applicant would be required to provide a
proportional amount of funds for this improvement based on the Benefit Assessment
District.
The interchange at "H" Street and 1-5 both northbound and southbound would be severely
congested in the near future (1992) as well as under build-out conditions. Under current
conditions, LOS varies between A and C; with near-term annual growth in the City of ChuIa
Vista the southbound ramp drops to LOS E, and under build-out conditions, the northbound
ramp drops to LOS F during the PM peak hour. The primary contributor to this worsening
condition is the cumulative growth in the region. The project's contribution to the
northbound and southbound ramps is 0.9 percent and 4.5 percent respectively. To mitigate
the cumulative impacts, double left-turn only lanes onto "H" Street accessing both the
northbound and southbound ramps should be provided. This would improve intersection
operation to LOS C in the near-term, and would reduce the impact to a level below
significant. Because of the project's small contribution to this cumulative impact, the
applicant would be required to contribute a proportional amount of funds toward providing
this improvement based on the Benefit Assessment District.
The intersection of "F' Street and Bay Boulevard would operate at LOS D with
development of the proposed project and near-term growth. The primary reason for a poor
level of service in the future at this intersection is the four-way stop control at this
intersection, and the limited amount of capacity of the approaches to the intersection. The
project's contribution to this impact is 53 percent. To accommodate the increased traffic
flow, the intersection must be signalized, and Bay Boulevard north of "F" Street must be
designed for traffic only and on-street parking must be eliminated. Bike lanes must also be
included. The removal of this on-street parking would result in the loss of 31 existing
parking spaces. The City Traffic Engineer and Planning Department must decide where the
parking would be replaced. The existing eight-foot wide parking areas adjacent to the east
curb lines must be dedicated to normal traffic flow. The resulting cross section will provide
for one lane of travel in each direction, a center two-way turn lane, and a bike lane in each
direction. "F" Street must also be re-striped to the east and west of Bay Boulevard to
provide for two lanes of travel out from the intersection and three lanes in toward the
3-60
90-14.01602/01/91
I 'i - ''1.3
intersection. The three inbound lanes would be comprised of one left-turn only lane, one
through, and one shared through- and right-turn lane. The wests810lRd aRd northbound ~n!:!.
~2'HfH99!:W:9 approaches will also require modification to provide one left-turn lane, one
through, and one right-turn lane. West of the intersection, there must also be a five-foot
wide bike lane provided on the Rohr side of the street.
The pavement width of Bay Boulevard north of "F" Street is only 22 feet, however, and 28
to 34 feet of pavement is needed to accommodate the proposed double-left turn maneuver
from eastbound "F" Street. Thus, another 6 to 12 feet of road widening and pavement along
the east curbline of Bay Boulevard north of the intersection for approximately 100 to 200
feet would be necessary. This option may require the acquisition of a limited amount of
additional right-of-way. With these improvements, future LOS would improve to C and the
impact would be reduced to a level below significant. Because of the project's 53 percent
contribution to this impact, the applicant must provide 53 percent of the funds toward this
improvement based on the Benefit Assessment District. This improvement must be
completed before the Rohr building may be occupied.
Annual growth in volumes alone is expected to result in poor levels of service at the
intersection of Broadway and "H" Street. The project's contribution is negligible and the
applicant would not be required to contribute funds toward improving this intersection.
Parking and Access
The project requires from 79 to 115 additional parking spaces to meet local parking
standards. The applicant must meet this standard by reducing the size of the building and
number of employees; or by the use of additional subterranean or above-grade parking to
meet at least the minimum standard; or by the provision of additional, permanent offsite
surface parking adjacent to the site on the Rohr campus.
Since the demand for parking would be directly tied to the number of corporate employees
occupying the building, it is further recommended by the City of Chula Vista Planning staff
that the development agreement for the project include a limit on the number of employees
consistent with the City's employee-based parking standard and subject to an appropriated
third-party monitoring program. The number of employees could only be increased if
3-61
90-14.01602/01/91
ICf-I'1'1
existing parking was found to be adequate or if additional parking could be provided. The
parking demand should be monitored over a year following 90 percent to full occupation
of the building. The monitoring program should be comprised of a random survey of
parking demand, including a bi-weekly check on different days and different times of the day
as selected by the City's third party monitor. The applicant's Traffic Management Program
for this site must be completed as a condition of approval for this project.
The applicant should work with the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that access to and from
the site would be adequate. Through these discussions and prior to final design, the City
Traffic Engineer could recommend alternatives for additional access to the parking area
(possibly to and from Bay Boulevard with an easement through the SDG&E right-of-way
east of the site) if it is determined to be warranted by the City.
Bikeway Facilities
The applicant must work closely with the City Traffic Engineering Department during the
development of the off-site roadway improvement plans associated with this project to
ensure that adequate right-of-way is dedicated and adequate pavement width is provided to
allow for the implementation of the ultimate Class II bikeway facilities on "F" Street
adjacent to the project site. For Bay Boulevard, between "E" and "F" Street, it is
recommended that the City of Chula Vista coordinate the development of the new
recommended striping plan for Bay Boulevard which will provide for one lane of travel in
each direction with a center two-way left turn lane and bikelanes in both the north and
south direction.
Build-out Conditions
No specific mitigation is required for this project under build-out conditions as all of the
project impacts represent such a small incremental contribution to build-out conditions.
Implementation of the recommended Circulation Element of the General Plan would
provide the necessary capacity in the Bayfront Area.
3-62
90-14.016 02/01/91
,q-RS
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Development of the project would result in generation of 4,165 trips of which 2,865 are not
anticipated in SANDAG or City of Chula Vista models for future development and
circulation planning. Traffic volumes in the study area are currently approaching or
exceeding capacity on roads east of 1-5, while roads west of 1-5 typically operate at much
lower volumes and flow more smoothly. With construction of the project and cumulative
near-term growth (1992) there would be six intersections where LOS would drop below C.
There are measures available to increase capacity at the five intersections and impacts
would be reduced to less than significant. Implementation of these measures is not the
responsibility of the applicant. The intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street would have
an LOS of D, which is considered a significant impact. Signalization, road widening and
restriping 6 to 12 additional feet would be required of the applicant to mitigate this impact.
In the build-out condition, cumulative growth would result in significant impacts to study
area intersections. The applicant is flffi responsible for mitigating these cumulative build-out
impacts ~gl~PSf~n!!i~~~~!!!fI~n!9j~$~...!*iH!!~PH~~~....~9!ASfmR~!Ii
3-63
90-14.01602/01/91
I '1-1'1 (,
3.5 AIR OUALITY
EXISTING CONDmONS
Meteorology /Oimate Setting
The climate of Chula Vista, as with all of California, is largely controlled by the strength
and position of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean. The high
pressure ridge over the West Coast creates a repetitive pattern of frequent early morning
cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, clean daytime onshore breezes and little temperature
change throughout the year. Limited rainfall occurs in winter when the high center is
weakest and farthest south. Summers are often completely dry, with an average of 10 inches
of rain falling each year from November to early April.
Unfortunately, the same atmospheric conditions that create a desirable living climate,
combine to limit the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the
large population attracted to San Diego County. The coastal onshore winds diminish quickly
when they reach the foothill communities east of San Diego, and the sinking air within the
offshore high pressure system forms a massive temperature inversion that traps all air
pollutants near the ground. The resulting horizontal and vertical stagnation, in conjunction
with ample sunshine, cause a number of reactive pollutants to undergo photochemical
reactions and form smog that degrades visibility and irritates tear ducts and nasal
membranes.
Because coastal areas are well ventilated by fresh breezes during the daytime, they generally
do not experience the same air pollution problems found in some areas east of San Diego.
Unhealthful air quality within the San Diego Air Basin's coastal communities, such as Chula
Vista, may occur at times in summer during limited localized stagnation, but is mainly
associated with the occasional intrusion of polluted air from the Los Angeles Basin,
primarily affecting cities in the North County. Localized elevated pollution levels may also
occur in winter during calm, stable conditions near freeways, shopping centers or other
major traffic sources. Such "hot spot" clean air violations are highly localized in space and
time. Except for this occasional inter-basin intrusion and localized air pollution "hot spots,"
coastal community air quality is generally quite good.
3-64
90-14.006 01/24/91
I ,-It:! ~
Local meteorological conditions typically conform well to the regional pattern of strong
onshore winds by day, especially in summer, and weak offshore winds at night, especially in
winter. These local wind patterns are driven by the temperature difference between the
normally cool ocean and the warm interior, and steered by local topography. In summer,
moderate breezes of 8-12 mph blow onshore by day, and may continue all night as a light
onshore breeze, as the land remains warmer than the ocean. In winter, the onshore flow
is weaker, and the wind direction reverses in the evening as the land becomes cooler than
the ocean. While daytime winds are mainly off the ocean from the W-NW, winds do, at
times, shift into the WSW or even SW. When this happens, air pollution emissions from
Mexico are carried across the border.
Given the scope of development and the lack of pollution controls across the border,
international transport is an important air pollution concern. Such cross-border emissions
do not generally affect the Chula Vista area because it takes several hours of transport for
such pollutants to react and become photochemical smog, but, like the pollution
recirculation from the Los Angeles Basin, it means that no matter what pollution controls
are implemented within the County, there may still be smog from other sources beyond the
County's control.
Both the onshore flow of marine air and the nocturnal drainage winds are accompanied by
two characteristic temperature inversion conditions that further control the rate of air
pollution dispersal throughout the air basin. The daytime cool onshore flow is capped by
a deep layer of warm, sinking air. Along the coastline, the marine air layer beneath the
inversion cap is deep enough to accommodate any locally generated emissions. As the layer
moves inland, however, pollution sources (especially automobiles) add pollutants from below
without any dilution from above. Any such CO "hot spots" are highly localized in space and
time (if they occur at all), but occasionally stagnant dispersion conditions are an important
air quality concern relative to continued intensive development of the Chula Vista area.
The intensity of development east of Chula Vista is small enough, however, that non-local
background pollution levels during nocturnal stagnation periods are relatively low. The local
airshed, therefore, has considerable excess dispersive capacity that limits the potential for
creation of any localized air pollution "hot spots."
3-65
90-14.006 01/24/91
I q - /9 t
Air Quality Setting
Ambient Air Ouality Standards (AAOS)
To assess the air quality impact of any proposed development, that impact, together with
baseline air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards.
These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of
safety, to protect sensitive receptors, i.e., the public health and welfare. They are designed
to protect those people most susceptible to respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the
elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and
persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate periodic
exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before
adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic ozone
exposure to levels at or even below the hourly standard can have adverse, long-term,
pulmonary health effects.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established national AAQS, with states retaining
the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. Because
California already had standards in existence before federal AAQS were established, and
because of unique meteorological problems in the state, there is considerable diversity
between state and federal standards currently in effect in California. Both the state and
national standards are shown in Table 3-8.
Baseline Air Ouality
There are daily routine measurements of air quality distributions made in Chula Vista by
the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the agency responsible for
air quality planning, monitoring and enforcement in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB).
Table 3-9 summarizes the last five complete years (final 1989 data have not been officially
published) of monitoring data from the Chula Vista station located at 80 East "J" Street.
Progress toward cleaner air is seen in almost every pollution category. The only national
clean air standard that was exceeded throughout the five-year monitoring period was the
hourly ozone standard which was exceeded an average of three-to-four times per year (once
per year is allowable). The more stringent state standards for ozone and for total suspended
3-66
90-14.006 01/24/91
19-1'19
Table 3-8
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Averaging California Standards National Standards
Pollutant
Time concentration Method . Primary Secondery Method
Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm Ultraviolet 0.12 ppm Same as Ethylene
(160 uglm3) Photometry (235 uglm3) Primary Std. Cherriluminescence
6 Hour 9.0 ppm Non-dispersiv8 9.0 ppm Non-dispersiv8
Carbon (10 mglm3) Infrared (10 mglm3) Same as Infrared
Monoxide 20 ppm Spectrnscopy 35 ppm Primary Stds. SpectrOscopy
1 Hour (23 mglm3) (NOlA) (40 mgtm3) (NOlA)
Annual - 0.053 ppm Gas Phase
Average Gas Phase (100 uglm3) Same as
Nitrogen Chemilumi. Chemilumi.
Dioxide Primary Std.
1 Hour 0.25 ppm nascence nascence
(470 uglm3) -
Annual 60 uglm3 .
Average . (0.03 ppm)
24 Hour 0.05 ppm . 365 uglm3 .
Sulfur (131 uglm3) Ultraviolet (0.14 ppm) Pararosoaniline
DiOXide Fluorescence , 300 uglm3
3 Hour - . (0.5 ppm)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm . -
(655 uglm3)
Annual Size S.:ecuve
Geometric 30 uglm3 Inlet High . - .
Suspended Mean Volume Sampler
and
Panlcula18 Gravimetric InertJaI
Maner 24 Hour 50 uglm3 150 uglm3 Same as Saperaticn
(PM,,) Analysis Primary and
Annual Stds. Gravimetric
Arithmetic . - 50 ug/m3 Analysis
Mean
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ug/m3 Turbidimetric
Barium Sulfate . -
30 Day 1.5 ug/m3 - .
Lead Average AlDmic AtomiC
Calendar Absorp~on Same as Absorption
Quaner . 1.5 ug/m3 Primary Std.
Hydrogen 1 Hour 0.03 ppm Cadmium Hydr. . . .
Sulfide (42 ug/m3) oxide STAactan
Vinyl Chloride 0.010 ppm T edlar Bag
24 Hour CoIle~on. Gas - - .
(chloroethene) (26 ug/m3) Chromatography
Visibility In sufficient amount to reduce the
prevailing visibility to Ie.. than
Aeduang 1 Observalion 10 miles when the relative . - .
Particles humidity is less than 700/.
Applicable Only in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin
Carbon 6 Hour 6 ppm NOlA .
Monoxide (7 mgtm3) . -
Visibility In sutfic:iem amoum to reduce the
Aeduang 1 Observalion pnsvaiiing visibility 10 less than - . .
30 miles when the relative
Particles humidity is less than 70"1.,
ARB Fact Shey. f9 tav~'liBB)
Table 3-9
ChuIa Vista Area Air Quality Monitoring SnmmllTY - 1984-88
(Days Standards Were Exceeded and Maxima for Periods Indicated)
PoUutanUStandard 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
~:
I-Hour> 0.09 ppm 18 28 20 IS 17
I-Hour> 0.12 ppm 4 4 2 2 4
I-Hour ~ 0.20 ppm 0 0 0 0 I
Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.15 0.20 0.14 0.16 0.22
Carbon Monoxide:
I-Hour> 20. ppm 0 0 0 0 0
8-Hour > 9. ppm 0 0 0 0 0
Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 7 7 7 7 7
Max. 8-Hour Cone. (ppm) 4.6 3.9 5.1 3.4 3.6
NitrolZen Dioxide:
I-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0
Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.21
Sulfur Dioxide:
I-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0
24-Hour ~ 0.05 ppm 0 0 0 0 0
Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.09
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.021 0.015 0.013 0.011 0.019
Total Susnended Particulates:
24-Hour ~ 100 ug/m3 0/61 0/61 1/61 1/30
24-Hour > 260 ug/m3 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/30
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (ug/m3) 88 96 119 100
Lead Particulates:
I-Month ~ 1.5 ug/m3 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12
Max. I-Month Cone. (ug/m3) 0.60 0.38 0.28 0.19 0.13
Sulfate Particulates:
24-Hour ~ 25. ug/m3 1/61 0/54 0/60 0/51 0/57
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (ug/m3) 18.0 15.4 17.6 13.3 17.2
~.
R~nirable Particulates rPM.IOl:
24-Hour> 50 ug/m3 3/51 5/61 3/56
24-Hour > ISO ug/m3 0/51 0/61 0/56
Max. 24-Hour Cone. (ug/m3) 104 68 58
Soun:e: California Air Resources Board, Summary of Air Quality Data, 1984-1988.
Chula Vista Monitoring Station except for Lead & Sulfate Particles which are from San Diego APCD Island
A venue Station.
= no data
/'i-,)()/
and respirable particulates (dust) were exceeded on a somewhat higher frequency, but
overall air quality in Chula Vista is very good in comparison to other areas of the SDAB.
Air Ouality Manallement Planning
The continued violations of national AAQS in the SDAB, particularly those for ozone in
inland foothill areas, require that a plan be developed outlining the stationary and mobile
source pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego
County, this attainment planning process is embodied in a regional air quality management
plan developed jointly by the APCD and SANDAG with input from other planning agencies.
This plan, originally called RAQS (Regional Air Quality Strategies), was last updated about
seven years ago and called the 1982 State Implementation Plan Revisions (1982 SIP
Revisions). The underlying premise of this plan was that the County could have continued
economic and population growth and still achieve basin-wide clean air. The plan charted
the necessary steps to reduce the existing excess emissions burden as well as offset the air
pollutants associated with continued growth. The 1982 SIP Revisions recognized that there
were meteorological patterns under which County emissions were solely responsible for
ozone violations, and there were also conditions where inter-basin transport was a major
factor in observed air quality. The basic conclusion of the 1982 SIP Revisions was that
emissions would be reduced by the end of 1987 sufficient for all County-related ozone
violations to have been eliminated, but that violations due to transport from the Los Angeles
Basin would continue. The forecast that ozone violations from in-County sources would
cease by the end of 1987 was overly optimistic and such violations still occur. Emissions
controls from stationary and mobile sources were not implemented as quickly as anticipated
in the plan. In particular, the shift away from the single passenger automobile has been
much slower than necessary to achieve attainment of the federal ozone standard.
With the expiration of the 1987 target attainment date, the SIP Revisions are currently being
revised for a 1991 plan completion date. The new plan is designed to result in incremental
improvement toward a long-range attainment target date and to ensure that programs are
in place to continually off-set the emissions increases associated with continued growth of
the basin. Current planning calls for sufficient emissions reductions to meet the federal
ozone standard by 1996-97 absent a significant influx of pollution from the Los Angeles
Basin. The passage of the California Clean Air Act requiring future compliance with the
3-67
9().14.0IJ6 01/24/91
ICJ-,)()~
more stringent state ozone standard will entail additional planning and control to meet the
standard early into the 21st century.
The proposed office complex relates to the SIP Revisions through incorporation of sub-
regional development plans into regional growth estimates. If the project has been correctly
anticipated in the current SANDAG growth forecasts (the basis for SIP transportation
emissions forecasts), then it will not cause any unanticipated regional air quality impacts.
If, however, the proposed office development substantially exceeds the intensity of
development predicted for Chula Vista or occurs sooner than predicted by regional growth
forecasts, it will be inconsistent with the SIP Revisions.
IMPACfS
Vehicular Emissions Impacts
Land uses, such as those comprising the Rohr Office Complex, impact air quality almost
exclusively through the vehicular traffic generated by the development. Such impacts occur
basically on two scales of motion. Regionally, personal commuting will add to regional trip
generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the local airshed. Locally,
project traffic, especially at rush hour, will be added to the Chula Vista roadway system near
the development site. If added traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation,
is comprised of a large number of vehicles "cold-started" or operating at pollution inefficient
speeds, and/or is driven on roadways already crowded with non-project traffic, there is a
definite potential for the formation of microscale air pollution "hot spots" in the area
immediately around the project site.
The major project-related air quality concern derives from the mobile source emissions that
would result from the 4,165 daily trips that would be generated at project completion.
Given a typical office activity trip length of around 6 miles per trip (a combination of longer
commuting and shorter business trips), the project would potentially add 25,000 vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) to the regional traffic burden.
Automotive emissions can be readily calculated using a computerized procedure developed
by the California ARB. This model was run for the project assuming various build-out years
3-68
90-14.006 01/24/91
,tJ -~03
from 1990 - 2010. The results from the model runs are summarized in Table 3-11 with the
model output for each run included in Appendix D.
Assuming build-out at the year 2000, project traffic will add approximately 0.5 ton of carbon
monoxide (CO), 0.04 ton of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 0.03 ton of reactive organic gasses
(ROG) to the airshed daily. Continued emissions reduction from the retirement of older,
polluting cars will gradually reduce the overall project regional emissions impact slightly, but
the project will continue to represent a small, and not negligible, portion of regional
emissions burden. This small percentage contributes to the cumulative emissions increments
that comprise the basin-wide burden, and which lead to the basin's continued violations of
clean air standards. The project thus represents an incremental contribution to a regionally
significant air quality impact.
Consistency with the growth assumptions of the SIP Revisions is also an important factor.
The SIP is based on generic trip making characteristics for specified types of land uses. The
Adopted Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) identifies an intensification of uses in
the Chula Vista Midbayfront of which this project forms an incremental part. As shown in
Table 3-11 development of the office complex would generate a very small percentage of
the basin-wide air emissions and is consistent with adopted plans for this site. Project
emissions are also less than the APCD's insignificance thresholds for ROG and NOx which
are the main ozone formation precursor pollutants. Given the consistency of the proposed
development with the LCP, the regional air quality impact would be less than significant
when considering the SIP.
While the project itself may have only a minimal individual regional impact, the increase
of traffic around the project site may create localized violations of ambient health standards.
To evaluate the potential for the formation of any air pollution "hot spots," the California
line source dispersion model, CALINE4, was used to estimate receptor exposure at various
intersections near the Chula Vista Bayfront. These intersections were determined to be
potentially impacted by site development traffic. This model was initialized with maximum
traffic and minimum dispersion conditions, with and without project traffic, in order to
generate a worst-case impact assessment. CO was used as the indicator pollutant to
determine if there was any air pollution "hot spot" potential. The results of the modeling
exercise are summarized in Appendix E. As shown, the hourly CO exposure near the three
analyzed intersections currently totals less than 2.0 ppm above the regional background
3-69
90-14.006 01/24/91
/q-,;Jo/l
level. Continued emissions reductions from newer, less polluting automobiles and
anticipated roadway system improvements would create a continuing reduction in future
microscale CO levels, despite projected increases in traffic levels. Future CO levels at most
locations would be similar to existing levels despite any projected traffic increases. If the
roadway system can accommodate increased traffic volumes, future microscale CO levels,
with or without the proposed project, will be similar to what they are today. Since the "With
Project" levels are well below any level of concern, any alternative development scenario
impacts with lesser intensity are not an important air quality consideration.
The large surface parking lot represents an area of emissions impact concern because a
large number of vehicles are "cold-started" at the end of each workday. An approximate
calculation of the CO impact from the entire lot emptying was completed as part of this
study. The assumptions made for this calculation and the model used are contained in
Appendix E. The model predicted a worst-case hourly CO level of 10 mg/m3. The state
CO standard is 23 mg/m3. Given the overly conservative (over-predictive) nature of the
input assumptions, and the fact that even with worst-case assumptions, hourly CO impacts
are well below the most stringent hourly CO standard, surface parking lot air quality impacts
are judged as not significant.
Construction Impacts
Secondary project-related atmospheric impacts derive from a number of other small, growth-
connected emissions sources such as temporary emissions of dusts and fumes during project
construction, increased fossil-fuel combustion in power plants and heaters, boilers, stoves
and other energy consuming devices, evaporative emissions at gas stations or from paints,
thinners or solvents used in construction and maintenance, increased air travel from business
travelers, dust from tire wear and re-suspended roadway dust, etc. All these emission points
are either temporary, or they are so small in comparison to project-related automotive
sources that their impact is negligible. They do point out, however, that growth results in
increased air pollution emissions from a wide variety of sources, and thus further inhibits
the near-term attainment of all clean air standards in the region.
The clearing of existing site land uses, the excavation of utility access, the preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly would create temporary emissions of dusts,
fumes, equipment exhaust and other air contaminants during project construction. In
3-70
I q ...t205
90-14.006 01/24/91
general, the most significant source of air pollution from project construction would be the
dust generated during demolition, excavation and site preparation. Typical dust lofting rates
from construction activities are usually assumed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per
acre disturbed. Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust abatement
measures required by the San Diego APCD can reduce dust emission levels from 50-75
percent. Dust emissions rates, therefore, depend on the site disturbance area and the care
with which dust abatement procedures are implemented. If the entire 11.6 acre project site
is under simultaneous development, in the absence of any dust control procedures, the total
daily dust emissions would be around 1,200 pounds/day. With the use of water spray or
other dust abatement measures, daily dust emissions would average 300-600 pounds per day.
It should be noted that much of this dust is comprised of large particles that are easily
filtered by human breathing passages and settle out rapidly on parked cars and other nearby
horizontal surfaces. It thus comprises more of a soiling nuisance than any potentially
unhealthful air quality impact. Although a considerable portion of the construction activity
fugitive dust does settle out near its source, the smallest particles remain suspended
throughout much of their transit across the air basin. Construction dust is, therefore, an
important contributor to regional violations of inhalable dust (PM-lO) standards. Because
of its role in PM-lO violations, fugitive construction dust emissions must be controlled as
carefully as possible. Despite the general care which should be given to construction dust
emissions, because the impact is temporary in nature (only during the construction period)
and because prevailing breezes will generally move settling dust away from the sensitive
marsh habitat near the site, project-related impacts for this issue are considered to be less
than significant if APCD requirements are followed.
Equipment exhaust would also be released during construction activities. Although the
construction activity emission rates may be substantial (especially NOx from diesel-fueled
trucks and on-site vehicles), they would be widely dispersed in space and time by the mobile
nature of much of the equipment itself. Furthermore, daytime ventilation in Chula Vista
is usually more than adequate to disperse any local pollution accumulations near the project
site. Any perceptible impacts from construction activity exhaust would therefore be confined
to an occasional "whiff' of characteristic diesel exhaust odor. These emissions would not be
in sufficient concentration to expose any nearby receptors to air pollution levels above
acceptable standards.
3-71
90-14.006 01/24/91
,q"')Oit:J
MTI1GATION
The proposed office complex does not create an individually significant air quality impact
on either a local or a regional scale. There is, therefore, no requirement to develop any
unusual mitigation measures to off-set any project impacts. Further, since project impacts
derive primarily from automobile emissions characteristics beyond the control of project
proponents and local regulatory agencies, the potential for effective mitigation is quite
limited. However, the project incremently contributes to a regionally significant impact. To
mitigate this incremental contribution, transportation control measures (TCMs), and
temporary construction activity impact mitigation measures must be incorporated into the
proposed project. Measures that must be considered in project planning include:
1) Implementation of dust control measures during construction as required by the
APCD. Such measures include maintaining adequate soil moisture as well as
removing any soil spillage.
2) Construction and Grading Plans must (1) limit construction to the hours between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. so that local pollution accumulation is minimized, and (2)
must prohibit construction truck queuing with engines running, by imposing
restrictions on entering the site or imposing fumes.
3) Rohr has an existing TCM program which they have stated would be formalized and
expanded to include this project. Such TCM should be aimed primarily at employees
on the project site, but might also include site visitors in certain instances. Measures
that should be evaluated for the TCM program include:
Ridesharing
Vanpool Incentives
Alternate Transportation Methods
Work Scheduling for Off-Peak Hour Travel
Transit Utilization
Program Coordination
Traffic Signal Coordination
Physical Roadway Improvements to Maintain an LOS of "D" or Better
To be most efficient, these measures must be integrated into a comprehensive transportation
system management (TSM) program. Occupants of this office complex should be included
in the existing Rohr company-wide trip reduction program, and they should ultimately be
included in a comprehensive Midbayfront transportation management association (TMA)
if, and when, the Bayfront is built out.
3-72
90-14.006 01/24/91
I' - afJ '1-
Analysis of Significance
None of the project related air quality impacts is significant on a project specific level.
Implementation of the project will result in incremental contributions to a regionally
significant air quality impact due to CO, NOx and RaG additions to the airshed. Project
construction-related impacts (i.e., equipment exhaust and production of fugitive dust) are
both expected to be less than significant impacts. Dust production will require
implementation of APeD control techniques in order to be mitigated to a less than
significant impact.
3-73
90-14.006 01/24/91
1,-~()8
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
/&;-,209
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires a description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project which
could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project," and evaluation of their comparative
merits. The discussion of alternatives "shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any
significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even
if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, or
would be more costly." CEQA also requires analysis of the "no project," or existing
conditions, alternative. The range of alternatives required in an ErR is governed by "rule
of reason," which requires the ErR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit
a reasoned choice. The key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alternatives
fosters informed decision-making and informed public participation. An ErR need not
consider an alternative with effects which cannot be reasonably ascertained and the
implementation of which is remote and speculative. The basic objectives of the project, as
submitted by the applicant are:
1. Management direction to be within easy walking distance of the Chula Vista
manufacturing operations.
2. Need to consolidate the administrative office functions from 19 individual buildings
and trailer complexes into one facility.
3. Need to reduce travel distances.
4. Need to upgrade facilities.
5. Need to accommodate a smart building environment.
6. Need to move off of Port District tidelands.
7. Need to consolidate off-site operations on-site.
8. No other adjacent vacant land parcel available of the size required for the
consolidated complex.
9. No capital outlay required to purchase new land.
10. New non-industrial image wanted for the new complex.
11. Site more compatible with proposed future development uses. (Both for Rohr
campus and adjacent properties.)
12. Moves non-manufacturing functions out of the center of the manufacturing operation.
13. Other on-site options not able to meet the January 1992 completion date directed by
Management.
14. Need to eliminate temporary trailer complexes.
15. Need to raze obsolete and maintenance intensive buildings.
16. Close proximity to the airport (within 10 miles).
17. Close proximity to where majority of employees live.
18. Able to use low cost existing co-generated power.
4-1
90-14.01501/24/91a
I q -dlfJ
19. Able to tie to current on-site communication networks.
20. Able to use existing security systems and personnel.
21. Able to use already leased SDG&E parking areas.
22. Able to use existing drainage networks.
23. No stationary changes because of address changes.
Four alternatives are being evaluated for this project; the "No Project" alternative, the
Modified Design alternative which includes subsurface as well as surface parking, the
Reduced Density Alternative which responds to the parking deficiency impact, and three off-
site alternatives which evaluate whether a different site might reduce project impacts.
4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECf
Under this alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped. No impacts resulting
from development would occur with this alternative, as no change to the existing setting
would occur. Even though the proposed project would result in one incremental impact, this
alternative is not considered to be environmentally preferable for one major reason. That
is, existing uses of the site would continue, which include illegal trash dumping and habitat
degradation in an area intruding into the sensitive buffers of the NWR. Illegal off-road
vehicle use of the area could also continue. Also, the described project objectives would not
be met. The environmentally preferred action, therefore, is one that not only meets project
objectives, but also develops the project area in an environmentally sensitive manner,
screening inhabitants of the marsh area from potentially disturbing uses. Thus, even though
this alternative would not result in incremental impacts, the potential continuing impacts to
the NWR would continue, negating this alternative as an environmentally preferable
alternative.
42 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MODIFIED DESIGN
The major difference between this alternative and the proposed project is the development
of subsurface parking in two garages which would increase the number of parking spaces
from 730 to 760. Figure 4-1 through 4-3 show this alternative's Site Plan, Grading Plan and
cross-sectional views of the subterranean garages. The location of the cross-sections are
identified on the Site Plan.
4-2
90-14.015 01/24/91
1f1-~11
. ~ i l ~;: ~
.~. ~ ~ ~.. ~~
~i i t' t't. ~
b d i nil! Hq'
-. ~~ Ii ~~
Ii! ~L n
U .. I n ~I ~ ~~
1 .1 ~ I. ~ ~ i ; u .. ~ ~a~ .
. ~ ~ ! n n ~ hu
-"---lllIn
,.""
',.,..,......_-
---1
Illlilll III II
~inlll.1S "
<
I, i Iii i I i
; I
I
- II
, ~
. l' _ .
- --~-- -
- - ~ --
- ~
-
I
I
I
I
I
,
~
i
I
...IL '
c. i!~~
\. .
f1
1'1-~/~
......
,
-.t-
~
So
~
~.
.:',J.
,I
i
,
~
i
.
I
1
j.
'!
.~i
.\
~
.-
'"
~
Cl
"C
Q)
l;:::
.- =
"C<<:l
0_
;:sp.,
Q)
'.....
.-
N(/)
~
.-
.....
<<:l
C
...
Q)
~
.}
I
!
r ~'-~ J
~ i ~ 0 ~~
~~1'
~/ ~ D ll\/_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\' f.
~Ia
_I
-I
~~
~
o 50 100 200
Scale in Feet
j
I
'0
"
~
Legend
0
!? ft
~ Property line
50
0 -
+ ~o Marsh
~
k"'" "'" ~ Detention Basin
EARTHWORK
Cut 31,000 cubic yards.
Fill 40,000 cubic yards
Import 9,000 cubic yards
Maximum cut = ll':t
Maximum fill = 7':t
+
i
:...~
t----J
,
L..______ _
~
~
j
Iq-~/3
I I
UPPER FLOOR = 18.2'
, ..-
LOWER FL/8.2'
V.
-----
. UP~ER FL..90R =;!8.0'
LOWER FLOOR = 8.0'
~ ~ ~.
"" ~
/
/
/
\
I
)
.'
\ '
\
\
-
~------_/-/ .
~.
~
..
Alternative 2 - Modified Design
Grading Plan
.
Figure 4-
~
1""'" " =o~.
~~."".
l
""~
G-_- .
, .~
1:~j I' , . , , , 'I ~-J ~'"
~U-,
~
PARKING SECTION A
.....
~
I
~
.....
..(:,
~ 11' ;' , , , 11' ~' 'II'~?' , ,iT.;".:. ~ ' ,,;,
I I
,-;4'1-=
~r'
PARKING SECTION B
~
I~@
~
~-~ 8~ ITI
6~1
PARKING SECTION C
o
.
so
120 FEET
Alternative 2-Modified DesigL
Subterranean Garages Cross Sections
Figure 4-3
An analysis of the potential impacts from development of this alternative is contained below,
and includes each issue discussed for the proposed project.
A DRAINAGE/GROUNDWAlER/GRADING
Impacts to drainage and groundwater and from grading are the same as those for the
project. Additionally, two parking structures are currently proposed, each with one level of
below-grade parking with finished floor elevations of 8.0 and 8.2 feet for the northerly and
southerly parking structures, respectively. The northerly parking structure is currently
proposed to be supported on spread or continuous footings founded entirely in competent
Bay Point formation soils, with a bottom-of-footing elevation of 5.5 feet (MSL). A total of
40,000 cubic yards of cut and fill would be generated and approximately 9,000 cubic yards
of import would be required to develop the proposed grades. The maximum depth of cut
and fill would be 11 feet and 7 feet, respectively, with an average change in grade of
approximately 2 feet.
The formational soils drop in elevation to the south, and at least portions of the southerly
structure will likely be underlain by up to several feet of compressible slopewash materials
unsuitable for the direct support of the proposed structure. Consideration is currently being
given to deepening conventional footings as necessary to develop proper embedment into
the underlying formational soils, or supporting the proposed structure on pile foundations.
Deepened conventional footings will definitely penetrate the groundwater table, thereby
necessitating temporary construction dewatering to form and construct foundation elements.
Pile foundations, if used for support of the southerly parking structure, would utilize a pile
cap bottom elevation of 4.7 feet, thereby reducing the likelihood that temporary construction
dewatering might be required.
Adequate design criteria are provided in the July 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report
for foundation design, with consideration being given to variations in the groundwater table,
and design criteria are also provided for temporary construction dewatering if saturated soils
are encountered during the construction activities on site.
4-3
90-14.01501/24/91
Je; - J 15
B. BIOLOGY
Biological impacts and mitigation measures are the same as those for the project as there
are no changes beyond the addition of the two parking garages. Potential dewatering
impacts from subsurface parking construction would be mitigated by implementation of the
existing mitigation measure number 4 (pages 3-34 to 3-35).
C. VISUAL QUAUfY
The visual effects of the revised Rohr Industries Inc. Office Complex will be virtually the
same as those described previously for the proposed project. The proposed parking
structures will be below grade, and there will be no noticeable visual change to the overall
character and design of the site. In addition, the landscape plan for the revised site is the
same as the proposed project. Consequently, the proposed office complex, landscaping and
parking for the revised plan will result in the types of visual aesthetic changes described in
Section 3.3 of this EIR.
D. TRAFFIC CIRCUlATION
Traffic circulation impacts are the same as those for the project, since this alternative does
not result in increased traffic levels.
Parking
The alternative project proposes the same amount of square footage in office space, and
therefore, would generate the same amount of parking demand. The alternative responds
to the recommendation in the traffic analysis for the project to redesign the parking to
create as much parking as possible. Even with this design, the alternative would result in
a parking deficit of 49 to 85 spaces, or 6 to 10 percent (under the City's existing standards).
Access
The access issue is the same as that for the project, yet exacerbated due to the garages. The
Applicant must work with the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that access to and from the
4-4
90-14.015 02/01/91
Jfi-;U~
site would be adequate. Through these discussions and prior to final design, the City
Traffic Engineer could recommend alternatives for additional access to the parking,
including the structures (possibly to and from Bay Boulevard with an easement through the
SDG&E right-of-way east of the site), if it is determined to be warranted by the City.
E. AIR QUALITY
The air quality technical report for this alternative is located in the second half of Appendix
E.
Vehicular Emissions Impacts
The revision of the plot plan from the 730 parking space design as the analysis basis for the
forgoing air quality report to 760 spaces could allow for slightly greater volumes of traffic
than previously anticipated. It has been assumed that the 30 "extra" spaces are surplus in
that the office complex floor area was not changed with the revision. It could be, however,
that the surplus space would encourage office occupancy of uses that are somewhat more
traffic intensive than the average values used for trip-generation in that the parking facilities
can accommodate a higher rate of vehicular access. In the absence of any definitive
information, the possibility of an increased frequency/intensity of site access encouraged by
parking availability was treated as an alternative to the previous analysis.
These amounts represent an incremental contribution to the basin, which continues to
violate clean air standards. Thus, this alternative also represents an incremental contribution
to a regionally significant air quality impact.
A subsurface/surface parking structure represents an area of impact concern because there
are a large number of vehicles "cold-started" at the end of each workday. If many vehicles
departing simultaneously create substantial congestion, then the combination of multiple
inefficient emissions sources plus limited localized dispersion potentially may create a
micro scale air quality concern. With the structure, the public spends only a brief amount
of time such that ambient air quality impacts based on hourly or longer exposure standards
are not directly applicable. However, beyond the immediate structure boundary, there may
be points of extended public access that relate directly to state and federal clean air
4-5
90-14.01501/24/91
ICJ-;J/~
standards. Within the structure, any employees working within the facility are governed by
occupational safety and health (OSHA) limits on worker exposure to carbon monoxide. The
federal OSHA standard allows for an 8-hour average exposure of 50 ppm compared to the
state and federal 8-hour ambient air quality standard or 9 ppm.
Based on an approximate calculation made of the CO level within the structure, and under
a worst-case scenario that every underground parking place turns over four times in one day
with a low ventilation rate, the OSHA standards would not be exceeded. Additionally, a
calculation of ambient exposure at the edge of the property lines was made assuming an
hourly turn-over of every space (surface and subsurface), and neither the subsurface, nor
ambient air quality standards were threatened.
In conclusion, though incremental impacts may be slightly worsened with this alternative,
they still remain less than significant at a project level. This alternative is not
environmentally preferable to the proposed project from an air quality perspective; rather,
it is considered equal to it or very slightly worse. The incremental contributions to a
regionally significant impact must still be mitigated with the same measures as proposed for
the project, including transportation control measures and all construction-related measures.
43 ALTERNATIVE 3 - REDUCED DENSITY
The only difference between this alternative and the proposed project would be a reduction
in building size of 17,000 square feet, or a reduction from 245,000 square feet to 228,000
square feet. wpi~t~g9FHq.g...liY:!li~~Fgi!~~pgn9fHgf~g\.W;i9g!fii'imq~t~9~~rnP!9Y~~~i
The purpose of this reduction is to avoid the parking deficiency impact, and is based on the
maximum amount of parking that has been incorporated into the project design by
Alternative 2 - 760 spaces. A building with 220,000 square feet would meet the City's
minimum required parking standard of 3-1/3 parking spaces for every thousand $lg~r$ feet
of gross building area. Based on the parking proposed for the project, 730 spaces, a
reduction in size of 26,000 square feet, or from 245,000 square feet to 219,000 square feet
would be necessary. However, the applicant has agreed to the greater amount of parking,
the 760 spaces, thus the 17,000 square foot reduction would be appropriate.
4-6
90-14.01502/01/91
/<1 ..~/f(
This alternative would not substantially change the environmental analysis for any of the
other issues.
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 - OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES
The offsite alternatives are included in the EIR to evaluate whether environmental impacts
from the project might be reduced or eliminated at a different site. The offsite projects
assume that the proposed development would be the same as the proposed project.
The criteria used in evaluating the sites include environmental conditions at each site, and
the project applicant's goals and objectives for the proposed project (these were stated
earlier in this section). Though the applicant's goals and objectives are directly appropriate
for the proposed project site, the alternatives analysis looks beyond this area in order to
fully evaluate and compare environmental impacts.
The project impacts and incremental impacts compared in this analysis were those which
were found significant and mitigable; there was one significant and unmitigable impact
which was the incremental contribution to the loss of regional raptor foraging habitat.
The four sites evaluated include:
1. Port District - Chula Vista Marina (Port District Land)
2. Port District - National City Marine Terminal (Port District Land)
3. Tia Juana Street, near 1-5 and the Mexican Border (City of San Diego)
4. Eastern Urban Center - County of San Diego (City of Chula Vista's Sphere of
Influence).
Port District - Chula Vista Marina
This site is approximately 14 acres and is located at the foot of "J" Street on the bayfront
just east of the Chula Vista Marina, and adjacent to the south end of the Rohr facilities.
The site is flat, and generally disturbed due to the influences from the surrounding
developed areas. The Port District's designation for the site is Industrial-Business Park.
4-7
90-14.01502/01/91
lq-~/'f
An initial review of the site indicated that no apparent significant environmental constraints
occurs at the site. Traffic accesses Chula Vista and surrounding areas via "J" Street and the
1-5 interchange at "J" Street. Traffic impacts would probably be similar to those expected
at the proposed site, with the greatest constraint being the "J" Street interchange, and the
capacity of "J" Street west of 1-5.
No significant biological resources exist on the site, in fact, very little vegetation remains due
to previous disturbance. Visually, bay views are already blocked from viewers to the east
by existing Rohr developments adjacent to the north and east of the site.
The greater size of this site compared to the proposed site could eliminate the potential
parking deficiency impact, and appears to be able to provide enough area for the proposed
building and surface parking. No subsurface parking would be required at this site, thus,
the potential dewatering constraint could probably be avoided. Based on this preliminary
review, this site appears to be environmentally preferable over the proposed site due to the
avoidance of biological impacts, probable reduction in geotechnical/groundwater constraints,
and probable avoidance of the parking deficiency impact. However, potential traffic impacts
would remain.
Port District-National City Marine Terminal
This site is located on the bayfront at the Port District's Industrial Marine Terminal/Marine
Related site in National City, just across the Sweetwater River north of the City of Chula
Vista boundary and the north end of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The
231-acre site is flat and completely disturbed. The port is considering changing the exiting
designation of Industrial Marine Terminal/Marine Related to Commercial recreation.
An initial review of the site has resulted in the conclusion that no significant environmental
constraints are immediately evident, with the possible exception of traffic circulation. The
site receives access from 1-5 via 24th and 32nd Streets. No significant natural features exist
on the site.
Impacts of the proposed Rohr development that would occur on the proposed site could be
reduced or eliminated at this site, including the deficiency in parking spaces as more land
4-8
90-14.01502/01/91
l'i-,)~O
would be available for parking; and the incremental loss of raptor foraging habitat, as no
raptor foraging habitat currently exists on the site. However, new traffic circulation impacts
may result. From a natural resources perspective, this site would be preferred; however,
from a traffic perspective, it may be considered equal to the proposed project location, or
may even result in greater traffic impacts. Because this site is larger, subsurface parking
would not be necessary and potentially problematic dewatering may not be necessary. New
regional Water Quality Control Board regulations prohibit permanent dewatering to enter
the bay. Some of the project objectives would not be met with this alternative. In
conclusion, this alternative site is fairly equal to the proposed project site, as raptor foraging
habitat impacts would be avoided, but traffic impacts could be equal to worse.
Tia Ju,ma Street
This property consists of approximately 90 acres which is currently used for agriculture,
scattered single-family residences, and a sand and gravel operation. Surrounding land uses
include light industrial, multi-family and single-family residences, agricultural land, The
Tijuana River, and the border with mixed uses (mostly residential) beyond.
The site is mostly flat and previously disturbed. Significant environmental constraints
include the River and associated riparian vegetation/habitat, agriculture, and the sand and
gravel operation. Depending on its location within this area, the 11.6 acre Rohr project
could either result in impacts to these sensitive resources, or could avoid some of these
altogether. Considering the number of constraints, however, this site is not considered
environmentally preferred over the project site.
F.a~tem Urban Center
The Eastern Urban Center, located in the County of San Diego, is also included in the City
of Chula Vista's General Plan as part of its Sphere of Influence. The General Plan (1989)
envisions this site for mixed uses including regional retail facilities, commercial office
building, residences and public recreation facilities. The site is located where the future
extension of Orange Avenue and SR-125 would intersect.
4-9
90-14.0150]/01/91
It:; - ~~I
Most of this area has been disturbed by agriculture and is relatively flat. Access appears
to be the most significant constraint, though a site specific environmental analysis must
occur to positively identify whether potentially significant constraints exist. An initial review
identified no readily apparent constraints. This site may be less sensitive, and further review
would be necessary to accurately determine this potential conclusion. With this alternative,
some of the applicant's objectives regarding location of the project would not be met.
45 CONCLUSIONS
Alternative 2 - Modified Design results in a reduction of the significant parking deficiency
impact, otherwise, this alternative does not substantially reduce or eliminate potential
project impacts. Alternative 3 - Reduced Density results in avoidance of the significant
parking deficiency impact, otherwise, it also does not substantially reduce or eliminate other
project impacts. It must be noted that, after mitigation, the proposed project results in only
one incremental impact (to raptor foraging habitat).
Alternative sites may be environmentally preferable, especially the Port District-Chula Vista
Marina site. This site would eliminate potentially significant and unmitigable incremental
impacts to raptor foraging habitat, and appears to be able to provide adequate surface
parking. Traffic circulation may, however, be similar to the project impacts.
4-10
90-14.01502/01/91
I'-~~~
5.0 EFFEcrs NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
J'1-~;J.3
5.0 EFFECfS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
A preliminary evaluation of potential environmental impacts was completed by the City of
Chula Vista which identified potential impacts in the areas of geOlogy/soils, groundwater,
drainage/water quality, agriculture resources, air quality, noise, biology cultural resources,
land use, aesthetics, utilities, human health, transportation and risk of upset. After further
study and evaluation, several of these potential impacts were found to be not significant.
The issue areas of aesthetics, circulation, parking, air quality, biology, and
hydrology/drainage were found to require additional study and are addressed in this EIR.
The issues that were determined to be not significant include geology/soils, agricultural
resources, noise, cultural resources, land use, utilities, human health, and risk of upset. This
section is included subject to CEQA section 15128 which requires that an EIR contain a
brief statement "indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project
were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR".
Each of the above-mentioned issues are briefly addressed in terms of potential adverse
impact and a judgment made about impact significance.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The project site has historically been farmed with row crops and was cultivated in the early
1980s. The development of this project would result in overcovering of the soil and
elimination of the site as an agricultural land use. The soils on site are Hueruero loam
which is suitable for growing tomatoes and truck crops but has a low (41) story index and
is not classified as prime agricultural soil. Because the site is small (11.6 acres) and is not
considered prime agricultural land, the loss of this minor resource is not considered
significant.
NOISE
Noise levels for the area would increase somewhat as the project would generate additional
traffic on "F' Street and onto the site. The nearest sensitive receptor is the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh which is located west of the proposed structure. As all parking and ingress/egress
would be focused on the eastern half of the site and noise would be blocked by the structure
itself, impacts would not be significant.
5-1
90-]4.00501/24/91
19 -;1~ 'I
CULTURAL RESOURCES
An archaeological/historical survey was conducted recently for a proposed bayfront project
which encompassed this site. This survey found one previously recorded site in the project
area, SDi-6025, which included both historic and prehistoric elements (Reference Appendix
D, Results of an Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the
Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No.8, Brian F. Smith and Associates, October 24, 1989;
available at the City of Chula Vista Community Development Department). The results of
the survey indicated that this site was not significant.
LAND USE
The project is generally consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan. The issues of
compatibility with the Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program (LCP) have been
addressed in Section 2.4, and as stated there, no major inconsistencies would occur.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Rohr employees are anticipated to use the surrounding public park and recreation areas,
especially during the lunch hour. The anticipated number of employees at this facility is
1,286, with some percentage of this expected to use nearby public areas. The actual amount
from this project is not considered significant, especially because most employees are
transferring to this facility from the adjacent campus. The City currently has no requirement
for commercial or industrial/business park projects to pay park fees, however, due to the
expected use of public areas, the applicant should contribute funds for improvements to
existing jogging/walking paths or to new paths.
UTIIITIES
The project would require connection of water, sewer and energy lines to existing services
adjacent to the site. SDG&E is committed to servicing all customers and has the necessary
facilities in the immediate vicinity. Sewage disposal is provided via the City of Chula Vista
and directed into the City of San Diego MElRO sewage system. The City of Chula Vista
has an available capacity of at least 5 million gallons per day (MGD) and would be capable
of servicing the project with no significant impacts. However, an offsite sewer connection
5-2
9fJ.14.00501/24/91
I,...J ~S
and construction of a metering facility would be necessary to tie into the nearest Metro line,
which is a 78-inch main approximately 1,100 feet south of "F" Street in Bay Boulevard. lil'i~.
~PP~!f~n~>>\9VI~R9~l;tp~Em~~~gn~t9i~n9&l;8.!:~II!I~~mg:~~~r99tlnq~lign~g~g~j~t
~qq~I~.!p~~pr9pg~~i
Water service to the site would be provided by Sweetwater Authority. No service
agreements have yet been accomplished, as Sweetwater Authority would need to prepare
a project-specific evaluation to determine service capabilities and needs (Briggs 1990).
Thus, water supply and infrastructure needs, and capability to meet these needs, have not
yet been determined.
HUMAN HEALTH
Development of an office complex with associated parking would not result in significant
impacts to human health as standard construction materials and operating technology would
be employed.
RISK OF UPSET
In May 1988, Woodward-Clyde Consultants completed a hazardous substance contamination
site assessment for the project site. The purpose of the study was to investigate the
potential presence of hazardous substance contamination on the site resulting from past or
present uses on the property. Based on their records review, field investigation, and
laboratory results, they concluded that several facilities near the site use hazardous materials
which have been cited for improper storage and disposal, and that on-site soil contamination
resulted from historic pesticide use, and volatile organic compounds in the groundwater
originated off-site. Because the levels of soil and groundwater contamination were below
state-mandated standards, the potential risk of upset impact was considered not significant.
SCHOOLS
In response to the Notice of Preparation, both the Chula Vista City School District (grades
K-8) and the Sweetwater Union High School District (grades 9-12) mailed letters of
comment to the City Planning Department. Both school districts clarified that non-
residential development would result in an increase in school enrollment. Based on their
5-3
9IJ.-14.1J05 01/24/91
1'f-.;l~1o
preliminary figures, the project would generate approximately 162 new elementary school
age children and 100 new high school students at an estimated cost to the districts of
$1,427,868 and $1,300,000, respectively. However, the State-mandated fees for non-
residential development would generate $25,380 for the City School District and $215,600
for the Sweetwater School District; far short of their estimated need. To comply with the
Districts' needs, the applicant must pay the state-mandated school fees, and is currently in
negotiation with the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The nearest fire station is approximately 1.25 miles from the site, and the estimated
response time would be 4 minutes. Requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department must
be met, including:
. Implementation of fire standpipe and fire hydrants.
. Inclusion of a 20-foot wide unobstructed access to all points within 150 feet of the
furthermost point of the exterior wall of the first story.
. Provision of fire flow at 5,200 to 6,000 gallons per minutes (depending on the type
of construction (Horsefall, 1990).
Police services would be incrementally affected by the project due to the presence of a new
building and new employment at the site. Police services would not be significantly
impacted, and the Police Department has not required any measures of the applicant.
5-4
9O-J4.005 01/24/91
I 't-.;)~ r
6.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1't-~.2'(
6.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACfS
The proposed project and Alternative~ 2 ~nq8 (Modified Designil~~~q~~it!;
r~:!l!;PY'!!~~Y) would eeffi !lop result in the same unavoidable impact. This impact is the
incremental loss of raptor foraging habitat by development of the project. No mitigation
other than no development is possible.
6-1
9O-J.l.017 02/01/91
,Q-,};;1
7.0 RElATIONSHIP BETWEEN WCAL SHORT-1ERM USE
OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-1ERM PRODUCITVITY
J9-j3()
7.0 RElATIONSIllP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Economic and social pressures for growth in San Diego County are such that complete
protection of the environment at the expense of community growth and well-being is not
feasible. Therefore, a balance must be sought that accommodates the needs of the growing
population of the southern California region, while maintaining the integrity of the
environment. It is the degree to which this balance is achieved in a given development that
establishes the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
Development of the Rohr proposed project or alternative would intensify the uses of the
environment, while the maintenance of the area as open space would allow possible future
reclamation of the currently degraded environment and return of the area to a pristine
natural resource. The valuable natural resources include the unique marine and
wetland-associated habitats and species, and the proximity of the open spaces to the waters
of the San Diego Bay and the associated aesthetic pleasures.
The proposed site development generally has been designed to respect these existing natural
resources so that they are protected in a healthy condition for the future. Additionally, the
measures recommended to mitigate potential impacts to these resources should be
implemented and monitored to ensure their appropriateness and success.
7-1
90-14.010 01/24/91
/9- ~31
8.0 IRREVERSffilE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT
WILL RESULT FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECf
Iq-il3~
8.0 IRREVERSffiLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES TIIAT WIlL RESULT
FROM THE PROPOSED PROJEGr
Approval and construction of the proposed Rohr office complex would result in irreversible
changes to the project area and to the larger Midbayfront area. The project would develop
an urban use in an existing, largely natural setting which is adjacent to a highly sensitive
National Wildlife Refuge. This urban use would, of course, include the attendant traffic,
noise, visual changes, and other human-associated activities which lIf8M~g will not only
change the character of this area, but lIfgwi:! will also infringe permanently toward the
margins of the sensitive biological communities of the NWR. The allowance for 1911:1 these
irreversible changes is found in the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program, with
which the proposed project is in compliance.
8-1
90-14.01801/24/91
/9-,;;33
9.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACf OF TIIE PROPOSED PROmCf
1'1-:13'1
9.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACf OF THE PROPOSED PROmCf
The Chula Vista Sphere of Influence area is within one of the fastest growing areas in the
County. In fact, the population of the sphere of influence was projected to increase by
approximately 65 percent by the year 2010 (SANDAG, 1989),20 percent over the increase
projected for the San Diego Region. A July 1990 monitoring report indicates that in fact,
the Chula Vista's subregion population has increased by 4.18 percent over that anticipated
a year ago, while the adjacent National City subregion has exceeded their projected growth
by 2.6 percent. Occupied housing units for Chula Vista exceeded the projected numbers by
3.49 percent for the Chula Vista and 1.53 percent for the National City subregions. The
City's Growth Management Policy (City of Chula Vista, 1989) indicates that the location and
quality of this rapid growth should be reviewed annually by City staff to ensure orderly
progression and development of the planning area. The City's intent is for growth to occur
in a general west to east direction.
The proposed project will provide an administrative building for Rohr facilities, some of
which are immediately adjacent to the project site. Primary purposes include movement of
current employees from existing facilities, as well as possible new-hires. The proposed
project could provide new employment for individuals moving into the Chula Vista and
National City subregions as well as the County at large. The number of new jobs available
is not expected to be large, thus, growth inducement from this project is not anticipated.
Numerous development projects are planned or under construction in the City's Sphere of
Influence. One additional concern of growth management is that new growth occur adjacent
to existing development, rather than in a "leap-frog" fashion. The proposed project is
located adjacent to a variety of existing land uses to the north and east as well as to a
related Rohr facility to the south. Thus, the proposed project would fill in currently vacant,
previously disturbed space, rather than open up development in a new area. Though there
would be modifications to and increases in service demand, most facilities and services likely
to be required by Rohr are already in place on or adjacent to the project site.
9-1
90-14.011 01/24/91
Ic;-~3S
10.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1'-~31.
10.0 CUMUlATIVE IMPACfS
This section provides a summary of potential cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts "shall
be discussed when they are significant" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130(a)).
Each of the resource issues analyzed considered project development within the Bayfront
area and, as appropriate, more distant locations. The summary for each project issue
describes the geographical area which was considered in the analysis of cumulative impacts.
BIOLOGY
The biological analysis included the entire southern California area, because the resources
under analysis are important to at least this area and, at most, the entire U.S. The
resources incrementally impacted are the raptor foraging habitats which are part of the
Midbayfront upland on which this project is located. The loss is considered incremental at
a project level, but one which contributes to a regionally significant cumulative loss.
Another concern is that the development of the Rohr office complex would result in the loss
of habitat expansion opportunities which occur in only a handful of locations in southern
California. This lost opportunity is considered an incremental impact which will continue
to increase in significance as similar sites are lost due to development. Further, the
proposed development may restrict the enhancement potential of the wetland areas under
federal management by creating a possible continual source of predators and other
disturbance factors (traffic, human activity, etc.).
TRANSPORTATION/ACCESS
The traffic analysis considered the Chula Vista streets both west and east of 1-5. The
project's contribution in most cases to traffic circulation impacts ranges from approximately
two to five percent of significantly impacted intersections. In one case ("F" Street and Bay
Boulevard intersection) the project represents approximately 53 percent of the significant
impact. The project thus contributes incrementally to significant cumulative effects and, in
the one case ("F" Street and Bay Boulevard intersection and approaches), represents over
one-half of the significant impact. The applicant is responsible for providing a proportional
amount of funds toward the mitigation for all of the cumulatively significant impacted
10-1
90-14.01901/24/91
Ic;-~3r
intersections. The City should establish a Benefit Assessment District for transportation
improvements in this western and bayfront portion of the City. These funds would be
placed in a separate City account used exclusively for projects in this District. The
boundaries of the District, the land uses in the District and associated estimated number of
trips, and the costs for necessary improvements must be determined.
VISUAL AESTIIETICS/COMMUNITY CHARACIER
The visual aesthetics cumulative analysis considered the Chula Vista bayfront area, from the
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge to the Chula Vista Marina area. With respect
to existing public views within and adjacent to the City of Chula Vista, the proposed project
would result in continuing alteration of the bayfront from a natural area to a continuation
of the surrounding otherwise urban environment. As such, a loss of bay views would occur
to viewers directly west of the project site, and an incremental change to the character of
the bayfront would occur. The size of the building and the landscaping plan are within
requirements of the City's General Plan, thus these incremental visual and character changes
are not considered significant.
AIR QUALITY
The air quality analysis considered the entire San Diego Air Basin. The issues addressed
in the air quality discussion (vehicle emissions impacts, construction fugitive dust impacts,
etc.) would all be less than significant on a project specific basis. However, the project
emissions would contribute to the basin's continued violation of clean air standards. The
project thus represents an incremental contribution to a regionally significant air quality
impact.
10-2
90-14.01901/24/91
ICf-';>3g
11.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
1e;-~3'
11.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th Edition.
American Ornithologists' Union.
American Ornithologists' Union. 1989. Thirty-seventh Supplement to the American
Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 106: 532-538.
Andrecht, Ken and Elizabeth Copper. 1988. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel.
San Diego, California.
Ashton, R. E., Jr. 1976. Endangered and Threatened Amphibians and Reptiles in the
United States. Soc. for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetology Circular
No.5.
Awbrey, Frank. 1987. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. San Diego, California.
Awbrey, F., B. Stewart, and A. Bowles. 1980. Behavioral and Acoustic Data, Purisima
Point Least Tern Colony, Vandenburg Air Force Base. Prepared for the United
States Air Force, Vandenburg Air Force Base, California.
Beauchamp, R. M. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press.
241 pp.
Bloom, Pete. 1990. Telephone communication to Keith W. Merkel. National City,
California.
Bowman, Roy H. 1973. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. December, 1973.
Briggs, Bill. San Diego Unified Port District, Planning Department. 1990. Telephone
communication, October 31, 1990.
Burger, Joanna. 1986. The Effect of Human Activity on Shorebirds in Two Coastal Bays
in Northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation 13(2): 123-130.
Cade, Tom J. 1982. Falcons of the World. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1977. Status Designations of California Plants
and Animals.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1988. Annual Report on the Status of California
State Listed Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals.
11-1
90-14.012 01/24/91
ICJ -.:> Yo
CALTRANS. 1982. Sweetwater River Final Environmental Impact Report. Sweetwater
River Flood Control Channel, State Highway Route 54, Interstate Highway Route
5, Recreation Facilities and Conservation of Marshlands, San Diego County,
California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 109 pp. +
appendices.
Churcher, Peter B. and John H. Lawton. 1989. Beware of Well-fed Felines. Natural
History 7: 40-47.
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan, Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program Phase III - A Division of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance Title 19 -
Chula Vista Municipal Code Specific Plan. Prepared by City of Chula Vista
Department of Community Development. Amended April 1989.
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Growth Management Policy, Chula VISta General Plan. June
1989.
City of Chula Vista. 1990. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the Rohr Office Complex (EIR-90-1O). 15 June 1990.
Conners, Peter G. 1987. Predator Management Plan for Chula Vista Bayfront. Prepared
for the City of Chula Vista. Chula Vista, CA
Copper, Elizabeth. 1989. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. San Diego,
California.
Copper, E. 1979. Least Tern Breeding Season in San Diego County, 1979. California
Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, California.
Copper, E. and R. Patton. 1985. California Least Tern Nesting, San Diego County, 1985.
California Department of Fish and Game annual report.
Copper, E. and R. Patton. 1986. A Report on Least Tern Nesting in Southern San Diego
County, 1986. California Department of Fish and Game annual report.
Dooling, Robert J. 1982. Auditory perception in birds. In D. E. Kroodsma and E. H.
Miller (editors). Acoustic Communication in Birds. Academic Press, New York. Vol.
1, pp. 95-130.
Dooling, Robert J., James A. Mulligan, and James D. Miller. 1971. Auditory Sensitivity
and Song Spectrum of the Common Canary (Serinus canarius). Journal of Acoustic
Society of America 50(2): 700-709.
Edwards, Claude G. 1987. Monitoring and Observation of Avifauna at Sweetwater River
Mouth, Gunpowder Point, G Street Shore and Marsh Vicinity (unpublished field
notes). 1 August 1987.
11-2
90-14.012 01/24/91
1C;-~'11
Everett, W. T. 1979. Threatened, Declining and Sensitive Bird Species in San Diego
County. Audubon Society Sketches. July 1979.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A.
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76
pp. plus appendices.
Gronholt, Christine. 1987. Personal communications to Robin Putnam and Keith W.
Merkel during preparation of Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987c.
Grout, Daniel J. 1990. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. National City,
California.
Hinde, R. A. 1954a. Factors governing the changes in strength of a partially inborn
response, as shown by the mobbing behavior of the chaffinch (Fringilla coelobs). I,
the nature of the response, and an examination of its course. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B 142:306-331 (as cited in Morse 1980).
Hinde, R. A. 1954b. Factors governing the changes in strength of a partially inborn
response, as shown by the mobbing behavior of the chaffinch (Fringilla coelobs). II,
The waning of the response. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 142: 332-358. (Cited
in Morse 1980).
Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities
of California. California Department of Fish and Game.
Horsfall, Emmett, 1990. Chula Vista Fire Department. Telephone communication, October
31, 1990.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1979. Red
Data Book, Vol. 3: Amphibia and Reptilia.
Jameson, E.W., Jr. and Hans J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of
California Press.
JHK & Associates. 1989. Draft. Engineering Report for the City of Chula Vista Bikeway
Plan. September, 1989.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1983. Final Analysis of Select Biological Issues Relating
to the Chula Vista Bayfront Plan. Prepared for the City of Chula Vista. 10 March
1983.
11-3
90-14.012 01/24/91
IGJ ,.;)If~
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1986. Wetland Determination at Marsh North of F Street
in the Bayfront, Chula Vista, California. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. June
1986.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1988. Studies of California Least Terns and Water-
Associated Birds at the Chula Vista Bayfront, San Diego County, California.
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista and San Diego Unified Port District. December
7, 1988.
Jorgensen, Paul. 1987. Clapper Rail Census (unpublished data) 3 April 1987.
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. 1990. Draft City of Chula Vista Midbayfront LCP
Resubrnittal No.8 Amendment Environmental Impact Report and Appendices. 1
August 1990. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista.
Kennedy, Michael P. and Siang S. Tan. 1977. Geology of National City, Imperial Beach
and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California.
California Division of Mines and Geology. Map Sheet 29.
Kenney, Martin. 1990. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel, California.
Marcus, Laurel. 1989. The Coastal Wetlands of San Diego County. California State
Coastal Commission. 64pp.
Mayer, Kenneth E. and William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife
Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Montgomery, Stephen J. 1987. Monitoring and Observations of Avifauna at the Sweetwater
River Mouth, Gunpowder Point, G Street Shore and Marsh Vicinity. Unpublished
field notes.
Morse, D. H. 1980. Behavioral Mechanisms in Ecology. Harvard University Press.
Cambridge, Mass. 383 pp.
Morse, D. H. 1970. Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds.
Eeo/. Monogr. 40:119-168.
Mudie, P. J. 1970a. A Survey of the Coastal Wetland Vegetation of San Diego Bay. Part
I: Description of the Environment and the Vegetation Types, June 1970. California
Department of Fish and Game, Contract No. W26 D25-51.
Mudie, P. 1. 1970b. A Survey of the Coastal Wetland Vegetation of San Diego Bay. Part
II: Vegetation Analyses, October 1970. California Department of Fish and Game,
Contract No. W26 D25-51.
11-4
9IJ-14.012 01/24/91
/I:J - J 113
Nagano. 1982. Population Status of the Tiger Beetles of the Genus Cicindela
(Coleoptera:Cicindelidae) Inhabiting the Marine Shoreline of Southern California.
Alala 8(2): 33-42.
Neudecker, Stephen, Ph.D., compiler. 1989. Birds of the Sweetwater Marsh (175 Species)
as arranged in phylogenetic order according to the Thirty-fourth Supplement to the
American Birds; Supplement to the Auk Vol. 99, No.3. July 1982.
Onuf, Christopher P. 1987. The Ecology of Mugu Lagoon, California: An Estuarine
Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 85(7.15).
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1986. Study Design for the Monitoring of
Selected Biological Subjects in the Sweetwater Marsh and Upland Complex Chula .
Vista, California. Prepared for: California State Coastal Conservancy.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987a. Gunpowder Point, South Levee Road
Vegetation Characterization and Wetland Identification. National City, California.
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista, Redevelopment Agency.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987b. Monitoring and Observation of the Birds
at Gunpowder Point, National City, California. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1987c. Endangered Species and Land Use
Alternatives Analysis for the Preparation of a Biological Opinion on the Sweetwater
River Flood Control/State Route 54 Project. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1988. A Study of the Effects of the 1987 Del
Mar Grand Prix on Water-Associated Birds Inhabiting the San Dieguito Lagoon, Del
Mar, California. Prepared for California State Coastal Commission and 22nd District
Agricultural Association in Coordination with The Butler/Roach Group, San Diego,
California.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1990a. Report of Biological Resources of the
Northern Portions of the Chula Vista Bayfront & the Potential Impacts of the
Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment & Proposed Development of the Mid-
Bayfront. Prepared for Keller Environmental Associates, Inc., San Diego, California.
20 July 1990.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1990b. An Evaluation of Avian Flight Activities
within the Chula Vista Mid-Bayfront and the Potential for Impacts from the
Development of Bayfront Uplands. Prepared for Keller Environmental Associates,
Inc., San Diego, California. 30 July 1990.
11-5
90-14.012 01/24/91
,'I' Jilt
Remsen, J. V., II. 1980. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. California
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 54pp.
Rick Engineering. 1990. Drainage Study Rohr's Corporate Facility. Prepared for: Rohr
Industries. 14 May 1990.
Sadler, Amy. 1990. Supplemental Information for the Rohr Office Complex
Environmental Analysis. Memorandum to Mary Ann Miller, City of Chula Vista,
Planning Department. 31 July 1990.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1989. SANDAG Population and
Housing Estimates, Series 7 Population Forecast. 1 January 1989.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1989. San Diego Traffic Generators.
September 1989.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1990. Series 7 Regional Growth
Forecast MonitQring Report. July 1990.
San Diego Herpetological Society. 1980. Survey and Status of Endangered and Threatened
Species of Reptiles Natively Occurring in San Diego County.
San Diego Non-Game Wildlife Subcommittee. 1976. Proposed List of Species and Habitats
Requiring Special Protection and Study in San Diego County. Memorandum to San
Diego County Environmental Quality Division.
San Diego Unified Port District. 1979. Draft Environmental Impact Report (UPD #78102-
EIR-l). Report by Environmental Management Department.
Sanders, Dana R. 1989. Letter report to Art Sellgren detailing wetlands delineation
performed November 1988 on Rohr parcel. 12 August 1989.
Schleidt, W. M. 1961. Reaktionen von Truthuhnern auffliegende Raubvogel und Versuch
zur Analyse ihrer AAM's. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 18:534-60 (as cited in Morse
1980).
Sedway Cooke Associates et al. 1984. Phase II Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. Certified 27 March
1984. Amended April 1989.
Shalter, M. D. 1975. Lack of spatial generalization in habituation tests of fowl. Journal of
Comparative and Physiological Psychology 89:258-262.
Shalter, M. D. 1978. Effect of spatial context on the mobbing reaction of pied flycatcher
to a predator model. Animal Behavior 26:1219-1221.
11-6
90-14.01201/24/91
,q "'Jlf~
Smith, James Payne, and Ken Berg. 1988. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of
Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Fourth Edition. Spec. Pub!.
No. 1. September 1988.
Smythe, Jim. 1990. Sweetwater Authority. Telephone cornrnunicaion, October 31, 1990.
Soule, M. E., and B. A. Wilcox, eds. 1980. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-
Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. 395pp.
Starboard Development Corporation. 1990. City of Chula Vista Initial Study Application
Form for the Rohr Office Complex. Revised 18 June 1990.
Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin
Co., Boston. 336pp.
Stewart, G. R. 1971. Rare, Endangered and Depleted Amphibians and Reptiles in
California. Herpetology 5: 29-35.
Tate, James, Jr. 1986. The Blue List for 1986. American Birds 40(2):227-236.
Thorne, R. F. 1976. The Vascular Plant Communities of California, in J. Latting (ed.),
Symposium proceedings: Plant Communities of Southern California. California
Native Plant Society. Spec. Publ. No.2. 1-31pp.
Urban Systems Associates, Inc. (U.S.A.) 1989. Transportation Analysis for Chula Vista
Bayfront. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 27 March 1989.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Code of Fed. Regal. Title 50, Part 17.11 and 17.12 (revised 1 January 1986).
Vener, Samuel. 1985. Personal communication to Keith W. Merkel. Chula Vista,
California.
Wallace, Roberts & Todd. 1990. Conceptual Landscape Plans for the Rohr Office
Complex Site. Plans include: Plant species list, plan views, and cross sections. San
Diego, California.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1987. Final Report
Conceptual Design for Chula Vista Bayfront Restoration and Enhancement Plans.
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista, April 1987.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986a. Restoration &
Enhancement Plans for City of Chula Vista Bayfront - Task I Report: Synthesis of
Available Information. Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 31 March 1986.
11-7
9<J.14.012 01/24/91
J,-,)4h
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986b. Opportunities and
Constraints Affecting Restoration and Enhancement Plans for the Bayfront Area of
the City of Chula Vista, CA. Task 3 Report Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 9
May 1986.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986c. Specific Habitat
Objectives for Bayfront Enhancement Plans City of Chula Vista, CA. Task 4 Report
Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 10 May 1986.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Associated Consultants. 1986d. Enhancement
Alternatives Preliminary Design The Bayfront City of Chula Vista, CA. Task 5
Report Prepared for: City of Chula Vista. 8 July 1986.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and Philip Williams & Associates. 1987. Vener Pond
Enhancement Plan, Prepared for: City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency.
White, Alice. 1985. Personal communication to Stephen J. Montgomery, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Willdan Associates. 1982. Impact of the Ashe-Slatt 500-kV Transmission Line on Birds at
Crow Butte Island: Post-construction Final Report. Bonneville Power
Administration, Contract DE-AC 79-80BP21135. Portland, Oregon.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990. Update Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed
Rohr Industries Office Complex, Southwest Corner of "F' Street and Bay Boulevard,
Chula Vista, California. Prepared for: Rohr Industries. 24 July 1990.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990. Letter report to Mary Ann Miller, City of Chula
Vista, Planning Department, regarding hazardous substance contamination, site
assessment reports - "F" Street site, Chula Vista, California. Proj. No. 90511321-
CONS. 27 April 1990.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1988. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Rohr "F"
Street Property. Prepared for: Rohr Industries. 13 May 1988.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1989. Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring Rohr
Industries. Prepared for: Rohr Industries. 18 May 1989.
Zedler, Joy B., Phil Williams, and John Boland. 1986. Catastrophic Events Reveal the
Dynamic Nature of Salt-Marsh Vegetation in Southern California. Estuaries 9(1): 75-
80.
Zemba!, R. and B. W. Massey. 1981. A Census of the Light-footed Clapper Rail in
California. West. Birds 12:87-99
11-8
90-14.01201/24/91
/'1"'O)~r
Zembal, Rand B. W. Massey. 1985. Distribution of the Light-footed Clapper Rail in
California, 1980-1984. Amer. Birds 39(2): 135-137.
Zembal, Rand B. W. Massey. 1986. Light-footed Clapper Rail Census and Study, 1986.
Final Report, California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife,
Endangered Species.
Zembal, R, K. J. Kramer, R J. Bransfield, and N. Gilbert. 1988. A Survey of Belding's
Savannah Sparrows in California. Amer. Birds 42(5):1233-1236.
11-9
90-14.012 01/24/91
19-;}/I(
12.0 CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND UST OF PREPARERS
It:; - ;Ill'?
12.0 CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND liST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
of San Diego, California. Members of Keller Environmental Associates who contributed
to the report are listed below.
Diana Gauss Richardson; M.A. Geography
Lisa K. Capper; J.D.; B.A. Anthropology
Teri Fenner; B.A. Geography
Christine A. Keller; M.A. Geography
Ellen Miille; B.A. Social Ecology jEnvironmental Planning
Tim Fox; B.A. Geography
Consultants involved in the preparation of this report include:
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.
Keith W. Merkel
Craig H. Reiser
Biological Studies
JHK & Associates
Daniel F. Marum
Brian Shields
Kent Trimble
Traffic Circulation Studies
Hans D. Giroux
Air Quality Studies
Group Delta
Walter Crampton
Robert Smiley
Groundwater jHydrology
Studies
I hereby affirm that, to the best of our knowledge, the statements and information contained
herein are in all respects true and correct, and that all known information concerning the
potentially significant environmental effects of the project have been included and fully
evaluated in this EIR.
a()
Diana Gauss Richardson
Project Manager
12-1
90-14.013 01/24/91
J 'i -;)5 0
ATTACHMENT I b.
,
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 90-10)
FOR THE ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
Rohr Industries is proposing the construction of a 245,000 square foot
office complex with associatea parking on an 11.6 acre site in the City
of Chula Vi sta. The site is located east of San Di ego Bay, west of
Interstate 5, South of "F" Street (Lagoon Drive), and north of the
existing Rohr facilities (see Figure 1).
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
On February 13, 1991, the Planning Commission certified Final EIR 90-10
for the Rohr Office Complex concluding that the EIR had been prepared in
compliance with CEQA and the City's environmental review procedures.
Subsequent to certification of the Final EIR (EIR 90-10), new information
became available regarding trip generation rates for the project.
In the final EIR the traffic analysis was based upon a trip generation
rate of 17 Average Daily Trips (ADT) per 1,000 square feet of office
space. This indicated a projected project impact of 4,170 ADT generated
by the project.
Subsequently, the project was reassessed under the assumpt i on that it
should be reclassified from a "large commercial office building" to a
"corporate headquarters" project. Corporate offi ces typi cally generate
10 ADT per 1,000 square feet, which reduces the total project impacts to
2,450 ADT. This represents 41% fewer trips generated by the project than
previously reported in the Final EIR.
The decrease in trip generation rates does not change the basic
conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR. This new
information does, however, change the percentage contribution of the
project on impacted street segments and intersections in the project
vicinity.
Attachment "A" provides a breakdown of the project impacts, as well as
the mitigation measures which will now be required. These measures will
be ensured through their inclusion in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program developed for the project.
As indicated in Attachment "A", the project will generate less Average
Daily Trips, therefore the number of intersections adversely impacted has
been reduced accordi ngly. The intersect ions that wi 11 remai n adversely
impacted are the 1-5 northbound ramp at "E" Street, Broadway at "E"
Street, and Bay Blvd. at "F" Street (Lagoon Drive). Two intersections no
1 onger requ i ri ng mit igat i on are I -5 northbound and southbound ramps at
"H" Street, since their LOS improved from LOS C to LOS B during the PM
peak hour. Also, Broadway at "H" Street will not require mitigation
since it will have a negligible contribution to overall project impacts.
,f:J'; 0 ~
Project specific mitigation will be required at the intersections
outl ined on Pages 3 and 4 of Attachment "A", in order to achieve an
acceptable Level of Service (LOS C or better) under future year 1992
conditions with project buildout.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates that in circumstances where an
EIR has previously been prepared and approved for a project, an additional EIR
need not be prepared unless:
1. Project changes are proposed with the potential for new significant
environmental impacts not considered in the previous EIR;
2. Changes have occurred to the "circumstances under which the project
is undertaken" which may result in new, significant environmental
impacts not considered in the previous EIR; or
3. Important new information has become available which was not known
at the time of EIR preparation and shows:
A. The project would have significant impacts not addressed in the
EIR;
B. Previously identified significant
substantially more severe;
impacts
would
be
C. Mitigation measures previously determined to be infeasible
would be feasible and would substantially reduce the
significant impact(s); or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously not considered
would substantially reduce significant impacts(s).
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidel ines stipulates that the lead agency shall
only prepare an EIR addendum if:
1. None of the conditions included in Section 15164 requiring a new EIR
have occurred;
2. Only minor technical revisions or additions to the environmental
analysis in the EIR are necessary for compliance with CEQA; and
3. The changes to the EIR do not raise "important new issues about the
significant effects on the environment."
3.0 DETERMINATION
The minor technical reV1Slons undertaken in the traffic section of the
Rohr Office Complex EIR (EIR 90-10) do not change the basic conclusions
of the EIR that traffic impacts are deemed to be significant, but
mitigable. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified
as a result of the traffic re-analysis. This addendum outlining the
reduced traffic impact anticipated for the Rohr Project has been prepared
in compl iance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidel ines and with the
environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
-2-
1~"JOf
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the requirements in
the CEQA Guidel ines (Sections 15162 and 15164) for additional environmental
documentation relative to the previous decisions, new information which has
been developed, and activities which have occurred subsequent to the
preparat i on of the Draft and Fi na 1 EIRs for thi s project. The City has
concluded that:
1. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since
completion of the Final EIR as a result of detailed engineering
design changes have not created any new signi ficant envi ronmenta 1
impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR;
2. Additional or refined environmental data available since completion
of the final EIR does not indicate any new significant environmental
impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR; and
3. Additional or refined information available since completion of the
Final EIR regarding the potential environmental impact of the
project, or regarding the measures or alternatives available to
mi t igate potential envi ronmental effects of the project, does not
show that the project will have one or more significant impacts
which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidel ines, the City
has prepared this addendum to the Final EIR to document the information and
analYSis which lead to these conclusions. No public review of this addendum
is required.
REFERENCES
JHK and Associates 1991. Recalculated Project Impacts Rohr Office Complex
Devt. (JHK 1135) February 28, 1991 (Revised April 4, 1991).
WPC 9099P
-3-
1'1-j() '8
Attachment A
jhk & associates
February 28, 1991
April 4, 1991 (Revised)
Ms. Ellen Mille
Environmental Consultant
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, California 92010
Re: Recalculated Project impacts - Rohr Office Complex Development (JHK 1135)
Dear Ms. Mille:
In response to new trip generation and intersection geometric information, JHK &
Associates (JHK) has prepared the following report documenting new project impacts for the
above referenced project. This report provides new information regarding existing conditions,
future conditions with the project. and future conditions with the project and the recommended
mitigation. The tables that are included in this report are modified versions of the tables included in
the original Traffic impact Analysis Report.
The purpose for performing this additional traffic analysis as an addendum to the original
Traffic impact Analysis Report was primarily in response to the new direction provided by the City
of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Department This new direction involved the use of a trip
generation rate of ten trips per thousand square feet for the Rohr Corporate Office Complex. This
new trip generation rate is some 41 % lower than the trip generation rate used in the original
analysis which was 17 trips per thousand square feet for a Large Commercial Office Complex.
Based on the 245,000 square feet of development which is planned for this site, approximately
2,450 trips will be generated. Thus, the following sections contain technical discussion addressing
this change in estimated trip generation for the site. The most critical finding of this new traffic
analysis is the sections entitled "impact of Project Trips - Year 1992 PM Peak Hour" and "Future
Conditions With Mitigation." Both of these sections describe the findings which resulted from this
reanalysis.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table A-I shows the existing levels of service and ICU results based on new information
regarding the 1-5 freeway ramp interchanges at "E" and "H" Streets. Please note that the
intersection of 1-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street has improved from LOS D to LOS C during the
PM Peak hour. Also, the intersection of 1-5 Southbound Rampf'H" Street improved from LOS C
to LOS B during the PM peak hour.
I'-~O'
8989 Rio San Diego Drive . Suite 335
San Diego. California 92108 . (619) 295-2248 . FAX (619) 295-2393
_jhk & associates
Ms. Ellen Mille
April 4, 1991 Revised
Page 2
IMPACT OF PROJECT TRIPS. YEAR 1992 PM PEAK HOUR
Due to the reduction in project generated trips and changes in intersection geometries, the
number of intersections that are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS (lower than LOS D) is
reduced from six to three. The three intersections that remain impacted are:
Impacted Si~alized Intersections
1-5 Northboun Ramp at "E" Street
Broadway at "E" Street
Broadway at "H" Street
PM PEAK HOUR
ICU LOS
0.80 D
0.84 D
0.85 D
The contribution of project generated trips entering impacted intersections is also reduced,
as compared with the calculated contributions in the original analysis, as shown on the following
table:
Impact of Project Trips. Year 1992 PM Peak Hour
Signalized Intersections
1-5 Northbound Ramp at "E" Street
Broadway at "E" Street
Broadway at "H" Street
Projects Contribution
5.6 percent
0.6 percent
Not applicable*
-Note: The contribution of projected traffic at this intersection is negligible. However, annual
growth will playa vital part in deterioration of future levels of service at this intersection.
Because the intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street is heavily impacted (LOS D) by
project generated traffic. This intersection will require signalization and geometric mitigation as
described in the following section to acheive an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) in the
future. The contribution of project traffic at this location in the Year 1992 PM peak hour is equal to
approximately 17 percent of the total peak hour entering volume.
As shown on Table A-2, incremental improvements to intersection levels of service are
achieved with the reduced project trip generation as compared to the original traffic analysis which
was based on the higher trip rate of 17 trips per 1,000 square feet. Please note that the signalized
intersections at 1-5 Ramps/"H"Street are not significantly impacted by project generated traffic in
the future under this new lower trip generation rate.
I 't - ;lIt)
_jhk & assoa.res
Ms. Ellen Mille
April 4, 1991 Revised
Page 3
FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATION
As shown on Table A-3, three intersections no longer require mitigation (1-5 NB and SB
Ramps at "H" Street and Broadway at "H" Street). The following mitigation measures are still
recommended at the three impacted intersections to achieve acceptable levels of service (LOS C or
better) under future Year 1992 conditions with the project:
Recommended Mitipation Measures . Intersections
Intersections
Description of Mitigation
Improvement
Widen the westbound
approach of "E" Street at the
northbound 1-5 ramps to
provide a separate right turn
only lane to access the north-
bound 1-5 on-ramp.
1-5 Northbound Ramps
at "E" Street
Broadway at "E" Street
Provide an exclusive right turn
only lane from eastbound "E"
Street to southbound
Broadway. This additional
lane would facilitate smoother
traffic flow from 1-5 and
Central Chula Vista.
1'1-~11
Ti ming/Res ponsi bili t Y
City Traffic Engineer shall
continue to monitor traffic flow
on an annual basis and the
recommended improvement
shall be implemented at such
time as deemed necessary by
the City Traffic Engineer. The
developer will be responsible
for contribution to this
improvement as deemed
appropriate by the City
Engineer.
City Traffic Engineer shall
continue to monitor traffic flow
on an annual basis and the
recommended improvement
shall be implemented at such
time as deemed necessary by
the City Traffic Engineer. The
developer will be responsible
for contribution to this
improvement as deemed
appropriate by the City
Engineer.
_jhk & associates
Ms. Ellen Mille
April 4, 1991 Revised
Page 4
Bay Boulevard at "P"
StreetlLagoon Drive
. Install a new traffic signal.
. Restripe all approaches to the
intersection to provide
exclusive left turn lanes. The
heavy projected demand for
eastbound left turns will
require future design to
maximize the amount of
storage length to be provided
at this intersection.
. Restripe the east and
westbound approaches to this
in tersection to provide two
through lanes on each
approach in addition to the
exclusive left turn lanes
described above.
Recommended Mitipation Measures . Sepments
Segments
Bay Boulevard between
liE" and lOP" Streets
"P" StreetlLagoon Drive
West of Bay Boulevard to
Western edge property
Description of Mitigation
Improvement
Designate this segment for
vehicle and bike traffic only
and remove all on-street
parking. The cross-section
should provide for one lane of
travel in each direction, a
center turn lane, and a bike
lane in each direction.
Construct Lagoon Drive to
major standards as
recommended by the City
Engineer.
1e;,.~/~
All improvements shall be
installed by the developer prior
to issuance of occupancy
permit.
Timing/Responsibil ity
Ci ty Traffic En gineer shall
continue to monitor traffic flow
on an annual basis and the
recommended improvement
shall be implemented at such
time as deemed necessary by
the City Traffic Engineer.
All improvements shall be
installed by the developer prior
to issuance of occupancy
permit.
_jhk & associates
Ms. Ellen Mille
April 4, 1991 Revised
Page 5
The information presented above summarizes the results of our reanalysis of the traffic
impacts associated with this project. The technical information generated during this reanalysis
will be incorporated into a Final Technical Report to be produced by JHK in March, 1991. JHK &
Associates is confident that this new information will meet the needs of the City of Chula Vista and
if there are any questions regarding this technical analysis or you require additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Pam Barnhan or me.
Sincerely Yours,
JHK & Associates
j)~?: j//~-
Daniel F. Marum
Senior Transportation Planner
Attachments
cc: Ms. Maryann Miller
Environmental Consultant
City of Chula Vista
Ms. Pam Buchan
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Chula Vista
Mr. Hal Rosenberg, P.E.
City Traffic Engineer
City of Chula Vista
Mr. Frank Castro, P.E.
Senior Associate
111-;//3
.0
jhk_
Table A-I
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
YEAR 1990 CONDmONS . SIGNAU7.1m INTERSEcrIONS
IntersectIon AM Peak PM Peak
HIS Street em Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
1-5 Southbound
Ramps "E"Street 0.40 A 0.62 B
'-5 Northbound
Ramps. "E"Street 0.62 B 0.75 C
Woodlawn Avenue "E"Street 0;51 A 0.68 B
Broadway -po Street 0.36 A 0.68 B
Bay Boulevard "1-1" Street 0.29 A 0.47 A
1-5 Southbound
Ramps "1-1" Street 0.43 A 0.72 C
1-5 Northbound
Ramp "1-1" Street 0.56 A 0.67 B
Broadway "E" Street 0.60 B 0.78 C
Broadway "1-1" Street 0.42 A 0.79 C
I&J -OJI'I
A-4
------- I
jhk '" ....
Table A-2
SUMMARy OF STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM Peak Hour
Future
Year 1992
Conditions
ExIsting Year 1990 Plus Proposed
Intersection Conditions Project
N1S Street E!W Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
1.5 SB Ramp "E" Slrest 0.40 A 0.61 B
1.5 NB Ramp "E" SIreet 0.62 B 0.69 B
1.5 SB Ramp ,.." Slreet 0.43 A 0.47 A
1.5 NB Ramp ,.." Slreet 0.56 A 0.61 B
Bay Boulevard ,.." Slreet 0.29 A 0.31 A
Woodlawn Avenue "E"Slreet 0.51 A 0.56 A
Broadway "F" Street 0.36 A 0.66 B
Broadway "E" Street 0.60 B 0.40 B
Broadway ,.." Street 0.42 A 0.45 A
PM Peak Hour
Future
Year 1992
Conditions
existing Year 1990 Plus Proposed
Intersection Conditions Project
N/S Street E!W Street ICU LOS ICU LOS
1-5 SB Ramp "E" Street 0.62 B 0.79 C
1-5 NB Ramp "E" Street 0.75 C 0.80 0"
1.5 SB Ramp ,.." Slreet 0.72 C 0.78 C
1-5 NB Ramp ,.." Street 0.67 B 0.71 C
Bay Boulevard ,.." Street 0.47 A 0.58 A
Woodlawn Avenue "E" Street 0.68 C 0.74 C
Broadway "F" Street 0.68 B 0.74 C
Broadway "E" Street 0.78 C 0.84 0"
Broadway "Ii" Slreet 0.79 C 0.85 0"
Note: "
Indicates mitigation measures will be required to achieve acceptable
levels of service for Year 1992 conditions.
III ~5,J IS
jhk .t .... ...
U1
Table A-J
SUMMARy OF PM PEAK HOURINTERSEC'IION OPERATIONS
BEFORE AND AFl'ER MITIGATION
STUDY AREA PROBLEM LOCATIONS - FUTtIRE YEAR 1991
Before After
MHlastlon MIIlastlon
Proposed Proposed
Intersection ProJect ProJect
NlS EJW leu LOS ICU ~
-
Broadway "E" Street 0.84 0 0.78 e
Broadway "H"Street 0.85 0 0.85 0
1-5NB
Ramp "E" Street O.BO 0 0.74 e
Bay Blvd. "F' Street NlA 0.75 e
Note;. NlA indicates that the intersection of Bay BouJevardI"F' Street is currently
unsignalized and was analyzed as a tour.way stop conIIOlled intersection.
111e "Aller Mitigation" Analysis tested this intersection under signal
centrol.
1'1....~/~
"
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
EIR-90-1O
CANDIDATE CEQA FIN1;)INGS
In accordance with Section 21081 of the
California Environmental Quality Act and Section
15091 of Title 14 of the California Administration
Code.
Prepared for:
City of ChuIa Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Febmary, 1991
J'...~/?-
ATTACHMENT I c.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
II. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS........................... 2
III. IMPACTS FOUND INFEASIBLE TO MITIGATE TO
BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
A.
Biology
3
Impact ................................................ 3
Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . .. 3
Finding . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ .. 3
IV. SIGNIFICANT, MITIGABLE IMPACTS................... _....... 4
A. Drainage/Groundwater/Grading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
In:~act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. 4
MItIgatIOn ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
Finding .. . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .. 6
B.
Biology
6
Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
MItigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ .. 7
Finding .. . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
C. Circulation/Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . .. 10
Impact ................................. _ . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Mitigation . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . _ . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . _ . _. 11
Finding . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . .. 13
D. Air Quality ....... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Impact ............. _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . .. 13
MItigatIOn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Finding _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
.
V. INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ........................... _ . _ . . . _. 14
VI. THE RECORD ............................................. 14
VII. Statement of Overriding Consideration...........................;:... 15
- IJ -
9O-].I.0:!102/13/91
I. INTRODUCTION
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that no project
shall be approved by a public agency when significant environmental effects have been
identified, unless one of the following findings is made and supported by substantial
evidence in the record:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
(2) Changes or alterations are the responsibility of another public agency and not
the agency making the finding.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
The following findings are made relative to the conclusions of the Final EIR for the
proposed Rohr Office Complex (SCH # 90010623) and all documents, maps, and
illustrations listed in Section VI of these findings. The project's discretionary actions include
the following:
(1) Grading Permit
(2) Building Permit
(3) City Coastal Development Permit
(4) Coastal Commission Development Permit
The Rohr Office Complex Project site is an 11.6 acre site located within the Midbayfront
area in the City of Chula Vista. The project site is located sits east of the "F' & "G" Street
Marsh, west of the SDG&E right-of-way, north of Rohr Industries' existing complex and
south of "F' Street.
The "F" & "G" Street Marsh is a component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR). The NWR is considered a sensitive estuarine environment, providing
habitat for many types of plant and animal species, including several species listed as
- 1 -
I~ ....~/r
9O-U021 02/13/91
endangered and/or threatened by State and Federal agencies. The project site is currently
undeveloped, but has been used for agriculture in the past and is littered with agricultural
and household debris. An abandoned irrigation system and several unimproved roads
transect the site. The site elevation varies between 8 and 20 feet above Mean Sea Level
(MSL) and slopes gently to the southwest.
The proposed project includes the proposed construction of a 42-foot high office building
and associated parking area containing 730 spaces, a drainage system, and a road
improvements to "F" Street and Bay Boulevard. On-site landscaping will be provided and
a berm and detention basin will be created on the western portion of the property to
physically separate the Marsh from the project and protect it from surface runoff. A 6-foot.
high chain link fence will be located near the toe of the western facing slope of the berm
to prevent disturbance to the adjacent sensitive wildlife refuge area.
Alternative 2, the "Modified Design" Alternative, includes the development of a 245,000
square foot office complex with two subsurface parking structures, which provide partial
mitigation of parking impacts.
The following findings are applicable to the project and Alternative 2, as presented and
analyzed in the Final ErR. The findings have been prepared pursuant to Sections 21081 of
the California Resources Code, and 15091 of Title 14 of the California Administration Code.
n. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS
A. The City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final ErR for the Rohr Office Complex project, and the record, finds that
changes have been incorporated into the project which mitigate, avoid, or reduce the
level of identified impacts to a level below significant and acceptable to the City, by
measures identified in the Final ErR.
B. The City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final ErR and the record, finds that none of the significan! environmental
effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project are within the responsibility of
another public agency.
- 2 -
90.14.021 02/13/91
C. The City of Chula Vista, having reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final EIR and the record, finds that no specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
D. The Planning Commission acknowledges that these recommended CEQA Findings
are advisory and do not bind the City Council from adopting findings to the contrary
if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
m. IMPAcrs FOUND INFEASIBLE TO MITIGATE TO BELOW A LEVEL
OF SIGNIFICANCE
A Biology
Impact
Elimination of fallow agricultural fields currently used for raptor foraging and replacement
of them with approximately 9.5 acres of developed land would result from project
implementation. Because of the limited extent of similar coastal habitat and the absence
of currently accepted mitigative measures, the impact is considered to be an incremental
contribution to a cumulatively (regionally) significant impact.
Mitigation
No mitigation measures are available to reduce this incremental impact to a level below
significant. Any development on this site would result in the same incremental significant
impact.
Finding
Land use at the project site has been planned for the proposed type of use by both the
existing, adopted Local Coastal Program and the General Plan, and the proposed project
is in conformance with these plans. However, even though the project is jn conformance
with adopted land use plans, it, and any development, would result in the incremental
contribution to a cumulatively significant impact.
li/~~/e:;
9O.U.02J 02/lJ/91
However, the City of Chula Vista in their statement of overriding
consideration has determined that the benefits derived from the
implementation of the project out weighs the incremental contribution to
a significant cumulative impact. Please refer to the statement of
overriding consideration following these findings.
IV. SIGNIFICANT, MfTIGABLE IMPACTS
A Drainage/Groundwater /Grading
Impact
· Incremental contributions to cumulatively significant flooding impacts may be
associated with exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain facilities (currently
operating over capacity).
· Significant impacts resulting from contaminated runoff from washing of a paved lot
with oil, grease and other automobile-related solvent deposits would occur to the "F'
& "G" Street Marsh if runoff is allowed to flow in the existing pattern..
· Significant impacts may occur if surface runoff carries silt and sediment into the
Marsh during grading. This is particularly problematic if grading occurs during
winter months, when the heaviest rains occur.
· Potentially significant impacts may result due to approximately 11.2 acres being
graded to provide flat pads for parking and the building. A total of 40,000 cubic
yards of cut and fill will be generated. The maximum depth of cut and fill will be 11
and 7 feet, respectively, with the average change in grade of approximately 2 feet.
· Significant impacts to the wetlands area on site could result if adjacent grading
introduces soils to this sensitive area.
.
Onsite soils are identified as compressible and expansive, and are not acceptable in
their present condition for structural support.
.
Saturated soils from groundwater, without remediation, may adversel:t affect building
.support and may be an unacceptable material for building support and fill.
- 4 -
Of] 'UPT In/TI/OT
Mitigation
. A detailed grading and drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances, policies, and
adopted standards. Said plan must be approved and a permit issued by the
Engineering Division prior to the start of any grading work and/or installation of any
drainage structures.
. The "Update Geotechnical Investigation...." (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1990)
must be reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department. All
recommendations contained within the study must be implemented by the applicant..
This measure must be made a condition of project approval, and must be included
(or referenced to) on the Grading Plan.
. Engineered fills and/or any structural elements that encroach into areas overlain by
bay deposits or other compressible overburden soils will require some form of
subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils for use
in ultimately supporting additional engineered fill and/or structural improvements.
Soil improvement may include partial or total removal and recompaction, and/or the
use of surcharge fills to pre-compress saturated bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table; or foundation elements must be designed to extend through these
soils into competent bearing formational soils.
. If encountered, roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto
existing compressible bay deposits will likely require subgrade modification to
improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term, post-
construction settlement. Soil improvement would likely include partial or total
removal and recompaction, and/or the use of surcharged fills, to pre-compress
saturated bay deposits.
. If saturated soils are encountered during grading operations, temporary construction
dewatering should be implemented in general accordance with the recommendations
contained in the July 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report. Compliance with
RWQCB order 90-31 regarding discharge of temporary dewatering wastes to San
Diego Bay will be required.
J ~ -:-0);)0
9O-J.l.021 02/JJ/91
· If project grading occurs during the winter season, the special provisions contained
in Section 87.19.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the City of Chula Vista Bayfront
Specific Plan must be implemented, and these must also be included (or referenced
to) on the Grading Plan.
· To eliminate the possibility of silt and sediment entering the Marsh, a barrier system
must be placed between the property and the wetland prior to initiation of grading
and remain until the drainage diversion system is in place and operating. This
measure must be included on the Grading Plan.
.
To prevent grading impacts to the wetland, a protective berm must be constructed
along the entire western boundary of the site, avoiding the wetland. During
construction of this berm, the City must retain a biologically trained construction
monitor to observe grading practices and ensure the integrity of the wetland. To
guarantee that the berm itself does not introduce sedimentation into the wetland, the
western slope of the berm must be hydroseeded and/or covered with plastic sheeting.
This measure must be included on the Grading Plan.
,
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
B. Biology
Impacts
· Loss of freshwater input to the 0.14 acre riparian grove located in part on adjacent
NWR lands
· Contamination of the Marsh by parking area and street runoff
· Modification of increase in the rate of sedimentation within alluvial portions of the
drainage system
- 6 -
90-].1.021 02/13/91
. Impacts of enhanced pet associated predator attraction to the study area, and human
presence
. Impacts to the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey
. An indirect impact to the light-footed Clapper Rail by reducing its potential for re-
establishment in the "F" & "G" Street Marsh
. Increased disturbance to, and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
Mitigation
. The proposed project must include a buffer of restored native scrub vegetation
between the building and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer must be isolated
from human intrusion and should further be implemented with swales and mounds
as designed to reduce visual impacts from activities occurring on the patio areas.
. All post-construction drainage must be directed through large volume silt and grease
traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention swale. The trap(s) placed
on line(s) entering the detention basin must be triple-chambered.
. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly with thorough cleaning to be
conducted in late September or early October and as needed through the winter and
spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wastes rather than flushing,
as is unfortunately often the case. City inspections of these traps must be conducted,
possibly through the mitigation monitoring program, to ensure that maintenance is
occurring as required.
. Desiltation basins large enough to handle storm water runoff must be maintained
during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed to leave the construction
site. Construction and planting of the drainage swale early in the project grading
phase would assist in this measure. In addition, construction de-wa.tering should be
directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system, or stand-pipe drains, so
that clear water is released from the site through the regular desiltation basins.
I q 7-": ~:J, I
90-14.071 02//3/91
. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be from the lists
provided by the developer. Should species substitutions be desired, these must be
submitted to the City landscape architect for review. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limoniul1l or Carpobrotus
species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting or roosting
sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, must be restricted from use.
. A "biologically aware" construction monitor must be present for all phases of grading
and installation of drainage systems. The monitor must be employed through the
City and would report directly to a specific responsible person in the Engineering,
Planning or Community Development Department if construction activities fail to
met the conditions outlined or should unforeseen problems arise which require
immediate action or stopping of the construction activities. This monitor must
continue monitoring on a reduced basis during actual outside building construction.
. Re-establishment of 0.14 acre of riparian vegetation within the on-site drainage swale
must be accomplished to mitigate the hydrologic isolation and direct impacts of the
project upon the 0.14 acre of willow riparian grove straddling the NWR border.
Management of the riparian grove to retain wildlife resources must be coordinated
with the National Wildlife Refuge Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetation types
must be included in the Landscape Plan with sandbar willow the principal species
used in this habitat area.
· Human access to marshlands and buffer areas must be restricted through vegetation
barriers and rails around the patio areas. Additional human/pet encroachment must
be restricted through fencing and native vegetation on mounds along the western
property boundary.
· The project should be a participant in a predator management program for the ChuJa
Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators as well as wild animal predators.
This program should utilize the Connors (1987) predator management plan as a
basis, but should be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed develoPl!lent. This plan
should include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human and pet
activities. The plan should be comprehensive and should include management of
predators within the adjacent NWR as well as the proposed development areas.
- 8 -
90-14.02102/13/91
. A full time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues
generated by the project and other development within the Bayfront, or by other
funding mechanisms, to conduct the predator management program, ensure
compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of
other mitigation requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers
should work closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal
Reserve Lands. Officers s~ould have training in predator control and should possess
the necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
It is recommended that these officers be accountable to a multi-jurisdictional
agency/property owner advisory board set up to oversee resource protection of the
entire midbayfront area. The midbayfront area is that area within the boundaries of
the Sweetwater River, Bay Boulevard, "G" Street, and the San Diego Bay. The
jurisdictions/property owners which should be included in this board are the City of
Chula Vista, the San Diego Unified Port District, the Bayfront Conservancy Trust,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game,
Rohr Industries, and the owner of the majority of the Midbayfront Uplands (Chula
Vista Investors).
. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and must be approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency for use near wetland areas.
. All landscape chemical applications must be accomplished by a person who is a
state-certified applicator.
. Annual funds to be paid by Rohr into an assessment district set up by the multi-
jurisdictional/property owner advisory board should be designated for the purpose
of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator
control program and mitigation programs for the project.
. Open garbage containers should be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as possible.
I~-,;J~~
90-1-1.021 02/13/91
· Buildings should utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are
readily observable by birds. A film glass manufactured by 3M or a suitable substitute
are recommended.
· No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest can be included on the
western side of the proposed building. Ledges facing the west should not exceed two
inches in width. Additionally, the roof crests which are exposed to the wetlands must
be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A commitment to correct
any additional problem areas should be obtained should heavy incidence of perching
be observed on the buildings or in landscaping materials.
· Outside lighting must be directed away from marsh areas or reflecting faces of the
western side of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the minimum
required for security on the western side of the building.
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
C. Circulation/Parking
Impact
· "F' Street and roadway segments west of 1-5 would operate at LOS B or above with
the exception of Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F' Street, which will decline
from LOS C to F with the inclusion of annual growth and the project. The
intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F' Street would decline from LOS B to D with
the project responsible for 53 percent of this impact.
· 1-5 northbound at "E" Street: Incremental contribution (4.6 percent) to a cumulatively
significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
- 10 -
90-14.02102/13/91
. 1-5 southbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution (4.5 percent) to a
cumulatively significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual
population growth.
. 1-5 northbound at "H" Street: Incremental contribution (0.9 percent) to a
cumulatively significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual
population growth.
. Broadway and "E" Street: Incremental contribution (4.7 percent) to a cumulatively
significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
. A significant parking deficiency of 79 to 115 spaces (10 to 13 percent) under the
proposed project, or 49 to 85 spaces (6 to 10 percent) under Alternative 2 would
occu r.
Mitigation
. Bay Boulevard north of "P' Street should be designed for traffic only and on-street
parking should be restricted. The 8-foot wide parking areas adjacent to the east curb
line must be dedicated to normal traffic flow. "F" Street (Lagoon Drive) must be re-
striped to the east and west of Bay Boulevard to provide for two lanes of travel out
from the intersection, and three lanes in toward the intersection. The three inbound
lanes would be comprised of one left-turn only lane, one through-lane, and one
shared through- and right-turn lane. The westbound and northbound approaches will
also require modification to provide one left-turn lane, one through, and one right-
turn lane. Signalization is necessary at the intersection. An additional 6 to 12 feet
of pavement on Bay Boulevard for 100 to 200 feet north of the intersection would
be necessary to accomplish this measure. These measures would improve the LOS
to C. The applicant is responsible for providing 53 percent of the funds for this
mitigation based on the recommended Benefit Assessment District (discussed in
Section 10.0 of this report).
. Implementation of two improvements must be made prior to, or concurrent with,
development of the Rohr project, which is necessary due to the near-term extremely
I'J 1J -~~.3
90-14.02/ 02/13/91
poor conditions at this intersection. These improvements are to (1) widen westbound
"E" Street at the northbound 1-5 ramp to provide a separate right-turn lane from
westbound "E" Street; (2) restripe the northbound 1-5 off-ramp at "E" Street to
provide an exclusive right-turn lane and a shared left- and right-turn lane. The
applicant is responsible for providing a proportional amount of funds for this
mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment District.
· Double left- turn only lanes on "H" Street to southbound 1-5 should be provided to
improve the operation to LOS C. The applicant is responsible for providing a
proportional amount of funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment
District.
· Double left turn only lanes on "H" Street to northbound 1-5 ramp should be provided.
This mitigation measure would improve intersection operation to LOS C. The
applicant is responsible for providing a proportional amount of funds for this
mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment District.
· An exclusive right turn lane from eastbound "E" Street to southbound Broadway
should be provided. This additional lane would facilitate smoother traffic flow from
1-5 and improve the operation LOS to C. The applicant is responsible for providing
a proportional amount of funds for this mitigation based on the Benefit Assessment
District.
· The applicant must meet the City's standard by either providing additional
permanent offsite parking; or by reducing the size of the building; or limiting the
number of employees consistent with the City's employee-based parking standard.
This limit could be increased if the proposed parking (730 spaces, or 760 spaces
under Alternative 2) is found to be adequate, or if additional parking could be
provided. In order to determine if the parking is adequate, the parking demand
should be monitored over a one year period following 90 percent to full occupation
of the building.
- 12 -
90-14.021 02/13/91
. .
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
D. Air Ouality
Impact
· Incremental contributions to a cumulatively significant impact will result from build-
out project traffic adding approximately 0.5 ton of CO, 0.04 ton of NO, and 0.03 ton.
of ROG daily to the airshed. The NO, and ROG counts (the main ozone formation
precursor pollutants) are less than those noted for the APCD's insignificance
threshold.
· Incremental contributions to potentially significant regional impacts resulting from
the clearing of existing site uses, excavation of utility access, preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly creating temporary emissions of dust,
fumes, equipment exhaust and other air contaminants during project construction will
occur. Construction dust is an important contributor to regional violations of
inhalable dust (PM-lO) standards. Typical dust lofting rates from construction
activities are assumed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre disturbed. If
the entire 11.6 acre project site is under simultaneous development, total daily dust
emissions would be approximately 1,200 pounds/day.
Mitigation
· Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) such as ridesharing, vanpool incentives,
alternate transportation methods and transit utilization must be incorporated into the
project.
· Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust abate.ment measures
required by the APCD can reduce dust emissions by 50-70 percent.
(~-- ;1~ ~
9O-NO!! O!/13/91
Finding
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a level below significance by implementation of the
measures listed above and as set forth in the Final EIR.
Y INSIGNIFICANT IMPACfS
In accordance with the evaluation provided in EIR-90-1O, and previous documentation
and/or standard requirements, the project would not result in any significant impacts in the
issue areas below; these issues have therefore not been discussed above:
I) Agricultural Resources
2) Noise
3) Cultural Resources
4) Land Use
5) Parks and Recreation
6) Utilities (water, sewer, energy)
7) Human Health
8) Risk of Upset
9) Schools
10) Public Services (police and fire)
VI_ TIIE RECORD
For the purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of the Planning Commission and
City Council relating to these actions include the following:
References and Persons consulted, included as Section 11.0 of the Final EIR, and the
Comments Received as a result of the circulation of the Notice of Preparation and
Draft EIR, contained in Appendix A and the Response to Comments portions of the
Final EIR, respectively_
- 14 -
90-N.021 02/13/91
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
The decisionmaker, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, after balancing
the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable environmental effects
identified in the EIR and the Findings which remain notwithstanding the mitigation
measures and alternatives incorporated into the Project, determines that such
remaining environmental effects are acceptable due to the following:
A The need to expand an Industrial Business Park use in the Midbayfront area in
conformance with the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program.
B.. The need to stimulate the regional economy by providing construction-related
employment and employment related to the Project's industrial, office and
commercial uses, all as more particularly set forth in the record.
C. The need to advance Chula Vista's environmental goals by decreasing current
acts of vandalism, illegal dumping and habitat degradation on the Project site.
megal off-road vehicle use will probably also decline.
D. The need to increase the economic base of the City of Chula Vista.
riding
1'1" ,).)5
Page - 15
ATTACHMENT I d.
ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING
AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Prepared by:
Keller Environmental Associates, Inc.
1727 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, California 92101
April 11, 1991
I q ... .,).j."
MONITORING PURPOSE AND PLAN
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is prepared for the City of
Chula Vista (City) in conjunction with the Rohr Office Complex project. The project has
been described and analyzed in an environmental impact report and addenda thereto (EIR)
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State
CEQA Guidelines (Keller Environmental Associates, Inc., February, 1991). A Final EIR
for the project was certified by the City on February 13, 1991 (SCH No. 90010623). This
MMRP will serve a dual purpose of (1) observing and reporting that the mitigation
measures described in the EIR for the project are appropriately carried out, and generating
information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions, and
(2) ensuring that the City's responsibilities under the requirements of Section 21081.6 of
CEQA are met. This document sets forth the overall mitigation monitoring program
framework for the Rohr Office Complex project. A subsequent contract with the City's
Environmental Review Coordinator will be used to further define details of specific
mitigation monitoring activities.
The City will monitor the mitigation measures as presented in the certified EIR for impacts
identified as significant or potentially significant, but which will be reduced to a level of
insignificance upon implementation of such measures. This MMRP for the Rohr Office
Complex project addresses mitigation measures identified in the EIR for significant impacts
in the following areas:
. Drainage/Groundwater/Grading
. Biology
. Circulation/Parking
. Air Quality
The City will implement the MMRP. In this role, the City may identify a City staff person
or department or, where reasonably necessary for the implementation of this MMRP and
where a specific monitoring or verification function does not already fall within the job
responsibilities of any City staff person or department, or regulatory agency having
jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, hire (i) a biologically trainediconsultant functioning as a biological resources monitor (BRM), or (ii) a consultant
-I-
I CJ -;J.J. 1-
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
functioning as a mitigation compliance coordinator (MCC). If required, the BRM will
conduct on-site monitoring of the implementation of mitigation measures affecting impacted
biological resources during active grading operations, installation of drainage systems, and
major landscaping for the project, and will conduct minimal monitoring of the
implementation of such measures during actual exterior building construction, to ensure that
this MMRP is being implemented in accordance with its terms. If requested by the City,
the BRM will compile periodic monitoring reports during such grading operations, drainage
installation, and major landscaping for submission to the City, summarizing the results of
monitoring for which the BRM is responsible. The BRM will consist of no more than two
individuals. One individual will be a biological technician whose job will be to monitor, as
required, grading, the installation of drainage systems, and major landscaping on a
reasonably periodic basis. The second individual will be a professional biologist, to whom
the technician will periodically report.
If required, the MCC will conduct minimal on-site monitoring during active periods of
grading and the installation of drainage systems, so as to avoid duplication of the duties of
the BRM, and will, on a more regular, reasonably periodic basis conduct required on-site
monitoring during periods of actual exterior building construction to ensure that monitoring
for which the MCC is responsible is being implemented in accordance with the terms of this
MMRP. The MCC may, if requested by the City, compile and prepare periodic monitoring
reports summarizing the results of monitoring for which the MCC is responsible. These
reports will be filed with the City and any other regulatory agency with the authority to
enforce or otherwise regulate the construction and/or operation of the project.
This MMRP includes the following elements:
. Significant impacts as identified in the EIR
. Mitigation measures as identified in the EIR reducing significant impacts to
below a level of significance
. Mitigation monitoring activities
. Timing of monitoring activities
. Allocation of responsibility for monitoring and reporting
. Allocation of responsibility for verification
-2-
JCf-;J.:Lf
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
The summary table attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (MMRP
Summary Table) provides a brief description of each of these elements. The significant
impacts and mitigation measures are described in the MMRP Summary Table as they
appear in the EIR. The mitigation monitoring activities described in the MMRP Summary
Table describe the activities which constitute the monitoring program for the required
mitigation measures. The required duration of the monitoring activities are set forth in the
column of the MMRP Summary Table entitled 'Timing." The MMRP Summary Table also
sets forth the party, or specific City department, that is responsible for carrying out each
monitoring and reporting activity, or verifying that all monitoring and reporting have been
completed in accordance with this MMRP. In the event the provisions of the text of this
MMRP conflict with the MMRP Summary Table, the provisions of the text of this MMRP
shall controL
If authorized to do so by the City and to the extent such action does not interfere or conflict
with enforcement mechanisms or regulatory schemes established by regulatory agencies with
jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, the MCC will also enforce the
implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring activities in the field, which may
include communication directly with the construction foreman or construction manager when
non-compliance is noted. This may, on occasion, require that construction be delayed while
a particular situation is remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the City department
responsible for verifying that a particular mitigation measure has been instituted. Subject
to approval by the City and the project applicant prior to implementation, the MCC may
also recommend additional mitigation measures to reduce impacts based on field
observations or to modify mitigation measures or monitoring procedures in response to
actual field conditions. Approved changes will be noted in activity logs and monitoring
reports and this MMRP will be modified accordingly.
It should be noted that a substantial level of monitoring by the City and regulatory agencies
will occur during the grading and exterior construction phases of the project, but that such
monitoring will be markedly reduced after completion of exterior construction and during
the long-term life of the project. If requested by the City, a mitigation monitoring report
will be prepared following the completion of the construction of the project. The report will
describe the monitoring activities which have occurred during construction, the observations
made, the success of the mitigation measures and recommendations for future mitigation
monitoring plans. This report will be prepared by the MCC and filed with the City.
-3-
9O-I4.mmp IJ4/09j91
I'''' ,,~9
Following the completion of construction of the project, any monitoring activities of the
MCC and the BRM cease and monitoring shall be the responsibility of the project applicant,
City and local, state or federal regulatory agencies. The primary responsibility for post-
construction monitoring of the implementation of mitigation measures relating to impacts
to biological resources will lie with regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the natural
resources contained in the NWR (as defined below).
PROJECf DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The Rohr Office Complex Project site is an 11.6 acre site located within the Midbayfront
area in the City of Chula Vista. The project site is located east of the "F' & "G" Street
Marsh, west of the SDG&E right-of-way, north of Rohr Industries' existing complex and
south of "F Street.
The "F' & "G" Street Marsh is a component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR). The NWR is considered a sensitive estuarine environment, providing
habitat for many types of plant and animal species, including several species listed as
endangered and/or threatened by State and Federal agencies. Virtually all of the natural
biological resources affected by the project are located within the NWR, the management
of which is primarily the responsibility of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The City's role
in the management of such resources is secondary and supportive of such agency's
monitoring activities and the monitoring activities described in this MMRP to be undertaken
by the City, its departments, the MCC or the BRM should be conducted accordingly.
The project site is currently undeveloped, but has been used for agriculture in the past and
is littered with agricultural and household debris. An abandoned irrigation system and
several unimproved roads transect the site. The site elevation varies between 8 and 20 feet
above Mean Sea Level (MSL) and slopes gently to the southwest.
The proposed project includes the proposed construction of a 42-foot high office building
and associated parking area containing 730 spaces, a drainage system, and road
improvements to "F' Street and Bay Boulevard. On-site landscaping will be provided and
a berm and detention basin will be created on the western portion-of-the property to
physically separate the Marsh from the project and protect it from surface runoff. A 6-foot
-4-
9O-I4.mmp 04/09j91
) , - - ,0
high chain link fence will be located near the toe of the western facing slope of the berm
to prevent disturbance to the adjacent sensitive wildlife refuge area.
Alternative 2, the "Modified Design" Alternative, as described in the EIR, includes the
development of a 245,000 square foot office complex with two subsurface parking structures,
which provide partial mitigation of parking impacts. Alternative 2 is the applicant's
preferred project, and will be the project which is constructed. This MMRP addresses
Alternative 2 and its mitigation requirements.
MEASURES TO BE MONITORED
The following text includes a summary of significant impacts, recommended mitigation
measures, and the monitoring efforts needed to ensure that the measures are adequately
implemented. In many cases, the language of the mitigation measures incorporates
monitoring. In other cases, the specific mitigation requirements of the regulatory agencies
with jurisdiction over the project have not yet been fully defined, but are being developed
currently by such agencies. Included after the text of this MMRP is the MMRP Summary
Table, which outlines the (potential) impacts, mitigation measures, monitoring activities and
other aspects of the monitoring program.
DRAINAGE/GROUNDWATER/GRADING
Imn3cts
. Incremental contributions to cumulatively significant flooding impacts may be
associated with exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain facilities (currently
operating over capacity).
. Significant impacts resulting from contaminated runoff from washing of a paved lot
with oil, grease and other automobile-related solvent deposits would occur to the "F'
& "G" Street Marsh if runoff is allowed to flow in the existing pattern.
. Significant impacts may occur if surface runoff carries silt and sediment into the
Marsh during grading. This is particularly problematic if grading occurs during
winter months, when the heaviest rains occur.
. Significant impacts to the wetlands area on site could result if adjacent grading
introduces soils to this sensitive area.
-5-
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
" -.;)8/
. Potentially significant impacts may result due to approximately 11.2 acres being
graded to provide flat pads for parking and the building. A total of 40,000 cubic
yards of cut and fill will be generated. The maximum depth of cut and fill will be
11 and 7 feet, respectively, with the average change in grade of approximately 2 feet.
Onsite soils are identified as compressible and expansive, and are not acceptable in
their present condition for structural support.
. Saturated soils from groundwater, without remediation, may adversely affect building
support and may be an unacceptable material for building support and fill.
Mitieation Measures
1. A detailed grading and drainage plan will be prepared in accordance with the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances, policies, and
adopted standards. Said plan will be approved and a permit issued by the
Engineering Division prior to the start of any grading work and/or installation of any
drainage structures.
Monitoring 1: The grading and drainage plan will be reviewed by ~he City
Engineering Department, as assisted by the BRM, the Community Development
Department and the Planning Department. Three people in planning will sign the
Grading Permit; the Environmental Review Coordinator, Landscape Architect and
Current Planning. The Engineering Department will issue the Grading Permit. The
review and approval of the grading and drainage plans will occur prior to grading and
construction activities, as well as permit issuance. The City Engineering Department
will verify that the detailed grading and drainage plans include recommendations and
detailed design incorporating all measures contained in the EIR for this project, and
those contained in the "Update Geotechnical Investigation" (Woodward-Oyde, 1990).
Monitoring activities associated with this pre-construction design and permitting
measure cease upon issuance of the Grading Permit.
2. The "Update Geotechnical Investigation" report referenced above will be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineering Department. All recommendations contained
within the study will be implemented by the applicant. This measure will be made
a condition of project approval, and will be included (or referenced to) on the
Grading Plan.
-6-
J' - ~3 ~
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
Monitoring 2: Review of the updated geotechnical report has been completed by the
City Engineering Department and the updated conditions have been noted on the
Grading Plan. The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor and the City
Engineering Department, in accordance with normal practices and procedures, will
monitor the implementation of all such conditions. The BRM will provide assistance
to the City to ensure compliance with conditions relating to biological resources
during grading and installation of drainage facilities. Monitoring activities associated
with this mitigation measure cease upon completion of grading and installation of
drainage facilities.
3. Engineered fills and/or any structural elements that encroach into areas overlain by
bay deposits or other compressible overburden soils will require some form of
subgrade modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils for use
in ultimately supporting additional engineered fill and/or structural improvements.
Soil improvement may include partial or total removal and recompaction, and/or the
use of surcharge fills to precompress saturated bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table; or foundation elements will be designed to extend through these
soils into competent bearing formational soils.
Monitoring 3: The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor, in accordance
with normal practices and procedures, will verify during the exterior construction
phase that recommendations are implemented, as needed. A private Soils Engineer
will be responsible for signing the Grading Plan/Logs. The City Engineering
Department will be responsible for signing and filing the verification report.
Monitoring activities associated with this mitigation measure cease upon approval by
the City Engineering Department of a final "as-built" Grading Plan.
4. If encountered, roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto
existing compressible bay deposits will likely require subgrade modification to
improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term, post-
construction settlement. Soil improvement would likely include partial or total
removal and recompaction, and/or the use of surcharged fills, to precompress
saturated bay deposits.
-7-
,,- ;133
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
Monitoring 4: The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor, in accordance
with normal practices and procedures, will verify during the exterior construction
phase that recommendations are implemented, as needed. A private Soils Engineer
will be responsible for signing the Grading Plan/Logs. The City Engineering
Department will be responsible for signing and filing the verification report.
Monitoring activities associated with this mitigation measure cease upon approval by
the City Engineering Department of a final "as-built" Grading Plan.
5. If saturated soils are encountered during grading operations, temporary construction
dewatering should be implemented in general accordance with the recommendations
contained in the July 1990 Woodward-Clyde Consultants report. Compliance with
RWQCB Order 90-31 regarding discharge of temporary dewatering wastes to San
Diego Bay will be required.
Monitoring 5: A private Soils Engineer will determine if dewatering is necessary.
If dewatering is required, the detention basin will be constructed first and dewatered
water will be pumped into detention basin. This activity will be supervised by the
City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor and verified by the City Engineering .
Department. Monitoring activities associated with this mitigation measure cease
upon completion of grading operations if no saturated soils are encountered and
upon completion of exterior construction if such soils are encountered.
6. If project grading occurs during the winter season, the special provisions contained
in Section 87.19.07 (Grading and Drainage) of the City of Chula Vista Bayfront
Specific Plan will be implemented, and these will also be included (or referenced to)
on the Grading Plan.
Monitoring 6: The special provisions in Section 87.19.07 are noted on the Grading
Plan. The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor will monitor the
implementation of these provisions at start of grading. Implementation of these
provisions will be verified by the City Engineering Department. Monitoring activities
associated with this mitigation measure cease upon approval by the City Engineering
Department of a final "as-built" Grading Plan.
-8-
1t:j-~3fl
9Q-14.mmp 04/1J9/91
7. To eliminate the possibility of silt and sediment entering the NWR, a barrier system
will be placed between the property and the wetland prior to initiation of grading
and remain until the drainage diversion system is in place and operating. This
measure will be included on the Grading Plan.
Monitoring 7: Placement of the barrier system is required as a condition of the
Grading Permit. The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor will monitor
the implementation of this mitigation measure at start of grading. The City
Engineering Department and the BRM will verify implementation. In addition, the
BRM will be present periodically during the installation of the barrier system.
Monitoring activities associated with this mitigation measure cease upon completion
of installation of the drainage diversion system.
8. To prevent grading impacts to the wetland, a protective berm will be constructed
along the entire western boundary of the site, avoiding the wetland. During
construction of this berm, the City must retain a biologically trained construction
monitor to observe grading practices and ensure the integrity of the wetlll1ld. To
guarantee that the berm itself does not introduce sedimentation into the wetland, the
western slope of the berm will be hydroseeded and/or covered with plastic sheeting.
This measure will be included on the Grading Plan.
Monitoring 8: The City Engineering Department, with the assistance of the BRM,
will monitor and report on berm construction and grading practices. Hydroseeding
or covering the berm with plastic will be monitored by the City Landscape Architect.
The City Landscape Architect will report to the City Engineering Department's Field
Supervisor. Monitoring activities associated with this mitigation measure cease upon
the successful establishment of such covering to the City Landscape Architect's and
BRM's reasonable satisfaction.
BIOLOGY
Imnacts
. Loss of freshwater input to the 0.14 acre riparian grove located in part on adjacent
NWR lands
-9-
I q - ~35
9O-14.mmp 04/10/91
. Contamination of the Marsh by parking area and street runoff
. Modification of increase in the rate of sedimentation within alluvial portions of the
drainage system
. Impacts of enhanced pet-associated predator attraction to the study area, and human
presence
. Impacts to the existing balance of competitors, predators and prey
. An indirect impact to the Light-footed Clapper Rail by reducing its potential for re-
establishment in the "F' & "G" Street Marsh
. Increased disturbance to, and predators of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
Mitij.!ation Measures
9. Desiltation basins large enough to handle storm water runoff will be maintained
during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed to leave the construction
site. Construction and planting of the drainage swale early in the project grading
phase would assist in this measure. In addition, construction dewatering should be
directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system, or stand-pipe drains, so
that clear water is released from the site through the regular desiltation basins.
Monitoring 9: The BRM will check the grading and drainage plans (see Monitoring
1) to ensure that the location of the drainage swale and the construction de-watering
basin are clearly indicated. The BRM will verify that the drainageswale is
constructed and planted (per the Landscape Plan) early in the grading sequence. In
the event of encountering water early in the grading process, the construction de-
watering basin will be constructed at that time. During the grading and exterior
construction work, the BRM will periodically check the swale and the basin to ensure
that they are in satisfactory condition. Monitoring activities associated with this
mitigation measure cease upon approval of the "as-built" Grading Plan.
10. A biologically-trained monitor will be present for all phases of grading and
installation of drainage systems. The monitor will be employed through the City and
would report directly to a specific responsible person in the Engineering, Planning
or Community Development Department if construction activities fail to meet the
-10-
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
/9-:13"
conditions outlined or should unforeseen problems arise which require immediate
action or stopping of the construction activities. This monitor will continue
monitoring on a reduced basis during actual outside building construction.
Monitoring 10: During grading, installation of the drainage system, and major
landscaping of the site, the BRM will inspect the work periodically to ensure that
biological resources of the adjoining F /G Street marsh are not adversely affected.
The BMR will coordinate with the City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor
regarding the applicant's grading and construction schedule. Monitoring reports will
be submitted to the Engineering Department and the MCC weekly. Monitoring
activities associated with this mitigation measure cease upon final inspection by the
City.
11. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues
generated by the project and other development within the Bayfront (e.g., pro rata
share), or by other funding mechanisms, to conduct the predator management
program, ensure compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure
maintenance of other mitigation requirements (Le., silt/grease trap maintenance,
etc.). Such officers should work closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as
they relate to Federal Reserve Lands. Officers should have training in predator
control and should possess the necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and
remove problem predators. It is recommended that these officers be accountable to
a multi-jurisdictional agency/property owner advisory board set up to oversee
resource protection of the entire midbayfront area. The midbayfront area is that
area within the boundaries of the Sweetwater River, Bay Boulevard, "G" Street, and
the San Diego Bay. The jurisdictions/property owners which should be included in
this board are the City of Chula Vista, the San Diego Unified Port District, the
Bayfront Conservancy Trust, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife _ Service, the California
Department of Fish and Game, Rohr Industries, and the owner of the majority of the
Midbayfront Uplands (Chula Vista Investors).
Monitoring 11.
Monitoring 11.A: Predator Manal1ement Pro~am. It is anticipated that a long-term
Predator Management Program (PMP) for the NWR and adjoining areas of the
-11-
19 -- :J3r
9O-u.mmp 04/09/91
Midbayfront Uplands will be established. The project applicant will be required to
participate in the PMP on a pro rata (fair share) basis. Until the PMP is
implemented, the project applicant shall conduct a project-specific predator
management program, which would operate for the late March through mid-July
nesting season. This project-specific program will focus primarily on the F /G Street
Marsh unit of the NWR. Predator management actions will include regular
censusing, trapping and removal of mammalian predators as appropriate (including
domestic, feral, and wild mammals), as well as removal of selected avian predators
when necessary. The contracted entity should report any predator attractants
affiliated with the project to allow for proper corrective measures. Of primary
concern are food wastes, feeding of wild and domestic animals by employees, or
predator utilization of project structures. In order to conduct this project-specific
predator management program, the project applicant shall contract with the Animal
Damage Control (ADe) division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or other
qualified organization acceptable to the City Planning Department and NWR for
these predator management services.
Monitoring H-B: Trash Mana~ement. As a part of the project-specific predator
management program, the ADC division personnel, the MCC, or other qualified
organization shall also monitor waste handling procedures on a monthly basis. ~
also Monitoring 21.
Monitoring H-C: Water Oualitv. Monitoring of water quality is governed by the
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) which has
established a rigorous, self-monitoring and reporting procedure for applicant's entire
facility. Monitoring shall occur for the life of the project, with quarterly reporting,
or reporting consistent with the requirements of the RWQCB, to the USFWS and
City Planning Department.
12. The proposed project will include a buffer of restored native scrub vegetation
between the building and the adjacent NWR lands. This buffer will be isolated from
human intrusion and should further be implemented with swales and mounds as
designed to reduce visual impacts from activities occurring on the patio areas.
-12-
9O-I4.mmp 04/10/91
Iq....~.3f
Monitoring 12: The BRM shall check the plans, coordinate with USFWS on planting
plans, and confirm the planting of the native scrub vegetation on the berm area along
the west margin of the project site to ensure compliance with the provisions of the
Landscape Plan. Subsequent to planting, the BRM will inspect this vegetation
annually until successfully established. Monitoring activities associated with this
mitigation measure cease upon the successful establishment of this vegetation cover
to the reasonable satisfaction of the City's Landscape Architect and the BRM.
13. All post-construction drainage on east side of building and roof drains will be
directed through large volume silt and grease traps prior to being shunted into the
freshwater detention swale. The trap(s) placed on line(s) entering the detention
basin will be triple-chambered.
Monitoring 13: The City Engineering Department's Field Supervisor must verify that
the silt and grease traps have been built in their correct locations and to appropriate
capacity specifications. The appropriate locations of the silt and grease traps must
be shown on the grading plan. In addition, the Building and Housing Department
must require and verify incorporation of roof drains that divert water to detention
basins. Roof drain specifications must be incorporated into the Grading Plan and
Permit.
14. The silt and grease traps will be maintained regularly with thorough cleanings
conducted in late September or early October. As needed cleanings are to be
performed through the winter and spring months, but at least once in March.
Maintenance will be done by removal of wastes rather than flushing of the system.
Monitoring 14: As part of the drainage system and water quality monitoring
provisions set by the RWQCB, the MCC will coordinate with the applicant to inspect
and report that silt and grease traps are cleaned at least as often as the times
specified. Cleaning will be noted in the reports submitted to the RWQCB and copies
will be furnished to the City within 30 days of inspection.
15. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area will be from the lists
provided by the developer during the environmental review process. Should species
-13-
1~-,;)39
9().Ummp 04/10/91
substitutions be desired, these will be submitted to the City landscape architect for
review. Plant materials which are known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes
such as Limonium or Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive
as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia,
will be restricted from use.
Monitoring 15: The City's Landscape Architect will inspect landscaping of the
project so as to verify that the species planted are consistent with the Landscape
Plan. If species substitutions are desired, the applicant shall submit proposed
changes to the City's Landscape Architect who will consult with the BRM to ensure
that appropriate species are being used. Monitoring activities associated with this
mitigation measure will be conducted at intervals to be established by the
Environmental Review Coordinator and Landscape Architect's Office.
16. Re-establishment of O. 14 acre of riparian vegetation within the on-site drainage
swale will be accomplished to mitigate the hydrologic isolation and direct impacts of
the project upon the 0.14 acre of willow riparian grove straddling the NWKborder.
Management of the riparian grove to retain wildlife resources will be coordinated
with the National Wildlife Refuge Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetation types
will be included in the Landscape Plan with sandbar willow the principal species used
in this habitat area.
Monitoring 16: The BRM shall check the plans, coordinate with USFWS on planting
plans, and confirm the planting of the 0.14 acre of riparian vegetation near the south
end of the drainage swale to ensure that the species specified in the Landscape Plan
are used. The BRM will inspect the riparian vegetation area periodically to ensure
the successful establishment of this vegetation and to determine whether or not
maintenance activity is required. To the extent deemed appropriate by the City's
Landscape Architect and the BRM, plants that do not survive will be replaced.
Monitoring of this riparian growth will continue until the vegetation cover is
successfully established to the reasonable satisfaction of the City's Landscape
Architect and the BRM.
17. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas will be restricted through vegetation
barriers and rails around the patio areas. Additional human/pet encroachment will
-14-
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
19 - 0> I,J()
be restricted through fencing and native vegetation on mounds along the western
property boundary.
Monitoring 17: Once the applicant's development is completed, the BRM will verify
the presence of vegetation barriers (per the Landscape Plan), and that the specified
rails and fencing are in place to ensure human access to the marshlands and buffer
area is restricted. As part of the project-specific mitigation monitoring program, the
ADC division personnel, MCC or other qualified organization will monitor on a
monthly basis.
18. The project should be a participant in a predator management program for the Chula
Vista Bayfront region to control domestic predators as well as wild animal predators.
This program should utilize the Connors (1987) predator management plan as a
basis, but should be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development. This plan
should include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human and pet
activities. The plan should be comprehensive and should include management of
predators within the adjacent NWR as well as the proposed development .areas.
Monitoring 18: Predator Manal!ement Proeram. It is anticipated that a long-term
Predator Management Program (PMP) for the NWR and adjoining areas of the
Midbayfront Uplands will be established. The project applicant will be required to
participate in the PMP on a pro rata (fair share) basis. Until the PMP is
implemented, the project applicant shall conduct a project-specific predator
management program, which would operate for the late March through mid-July
nesting season. This project-specific program will focus primarily on the F /G Street
Marsh unit of the NWR. Predator management actions will. include regular
censusing, trapping and removal of mammalian predators as appropriate (including
domestic, feral, and wild mammals), as well as removal of selected avian predators
when necessary. The contracted entity should report any predator attractants
affiliated with the project to allow for proper corrective measures. Of primary
concern are food wastes, feeding of wild and domestic animals by employees, or
predator utilization of project structures. In order to conduct this project-specific
predator management program, the project applicant shall contract with the Animal
Damage Control (ADC) division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or other
-15-
I'-J'II
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
qualified organization acceptable to the City Planning Department and NWR for
these predator management services.
19. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
project will be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and will be certified as acceptable
to the Environmental Protection Agency for use near-wetland areas. All landscape
chemical applications will be accomplished by a person who is a state-certified
applicator.
Monitoring 19: The BRM or City's Landscape Architect shall coordinate with the
applicant's landscape maintenance personnel to ensure that fertilizers, pesticides and
herbicides approved by USFWS on the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Opinion on Selected Pesticides," June 14, 1989, are used, and that where appropriate,
the individuals applying these materials are state-certified. Monitoring shall occur
for the life of the project, with quarterly reporting, or reporting consistent with the
requirements of the R WQCB, to the USFWS and City Planning Department.
20. Annual funds (pro rate share) to be paid by the project applicant into an assessment
district set up by the property owner, City and USFWS should be designated for the
purpose of trash control, repair and maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the
predator control program and mitigation programs for the project. This measure
would be terminated upon creation of a larger Bayfront resources management
program and the project applicant would then pay a pro rata share into that program.
Monitoring 20: Predator Manal:ement Prol:fam. It is anticipated that a long-term
Predator Management Program (PMP) for the NWR and adjoining areas of the
Midbayfront Uplands will be established. The project applicant will be required to
participate in the PMP on a pro rata (fair share) basis. Until the PMP is
implemented, the project applicant shall conduct a project-specific predator
management program, which would operate for the late March through mid-July
nesting season. This project-specific program will focus primarily on the F /G Street
Marsh unit of the NWR. Predator management actions will include regular
censusing, trapping and removal of mammalian predators as appropriate (including
domestic, feral, and wild mammals), as well as removal of selected avian predators
when necessary. The contracted entity should report any predator attractants
-16-
J "1- J~ ~
9O-14.mmp 04/10/91
affiliated with the project to allow for proper corrective measures. Of primary
concern are food wastes, feeding of wild and domestic animals by employees, or
predator utilization of project structures. In order to conduct this project-specific
predator management program, the project applicant shall contract with the Animal
Damage Control (ADC) division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or other
qualified organization acceptable to the City Planning Department and WWR for
these predator management services.
21. Open garbage containers should be restricted and all dumpsters will be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage should be hauled away as often as possible.
Monitoring 21: During grading and construction, the BRM will verify weekly that
the dumpsters on site are not overfilled. Solid waste service must be increased if
dumpsters approach an overfilled condition.
22. Buildings should utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are
readily observable by birds. A film glass manufactured by 3M or a suitable substitute
are recommended. No extraneous ledges upon which raptors could perch or nest can
be included on the western side of the proposed building. Ledges facing the west
should not exceed two inches in width. Additionally, the roof crests which are
exposed to the wetlands will be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite.
A commitment to correct any additional problem areas should be obtained should
heavy incidence of perching be observed on the buildings or in landscaping materials.
Outside lighting will be directed away from marsh areas or reflecting faces of the
western side of the proposed building. Lights should be limited to the minimum
required for security on the western side of the building.
Monitoring 22: The Planning Department will verify, prior to the issuance of the
building permit, and again at the time of final inspection, that mitigation measures
pertinent to building materials and design are properly implemented.
-17-
", ~1/'3
9O-14.mmp 04/10/91
CIRCULATION/PARKING
Imoacts
. "F' Street and roadway segments west of 1-5 would operate at LOS B or above with
the exception of Bay Boulevard between "E" Street and "F' Street, which will decline
from LOS C to F with the inclusion of annual growth and the project. The
intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F Street (Lagoon Drive) would decline from LOS
B to D with the project responsible for 17 percent of this impact.
. 1-5 northbound at "E" Street: Incremental contribution (5.6 percent) to a
cumulatively significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual
population growth.
. Broadway and "E" Street: Incremental contribution (0.6 percent) to a cumulatively
significant impact will result from the proposed project and annual population
growth.
. A significant parking deficiency of 79 to 115 spaces (10 to 13 percent) under the
proposed project, or 49 to 85 spaces (6 to 10 percent) under Alternative 2 would
occur.
Mitil!ation Measures
23. Bay Boulevard at "F' Street/Lagoon Drive: a new traffic signal will be installed; all
approaches to the intersection (i.e., along Bay Blvd. and "F' Street/Lagoon Drive)
will be restriped to provide exclusive left turn lanes. The heavy projected demand
for eastbound left turns will require future design to maximize the amount of storage
length to be provided at this intersection; the east and westbound approaches to this
intersection will be restriped to provide two through lanes on each approach in
addition to the exclusive left turn lanes described above.
Monitoring 23: The applicant shall be required to restripe all approaches and left-
turn lanes and install the new traffic signal prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. The applicant and Redevelopment Agency may enter into an agreement
to guarantee improvements.
-18-
J '1 - .) lilf
9O-14.mmp 04/09/91
24. 1-5 northbound ramps at "E" Street: the westbound approach of "E" Street at the
northbound 1-5 ramps will be widened to provide a separate right turn only lane to
access the northbound 1-5 on-ramp.
Monitoring 24: The applicant shall be required to contribute funds towards future
improvements based on the City Engineer's estimate. The applicant may enter into
an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency to guarantee contribution, or that a
mutually agreed upon contribution has been made toward the cost of construction
of such improvements, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
25. Broadway at "E" Street: an exclusive right turn only lane from eastbound "E" Street
to southbound Broadway will be provided. This additional lane would facilitate
smoother traffic flow from 1-5 and Central Chula Vista.
Monitoring 25: The applicant shall be required to contribute funds towards future
improvements based on the City Engineer's estimate. The applicant may enter into
an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency to guarantee contribution, pr that a
mutually agreed upon contribution has been made toward the cost of construction
of such improvements, prior to the issuance of building permits.
26. Bay Boulevard between "E" and "F' Streets: this segment will be designated for
vehicle and bike traffic only and all on-street parking will be removed. The cross--
section should provide for one lane of travel in each direction, a center turn lane,
and a bike lane in each direction.
Monitoring 26: The City Traffic Engineer shall continue to monitor traffic flow on
an annual basis and the recommended improvement shall be implemented at such
time as deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer.
27. "F' Street/Lagoon Drive west of Bay Boulevard to western edge of property: Lagoon
Drive will be constructed to major standards as recommended in the Local Coastal
Plan.
Monitoring 27: The applicant shall be required to construct roadway improvements,
as required by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The
-19-
19-~ 1./.5
9().14.mmp 04/10/91
applicant and Redevelopment Agency may enter into an agreement to guarantee
improvements.
28. The applicant will meet the City's standard by either providing additional permanent
offsite parking; or by reducing the size of the building; or limiting the number of
employees consistent with the City's employee-based parking standard. This limit
could be increased if the proposed parking (730 spaces, or 760 spaces under
Alternative 2) is found to be adequate, or if additional parking could be provided.
Monitoring 28: The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula
Vista or Redevelopment Agency to provide deficit parking and will include a time
schedule for these provisions. In order to determine if the parking is adequate, the
parking demand shall be monitored over a one year period following 90 percent to
full occupation of the building.
AIR QUALIIT
Imo8cts
. Incremental contributions to a cumulatively significant impact will result from build-
out project traffic adding approximately 0.5 ton of CO, 0.04 ton of NOx and 0.03 ton
of ROG daily to the airshed. The NOx and ROG counts (the main ozone formation
precursor pollutants) are less than those noted for the APCD's insignificance
threshold.
. Incremental contributions to potentially significant regional impacts resulting from
the clearing of existing site uses, excavation of utility access, preparation of
foundations and footings, and building assembly creating temporary emissions of dust,
times, equipment exhaust and other air contaminllI\ts during project construction will
occur. Construction dust is an important contributor to regional violations of
inhalable dust (PM-lO) standards. Typical dust lofting rates from construction
activities are assumed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre disturbed. If
the entire 11.6 acre project site is under simultaneous development, total daily dust
emissions would be approximately 1,200 pounds/day.
-20-
I q - ~'I"
9IJ.14.mmp 04/09/91
Mitil!'ation Measures
29. Transportation Control Measures (TCMS) such as ridesharing, vanpool incentives,
alternate transportation methods and transit utilization will be incorporated into the
project. A Traffic Abatement Plan or Emergency Episode Plan will be prepared and
submitted to the APCD for review and approval within approximately 45 days.
Monitoring 29: This mitigation measure is a Condition of Project Approval.
30. Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust abatement measures
. required by the APCD can reduce dust emissions by 50-70 percent.
Monitoring 30: The City may, if reasonably necessary, and if not duplicative of the
monitoring authority of the APCD, retain a consultant to monitor dust control to
verify the implementation of this mitigation measure. The monitor will report to the
City Engineering Department on a weekly basis during the grading and exterior
construction phase. (Due to the regional and statewide shortage of water, treated
drinking water should not be used for dust control. The project applicant will use
water conservation measures as required by the Sweetwater Authority for dust
control watering. Other measures of dust control may be used if approved by the
APCD or the Sweetwater Authority.) Monitoring activities associated with this
mitigation measure cease upon the completion of grading activities and approval of
the "as-built" Grading Plan.
-21-
/9- ~'fr-
9().14.mmp 04/09/91
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
Drainage/Groundwater/Grading
1. A detailed grading and drainage plan must be preparec:l1n accordance wtlh the Chula 1. l11e grading and dralnage plan wtn be __ by the City Pr10r to Construcnon{Prtor 10 CIty Eng,neettng: CIty Community CIty Engl- Oopl.
VIsta MunJc/p&l COOe, SubdMslon Man""', __ ""'_ _ and _ed Englneerlng'Department, as assisted by the SRM. the Community Grading PermfI tssuance 1leI~lopnlOl' Oopl.; CIty PIlInnIng
_ SaJd plan must be approved and a pennn Issued by tile Englnearlng OMolon Development Department and the PlannIng Depattment Three 0epI.; ErNtronInafUl _
pOor 10 the start of any grading work and/Ollnstal1aUon of any dfalnage structures. people In planning Will sign the Gra<Ung Penna; the EnvIronmental CootdInaIor; lM1dscapa Ar<:l1IIed;
RevIew Coordinator, Landscape Alchtlecl and CUrrent Planning. The Currant PlannIng; SAM: MCC
Engineering Department will Issue the Grading Permit The revtew
and approval of the grading and drainage planS Will occur pc10r 10
grading and constructIOn actMUes, as weU as permit Issuance. The
CUy engineering Department Will vertfy that the detailed grading and
drainage plans InclUde recommendations and defajled design
Incorporating all measures con1aJned In the EIR for this proJect. and
those contained tn the .Updale GeotecJ'lnk:allnvestlgalton"
(Wooc:fward.Qyde, 1990). Monltortng 8cUvlUes associa1ed wtlh this
pre-construcIlon design and permlWng meastJf8 cease upon
Issuance of the Grading Permit.
2. The .Update GeoIechnkal kwestlgallon- report referenced above must be reviewed and 2. Review of the Updated geoIechnlcal report has been completed RevIew of this report has been City Eng_ Reld SupeMaor; CIty Eng- Oopl.
approved by the CtIy's Engmeenng Department All recommendaUons contahl8<l WIthin the by Iha CIty Englnearlng Department and Iha updated condn_ completed. The BRM shall monitor City Englnear; SRM; MCC
stUdy must be Implemented by the applicant. Thts measure must be made a condition of have been noted on the Gracllng Plan. The City Engineering on a weekty basts during
project approvar, and must be Included (or referenced to) on the Grading Plan. Department', ReId Supeflllsof and Iha CIty Englnearlng Department, construc:flon phaSa
In accordance w1tn norrnat practices and procedures, will monitor lhe
lmplementalion of all such condtuons. The BRM will provlOe
asststance to tn. City to ensure compliance wtlh conditions retallng
to b1ologk:al resources durtng grading and Installatlon of drainage
facUlUes. MonItOf1ng actMUes assoclaled wtlh this mitigation
measure cease upon comjMUon of grading and lnsIallallon of
drainage faclllt6es..
3. Engineered ftlls and/or any .lI'Udural etements thai encroacn Into areas OV8f1aIn by bay 3. l11e CIty Englneenng Department" Reld Supeflllsof, In Prtor 10 and Dur1ng Construdlon CIty Eng-.mg Oopl.; CIty Reld CIty EngInearlng Oopl.
cIeposIts or other compressible OYefburden IOIts win requlre some form of aubgrade acoordance wtIt1 normal practices and procedures. will verify dUring SUpeMaor; ""'a SolIs
modlflcaUon 10 1mpr<Mt Iha _ capacity of Iha e_ soils for usa "' UftImalety the exlertor construcUon phaSe thai recommendaUons are Eng"-lng ConIIlIcIor; MCC
suppotllng addltlonal_ fill and/or structural _ SolI Im_ may Implemented, as needed. A prIVate Sotls Engineer will be
Indude partial or total removal and recompaclk>n, end/Of the use of IUfCh&rge fills to pre- _ for signing Iha Grading Plan/logs. l11e CIty
compress saturated bay deposits whtch extst bekM the groundwater 1abIe; Of foundation Englnearlng Department will be responslbla for slgnlng and filing Iha
elemanIs must be __ 10 extancllhrough these solis _ compotant beartng vertftcaUon report. Monftorlng activities assoctaIed wtIt1 thls
formaIionaI solis mlIlgallon maasure ceasa upon approval by Iha CIty EnglMerlng
Depaltment of a final "as-buItt" Grading Plan.
Page 1 of 8
SJO.14MMP04ftl9/81
00
~
C'l,
,
\l"'"
-
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
4. If encountered, roadways. embankments, and engineered .tlls encroaching onto eJdstlng .. The CIty Englneer1ng lleplu1mont.. _ SUpeNtsor, In See No. 3 above. See No. 3 above. See No. 3_.
compn>sslIlIe bay deposlIs WlIlIIksly roqui.. sut>g.- modlftcallon 10 _ Ihe support acc:o<<lanc:e WIth normal practices and proce<I...... WIN verify dur1ng
C8pIOClIy oIlhe eJdstlng solis and reducelong-lenn, post-conallUcllon I8tlIement. SolI the extenor construction phase that recommendations are
Improvement would IIksly IndUdo _ or ,_ '"""""" and roc:ompoc:Uon. and/or lhe use Implemenled. as needecI. A pr1vIde SolIs Engineer WlU be
01 oun:harged nlls, 10 __ sat_ed bay depoIIIs. responsible lor signing lhe Grading Plan/logs. The City
Englneertng Departmenl wW be responsIbte for s6gntng anc:I filing the
vertnca1ion report. Monnonng actMlIes associated WIth this
rnltlgaUon measure cease upon approval by the Ctty Englneertng
Department of a IlnaI -as-bulft- Grading Plan.
5. .. saturated soils are encounlered GUrlng gracllng operations, lemporary construction 5. A pnvale Soils Engineer will determine If dewatering Is necessary. Duttng Gradlng/Constructlon City EngInee<1ng Depl; _ CIty engineering Depl
dewatertng should be Implememed In general accordance WIth the recommendallons " deWalerlng Is required. the detention bastn will be constructed ftrsl SUpervisor; PrtvaIe SoIls Eng"-:
contained In the July 1990 Woodwar<I-Ctyde Consultants report. Compliance WIth RWOCB an<I dewatered water will be pumped Into detention basin. This MCC
~ 90-31 IOg8ldlng discharge ollemporary dewaler1ng west.. 10 Son DIego Bay WIll ba actMly wiN be supervised by the City engineering Department's ReId
requ.... SUpervisor and verified by the ctty Englneertng Departmenl
Monnorlng actMtles assocIaIec::I with this mIItgalion measure cease
upon completion of gradlng operattons If no saluraled IOtIs are
encountered and upon c:ompkHton of extenor construction If such
soUs &Ie encountered.
.0 . project grading occurs dur1ng Ihe _ season, Ule speclal provisions oonIaIned In 6. The &pedaJ provts6ons In SectIon 87.19.07 are noted on the Duttng ConsIructlon/Gradlng CIty Englnee<1ng Depl; _ CIty EngIneer1ng Depl
SedIon .7.19.07 (Grading and Dralnege) 01 Ule CIty of Chule VIsIe Baylronl SpeclIIc Plan Grading Plan. The CIty Englneer1ng _'s _ SUpeNtsor SUpervlsor;MCC
must be Implemented, and these must also be Included (or referenced to) on the Grading Will monftor the Implementation c1lhese prowtstor.s at stall of
PIon. grading. Implementation of these provtsJons Will be vet1fied by tile
City Englneertng Department MonItOftng actMt6es assocla1ed wtth
thts mlt6gatlon measure cease upon approval by the CIty Engineering
Department of a final -as-bullt" Grading Plan.
7. To eliminate the. possIbl.11ty of SUI and sedtment entertng the Marsh. a banter system 7. Placement of the banter system Is reqUired as 8 condition of the PrIor 10 Constructlon/Gradlng City Engineering Depl; _ CIty Eng"-'"O Depl
must be _ -. Ihe property and Ihe _ prior 10 InIIlaIlon of grading and Gredlng _ The CIty EngInee<1ng ~s _ SUpeNtsor SUpeMsor;MCC
remain .... Ihe ....nege d_ system II In place and opereIIng. ThIIITlOllSUIO must be Will monitor tile ImpkHneotatlon of tilts mftlgabon measure at st811 of
Included on Ihe GradIng Plan. gredlng. The CIty engineering _ and Ihe DAM Will verify
lmplemenlatlon. In ....ion, Ihe DAM Will ba _ _1ceJIy
dUl1ng the InstaJlaUon of the ban1er system. Monllor&ng actMUes
assodated WIth this m1t1gallon measure cease upon compfellon of
InslaIIelIon oIlhe d_ dIYOISIon system.
.. To _ grading lmpects to Ihe weiland, a proIecIlve berm must ba construded along .. The CIty EngIneer1ng lleplu1ment, with Ihe llSSIst8llCe of Ihe During Gredlng: moMored by DAM DAM; ReId SUpervisor; ~ cay engineering Depl
Ihe entire western boundery oIlhe SIte, avoiding Ihe _ Duttng constIUc:tlon 01 ... SAM, WIU monttor and report on berm construction and grading '""" CO\IOrIng II successfully _ect;MCC
berm, Ihe CIty must relaJn a bIoIogIcaJly Ir8lned _ monitor 10 oIlserve grading pradIces. Hyd_lng or CO\IOrIng Ule berm WIIh pIastJc WIll ba --
practices and ensure the lnIegrtty of the wetland. To guarantee tnat the berm IIseIf does noI monltored by Ihe CIty l.endscape "'''Meet. The cay ~
Introduce aedlmentaUon Into the wetland. the wesIem IIope of the berm must be Alchlted Will report to Ihe CIty Englneer1ng lleplu1menrs _
hydroseeded and/or c:owred with _ --.g. TIlls __ must be ~ on Ihe SUpeNtsor. Mon.ortng actMtIes _ed WIth 11115 mlllgelJon
Grading Plan. measure cease upon the suoc:esstul estabUshment of such covertng
to the CtIy l.andscape NchIIed's and SAM's reasonable 18UstacUon.
PagD 2 of 8
8O-14IMAP 04;tJ9j91
(t')
~
("\
,
~
-
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
Biology (Short-term)
a. OesUlallon basins large enough to handle storm wilier runoff mUll be matntalned durtng 9. The DAM Will ctleck the grading and draJnage ptans (see PI10r 10 and Ourtng Grading and DRM; MCC Rotor to ~ Nos.
the construc:Ilon phase so thai no &tits are allowed to ..,.. Ole constructton site. MonfloI1ng 1) to ensure thai the loeanon of the drainage swate and Exler1o< ConslrudIon 6. 7. and 8.
ConslI\lClJoo and planting of lhe drainage swaJe _ kl the _ g....,ng phase wookl the construcUon de-walertng basin are cfeat1y indicated. The DRM
assist In this measure. In ac\d1Uon, constructton de-walertng should be dlrectecllnto a basin will venry thai the drainage swale Is construcIecI and planted (per the
wtth a t1ne,-fatlrlc, gravel leach system, or stand--pipe df'8kls, so that dear water Is refeased l.an<Iscape Plan) _ In the g....,ng sequence. kl the event of
from the site through the regular destltaUon basins. encountertng waler early In the grading process. the construction de-
walenng basin will be constructed at that Ume. Durtng the gradtng
and exterior construction wor1<, the DAM will peI1Odk;al1y ctleck the
swaJe and the bastn to ensure Ihallhey are In satlsfadory condition.
MonIIortng actlvtUes associated wtth this m1tlgaUon measure cease
upon approval of the "as-bullt" Grading P&an.
10. A biotogk:ally-lralned construction monitor must be present lor all phases of grading 10. Durtng grading, tnstallaUon of the dralnage system, and major During Gradlng/Ourtng BAM; CIIy Eng"-'lng Depl. CIIy EnvtronmenlaJ Revtew
and installation of drainage systems. The monitor must be employed through the aty and Iandscaptng of the site, the DRM will tnspect the work perIodk:aIly 10 CoosII\lCIJoo and During Communlly lle\IeIopmolO Depl.. Coordinator
would report directly 10 the Environmental Aevtew Coordinator' cons1ructJon actlvtties taB 10 ensure thai biological resources oIlhe ad)otnlng FIG Street: marsh l..an<Isc8pIng CIIy Landscape _ MCC
meet the conditions out1lned or shoUld unforeseen ~ artse Vttllch req""re lmme<:UaIe are not ~ aIIected. The 8MR \MIl coordlnale WIth the CfIy
action or stopping at the consIrucUon aclMU.s. this monitor must continue monnortng on a EngIMOftng Depertmen,.s Flekl Supervisor regarding the eppllcant's
reduced basts durlng actual outaIde building constnJcUon. gractlng and construction schedule. MonItortng reports wlU be
submtned 10 the Englneenng Department and the MCC weefdy.
Monnortng 8ClMt1es associated WIth ItUs mnlgallon measure cease
'-' ftna! k1spectlon by lhe CIIy.
Biology (Long-term)
11. A full Urne enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues 11. Predator ManaClement Procrram. Ills anuctpated thai a long- For the ure 01 the project-specific ROOr contract wtIn the USlJA..ArUmat USFWS, MCC
generated by Ihe _ and other ..velopment wtIhkl the Bayfront (e.g.. pro fala shere). or term Predator Management Program (PMp) for ItIe NWR and mon.Gring pion wtIh quarter1y Damage Control, MCC or oUler
by _funding _Isms, 10 conduct a Resoufce Management Program. Which woold adjcMnlng areas of the Mldbayfront Uplands Will be established. The reporting to the USFWS and CIIy quallfied organIlaIIon
ensure compUanc::e, issue cIlatlons, and conc:Iuct rouUne checks 10 ensure maintenance of profect appUcan1 WIll be reqUlre<110 partldpate in the PMP on II pro PlaMlng Department, or as
other mlUgaUon requirements (I.e., sin/grease trap maintenance. etc.). SUch otncers IhoUId _ (lair......) I>aSls. U.." the PMP Is _ed. the _ In<orponded "'0 the Iong-lerm
work cIosety wtlh the USFWS k1 enforcement maues alhey re&ate 10 Federal ReseNe eppllcanllhall conduct a _-specIftc _or menagement PntdaIor Management Program
l.onds. 0ftlc:eI> shoukl ........ ......ng kl predator conIrol and shoukl possess the I1OCOSS8ly program, Which would operate for the l81e March through mld-Juty
sldUs, permlls and authorlty to trep and I9ITlO\/O _ ptedaIoIs. . Is recommended thel nesIlng season. nos _-apeclftc program WIll focus prllTlllllly on
these ofIIceIS be ~ to a multJ1urlsdldtonaJ _/property owner acMsoIy t>oen:I the FIG street Marsh un" of the NWR Predator management
set up 10 oYefSe8 resource protecl6on at the enUre mIdbayfront area. The mktbayfronl area actions wtU IodUde regUlar censuslng, trapptng and removar of
is that area wtthln the boUnc:IaIIes of the SWeetwater RIver. Bay BouleVard, V Street, and mammalian predators as approprtaIe (InclUdtng domestic. feral, and
1I1e San Dlego Bey. The JurlsdlcUons/~ """"" WhIch IhouId be Il1dOOed kl Ihls wtkl mammals), as well as removal oC selected avian predators when
I>oaI<l are the CIty ol Chula VIsta, the San 0Ieg0 Unllled PorI lllslrId, the Baylronl ne<esaaIY. l11e c:onI1aded entlty IhouId report any_or
Conservancy Trust. the U.s. Roll and _ _. the CalI10mia IJepllIIrnerd ol Roll and oIInlctants eftltlated wtIh the _ to lIlIow tor proper conectlw
Geme, f\oh( _ and the owner of the mojorIty olthe Mldbayflonl UpIanda (ChUIa ...........
VIa1a Investors).
Page 3 of B
8O-f4IMIP 04;09;81
o
'"
c-.
.
.,...
-
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity TIming Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
(11. Continued.) Of pnmary concern are food wastes. ,eedlng of wtld and damesUe
animalS by empfOyees. or predator uUllzauon of profect structures.
k1 order 10 conduct this profect.-speclftc predalor management
Pf09'""'. lhe project oppIk:8nI _ _ WOh the Anlmal Damage
Control (AOC) dlviston 01 the u.s. Department of AGricunure or other
qualified organIZation eccepIabIe to the Cfty Planning Department
and WWR 'or these predator management seMces. !!!!!l
ManaQement. As a paI1 of the protect-speclflc predator
management program, the ADC dtvtsion personnel, MCC. or other
qualtfled organization shaR also monnor W8S1e handling procedures
on a monthly basis. See ~ Monnorlng 21. Water Quarnv.
Mannarlng of water quality is governed by the requirements of the
Regional Wafer Quality Conlrollloonl (AWOCa) Which has
established a l1gorous. seff-monttorlng and reporting procedure for
applkant's entJre IadItty. MonItortng ShaJI occur for IIle life of the
project. WOh quarterly ,""""Ing. Of ,""""Ing consIsIeo1 wtth lhe
requirements of the RWOCB. 10 the USFWS and ctty Planning
Department.
12. The proposed Protect must Include a butl'er of restored native scrub vegetation betv\Ieen 12. The BRM shall check the plans, coordinate wtlh USFWS In After Construction, During aRM; Clly"s l.ands<ape ArcI:Oect Ell\IIronn1erUl _
the bUilding and lhe adjacent NWR lands. This bUffer must be Isolated from human planting pCans, and confirm the ptantlng of lhe native scrub Lan<lscapIng .... _ Project. CoonllnaIOf
tnlnJSlon and should lurther be Implemented WIIh swales and mounds as deslgnecllO vegetation on the berm area along the west margin of lhe projed site AnnuaUy untU auccessfully
reduce visual Impacts from acttv'Ues oocurrtng on the patio areas. 10 ensure compl&ance with the proytslons of the Landscape Plan. --
SUbsequent to P'antlng, the SRM wllllnspect this vegetaUon annuatty
until successfUlly established. Monltortng activities assocIaIed with
this mitigation measure cease upon the successful ~Ishment of
thts vegetation cover '0 the reasonab&e saUstactlon ot the aty's
landscape Architect and the DRM.
13. All post-constructlon drainage InUaI be directed through large volume sin and grease 13. The CIty Engl.......ng Department's field Supervtsor must WItIy PI10r 10 GradIng, Permit Issuance. aRM; CIty EngIMertng Oepl; Aekl CIty Eng'-'lng Oepl
traps pr10r 10 being shunted Into the freshW8ler detention swaIe. The trap(s) placed on thai the silt and grease traps have been built In their correct During Construction. Nter OraJnage SUpervIsor
One(s) eo18f1ng the deI...1on basin musl be 1rtpIo-<hambere. locallons .... to 8jlpIOp<IaIe capecIty speclfIcaIlons. The__ _Ion
loCations of the stIt 1IOd grease traps must be shown on the grading
plan. In ad<tJlIon. the Butktlng and Houstng 0epartmenI must requt,.
and verify Ineorpond:lon of roof drains that divert water to detention
basins. Root drain spectflcattons must be II tcorpOrated Into the
Grading Aan and PermIt.
14. The sHI and grease traps must be maintained regularty with thorough dearnngs 14. As pert 01 the d""'- system .... water qUality monlIortng Aller Constructlon, fOf HIe 01 CIty Eng'-'lng Oepl; MCC; CIty EnglneerIng Depl;
conducted In Iale Seplember 0< lIlllty October. As.- cIeanlng ere 10 be performed provisions set by \he AWOCB. the MCC WlO COOfdlnale wtth \he project. IwIce e _In September/ AWOCa AWOC8; MCC
through the winter and aprIng months, but at least once In March. MaJntenance must be eppllc8nt 10 InspecI.... '"""" IheI sot .... g...... !nips ere cleaned October .... Merch
done by removal of wasles raIher than ftushlng of the system. alle8st as onen as the times specIIed. Oeanlng will be noted In the
reports submmed to the RWOCS and coptes WIll be furnished to the
CIty wttI1In 30 days 0I1nsped1on.
Page 4 of 6
.J4MMPOf;09J9J
-
U)
~
\
0"-
-
Rohe Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
15. ~ pIanl mat_1o be uUlIzed In... projod... muslbelTom Ihe_ 15. Tl1e ClIy's ~ ArcMect WI' _ landscaping at Ihe Mer ConstnJdIoo/llu<Ing CIty .......... _ SRM CIty PlannIng Depl
provided by Ihe......,. Should species subsI.uuona be -. these must be profed: 80 as to ver1fy tflaI the spedes p&anled 819 consistent WIth the L.andscaping and at Intet'V8/s
submmect to the ctly landscape archlteel for nMew. Plant matenais Whk:h are known to be ~ Plan. "species subsI...loos are deslred, ... appllc8nl established by Emitronmental
InvasIYe In aaIl and brackish marshes such as ~ or CaroobroIus spedes. or those IhaJI submn proposed changes to the Cfty's Landscape NchItect RevIew ConInldor .... CIty
Which are known to be attracttve as denning, nesung or roosting anes lor predatOfS such as Who Witt consult wtth the BRM 10 ensure thai appropOale species are ~Arch"ect
WashlnatonJa or Cottadetta. must be restr1cted from use. betng used. MonItortng actMtles assodaIed WIth this mitigation
measure wtll be conducted al klIervats to be esIabIlshed by the
Environmental RevIew Coordinator and l.andscape Archnect's OffIce.
16, ~Ishment of 0.14 acre of riparian vegetallon WIthin the on-slte drainage swaJe 16. The SRM shall check (he plans. coordinate wnn USFWS on DuOng Construction/DuOng SRM; CIty l.an<lscape Archllect NatIon8l WI.... Reluge
must be accomplished to mlUgale the hydrotoglc isolation and direct Impacts of lhe protect planting plans, and confirm the ptanllng of the 0.14 acre of rtpartan Landscaptng lndeflnnefy until Manager
upon the 0.14 acre of wmoW' riparian grove straddling the NWR border. Management of the vegetatIOn near the south end of the drajnage swafe 10 ensure (hat _Ion Is.......shed CIty Planning Depl
riparian grove to retain wtkUlfe resources must be coordlnaled wtth the NalionaJ Wildlife the species specified In the landscape P&an are used. The BRM will successfully
Refuge Manager regarding maintenance. Vegetallon types must be InclUded In the Inspect the r1par1an vegetatkm area pertodlcally to ensure the
Lends<8pe Plan with .....ber WIllow the prlnclplll species ..... In this habItaI ..... successful esI~IShmenl of this vegetation and to determine whether
or noI maintenance actIVIty Is requlrec::l. To the extent deemed
_. by Ihe Ctly's Lan<tscape Arch.oct end ,he SRM, _
thai do not survtve Will be reptaced. MonllOftng of this r1par1an
growlh will continue until the vegelallon cover Is successfully
established 10 Ihe reasonabfe satisfaction of the ctly's Landscape
Architect and lhe BRM.
17. Human access to marsh&ands and buffer areas must be reslrk:tec:lthrough vegetation 17. Once the appliCant's development Is compIeIed. lhe BRM will DuOng Construction/DuOng SRM; aty l..lIn<Iscape ArcMect; Ctt-f Planning Depl
barriers and rails around the pallo areas. Addttlonal human/pet encroachmen1 must be verify the presence of vegetation barriers (per the Landscape Plan). landseapmg and Mer Building Is MCC
restrk:ted through fencing and native vegetation on mounds along the western property and thallhe speclfled rails and lendng are In p&ace to ensure human OccUJHOO. annuatly for the IlIe of
boun<lary. access 10 the marshlands and buffer area Is restricted. As part of the In. project
project-specific mitigation monitoring program. the AOC dMsion
personne4, MCC or other quaJl1Iec:I organtzatlon will monOor on a
monthly basis.
18. The protect shoUld be 8. partlctpanlln 8. predalor managemenI program for 1he OluJa 18. Predator ManaQement Pf'OCIram. . is antlctpaled that a long- Mer ConstNCIIon. qU8lterty SRM;USFWS CIty PlannIng Depl
Vtsta BayfronI region to control domestic predators as well as w1k:1 animal predators. this term Predator Management Program (PMp) for 1he NWR and _orwlthroportlng_
program ahoukl UUItze the Connors (1987) pntdaIor managemenl plan as a basis. but adjoining III1NIS of ,he Mldbaylront UplandS WI' be __. Tl1e consfstenl wtIh the requlr8men1s of
should be Iallore<llo ftIlhe ...... at Ihe propoo8d development. This ptan shoUld Include profect applicant will be reqUired to parUclpale In the PMP on a pro AWaCS
the use of fines as an enfon::emenllool to controt hUman and pet actMUes. The plan rata (fair share) basb. Untlllhe PMP Is Imptemented. lhe profect
should be _.... should Include ~ at pre<laIOIS within'" ad-." eppIlc8nI shall conduct . project-spectftc predator management
NWR as well as the proposed devekJpmenI....... program, which woukt operaaelor the late March through mld.Ju1y
nesting season. ThIs profed-specmc program WIll focus pnmarny on
the F/G Street Marsh unh of 1he NWR Predator management
actions will inclUde regWar' censuslng, trapping and removal of
mammaUan predators as appropriate Oncludlng domestic. feral, and
wild mammals), as well as removal of selected avian predalors When
necessary.
Page 5 of 8
8O-1.fMIIPOf,.w~1
~
")
~
I
0'"'
-
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity TIming Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
(18. Contlnued) The contracted entity should report any predator attractants atfIlIaIed
wtth the profect to allow for proper correcItIIe measures. at P'111181Y
concern are food wastes, feeding of wtIcf and domestic animals by
employees, or predator utlltzallon of profect structures. In order 10
conduc:lUIIs proJecI-spectflc predator management program, the
projecl appllcanl shall contract WIth the AnImal Damage Conlrol
(AOC) dMslon of the U.S. Oepartmenl of Agr1cuaure or other
qualified organtzaUon acceplabfe to the CIty Planning Department
and WWR for Ihese predator management 88fVIces.
19. Fertilizers, pestlck:les and herblcldes utilized wUhln the landscaping areas 01 the project 19. The SRM or Ctty's L..andscape Alchltecl shall coordinate wtth the During Lanclscaplng and on 8 BRM, Landscape Maln1eoance CIty Planning Depl.
must be of the rapidly bb:Segradabkt var1ety and must be certlfled as acceptable 10 the applicant's tandscape maintenance personnet 10 ensure that proper quarterly basts tor the life of the Personnel
Environmental Protection Agency for use near weiland areas. AJIIandscape chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herb1ck2es approved by USFWS on the project
applk::aUons must be accomplished by a person Who Is a slate-cerUflea applicator. .U.S. Ash and Wildlife Servtce IUofogtcaJ OpInion on Selected
Pestlddes,. June 14, 1989, are used, and that Where approprtale. the
IndMduals appfyIog these materials are slate-certlfled. Monitoring
ShaU occur for the me of the protect, WIth quarterty reporting, or
reporting consAstent wtlh the requirements of the RWOCB. to the
USFWS and CIty P&anmng Department.
20. Annual tunds (ora tBJa share) 10 be paid by ROOr lnto an assessment district set up by 20. Predator Manaaement Pf'OQram. . Is anticipated thai a Iong_ Refer 10 No. 3 above. Refer 10 No. 3 abow. Refer to No. 3 above.
the properly owner, City and USFWS should be destgnated for the purpose of trash control, teon Predator Management Program (PMp) for the NWR and
repair and maintenance of drainage factl'Un, fendng, the predator control program and adjoining areas of the Mldbayfront Uplands Will be established. The
mitigation programs for the project. This measure WOUld be terminated upon creation of a profect appUcanI will be reqUired to participate In the PMP on a pro
Larger Bayfront Resource Management Program, and Aohr would then pay a pto I8ta share rata (fair share) basis. Until the PMP Is Implemented, the project
Into that Program. applicant shall conduct a Project-speclflc predator management
program, which WOUld operate for the late March through rnkt-July
nesting season. This protect-spedflc program Will focus primarily on
the FIG street Marsh unll of the NWR Predalor management
acUons WItIlncIude regu&ar ~ng, trapping and removal c:A
mammauan predators as appropriate Qncludlng domestic, feral, and
wild mammals), as well as removal of selected 8V&an predators When
necessary. The contracte<l entity should report any _or
altractanls atfUlated wtlh the profed to alloW for proper corrective
measures. Of primary concern are food wastes, feeding of Wild and
domestle animals by employees, or _or utIUzaIlon 01 project
structures. In order to conduct this profed-apecmc predator
management program, the projed appllcanl _ contrad _ the
AnImal Damage Control (AOC) d_ 01 the U.5. Department 01
Agllcultun> or other qU8l1lled __ __ 10 the CIIy
Planning DeplU1ment and WWR tor these _or management
services.
21. Open garbage lXlflIlIlne<s should be _r1cle<l and .. dUInplIlen lTlUII be toIally 21. DurIng gf8dIng and consInJc:tlon, the SRM "'" VOf1Iy weeIdy thai During Grading and Construction SRM CIty PlannIng Depl.
enckJsed to avok1 altractlng avian and mammalian prectaton; and scaveogen to the area. the dumpsters on site are not overruled. Solid waste service must be
Garbage IhouId be hauted away as often as possible. lncteased If dumpsters approach an overfI.1ed cond1l6on.
Page 6 of 8
80-14MMP lU,A:XIl;Pf
~
C\
,
~
-
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
22. Bulldtngs shoukI utilIZe IlOfH'efIedtve glass and bokI archleclural Unes which are 22. The Planning Department wtI venty. pOor to the Issuance of the PI10r to Issuance al bulldlng pennN Planning ~ CIty PlannIng Oopl
readily obseMlI*t by blros. A film glass rnantftcItnd by 3M or a suttable substitute are bUilding perml1. and ogaln at the ttme al ftnat _. thai and aI ftnallnspecUon
recommended. No extraneous ledges upon which raploni could perch or nest can be mItlgallon measures pertinent &0 bWldlng matet1ala and design are
Inctuded on the western side of the proposed bUIlding. ledgeS facing the west shoUld not property Implemenled. Upon _Ion al the <teslgn _
exceed two Inches In width. Addtuonally, the root crests Wh6ch are exposed 10 the wetlands process. monltortng adMtIes assodated wtth this condition cease.
must be covered with an anU-percn matertal auch as NlxaIlte. A commitment to correct any
addltJona/ problem areas shoUld be oIlIalned oI1oold Mavy incidence 01 perching be
Observed on the buildings Of In landscaping malertaIs. OUtside Nghttng must be directed
IM8Y from marsh areas or reflecting faces of the western side of the proposed building.
Ughts should be limited 10 the minimum required for secul1ly on the western ~ of the
building.
CIrculation/Parking
23. Bay Bou&evard at .p Street/Lagoon Qftve: a new traffle signal shall be k1staJ1ed; atl 23. The appOcan1 Shall be requlred 10 reslrlpe all approaches and During ConstrucUon. prIOr to CIty Tretttc Engl.-r CIty Eng'-
approaches 10 the lntersecUon shall be restrIped to provkte exdusNe tel't turn kines. The left-turn klnes and InstaJllhe new tramc s6gnal pr10r to Issuance of a Issuance of occupancy permit Doportment
he8vy profeded demand for eastbound ktft tums will require future design to maxtmlZe the certlftcate of occupancy. The appttcant and RedeVelopment ~
amount of slorage ~th 10 be prO\/kled .. this Inlersecuon; the east and westbound may enter Into an agreemenllo guarantee Improvements.
approaches to this lnIersec110n shall be I9Strlped to _ twothroogh lanes on each
approach to addltton to the exclusive left tum lanes deSCribed above.
24. 1-5 northbound ramps 81 o~ Street: the westbound approach of "EO street at the 24. The applicant shall be required to contrlbUte funds towards 0eYeI0per oontrIt>UIton prtor to CIty Tretttc EngIM<< ClIy Eng-
northbound f..5 ramps shall be widened to pnMde a separate I1ght lum only lane to access Mure Improvemen1S based on the CIty Engineer's estimate. The Issuance 01 bUilding pennN Doportment
the northbound 1-5 onramp. applicant may enter Into an agreement: WIth 1he Redevefopment
Agency to guarantee contribution, or that: a mutually agreed upon
contf1bUtlon has been made 10ward the cost of construction of such
Improvements, pnor to lhe Issuance of a certlflcate of occupancy.
25. Broadway at "EO Street: an exclusive right tum only Lane from eastbound "EO Street to 25. The applicant shall be reqUtred to contribute funds towards 0eYeI0per c:on1I1bUIlon prtor to CIty Tretttc Engl.-r CIty Engl-
souIhbound Broadway shall be provided. This addlUonallane would facilitate smoother More knprOVements based on me- cny Engineer's estImate. The Issuance 01 _Ing pennN Doportment
bWftc flow from 1.5 and Cen1ra1 Chld8. vasta. applicant may emet' Into an agreement WIUl1he Redevelopment
Agency to guarantee contribulton, or that . mutually agreed upon
contribution has been made toward the cost of conaIructton of such
Improvements, prtor 10 the IssUance of a certlflcate of occupancy.
26. Bay BoukMu'd between of" and op Slrvets: this segment shall be designated for 26. The CIty Traffic engineer ahaII contlnue to monitor trame now on M deemed ne<:ess8lY by CIty CIty Tretttc EngIM<< CIty Eng-
Y8hk::fe and bike trafftc only and all on-stree1 parking shall be removec1. The cross-secllon an annual basis and me recommended MnproYemen1 shall be Tretttc Engl.-r ~
should provtde lor one lane of travet k1 each direction, . center rom lane, and . bike lane In lmpfem8nted at such time as deemed necessaIY by me cny TrattIc
each dlr8ctlon. Engineer.
ZT. .p St_/lagoon D<tve west 01 Bay _ 10 western edge 0( property: I..agoon 27. The appI6cant shall be required to construct roadway Prtor to IssUance of occupancy CIty Tretttc EngIM<< CIty Eng"-lng
Drtvo shalt be consIruded to majOr _ as IOCOO1ITIOf1ded by the CIty Engl.-r. knprovemenls, as roqUlled by the CIty Engl.-r. prtor to Issuance 01 pennN Doportment
CoosIet Plan. a certtfk:ale of occupancy. The applicant and RedeVelopment
Agency may en1er Into an agreement to guarantee Improvements.
Page 7 of 8
1ilC).14MMP04/'O/'i'
~
II)
i\
\
U"
"'"
Rohr Office Complex
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility for Verification
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Activity Timing Monitoring and Responsibility
Reporting
28. The appllcanl must __ the Clly's ......... by _ providing addnlonaJ permanent 28. The appItcanI shalt enler lnIo an agreemenl wtlh the Ctty of ~reement shall be executed pOOr PlannIng ~ MCC PlannIng IlopoIImoIO;
otrsIe parking; or by reduclng the me of the buikllng; or Umltlng the number of emptoyees Chula VIsta Of Ro<levetopmenl_ to pRl\Ikle _ _110 ond to IlIsuan<:e at """"Ing permlt MCC
conslst... wtIh.... atys ~ plIIIdng _ lllls Mmlt c:ouId be Increased n wtII tnctude . Ume schedule tor these provtsIona. In order 10
the proposed parfdng (730 spaces, or 760 spaces under .....ematlve 2) Is found 10 be determine . the paJ1dng Is adequate, the parking demand shall be
adequate, or . additional parking could be provkIed. In on:ter to determine if the parking Is monitored over a one year pet1O<I foIklwtng 90 percent to full
adequate, tne parking demand should be monIored over a one year pef10d following 90 OCCUpalion of the building.
percent 10 full OCCUpation of the bundlng.
Air Quality
29. Transportallon Control Measures (TCMS) such as rkIesharIng, vanpoollncentlves. 29. This mitigation measure is 8 Condition of Profed Approval. wtthln 45 days of OCCUpying CIty Planning Dept.; Rohr, MCC APeD
alternate transpooallon methods and transit utlllZaUon must be Incorporated Inlo the project. btltl<llng
A Tratfk: AbalemenI Plan or Emergency Epbode Plan must be prepared and submmed 10
the APeD for revtew and approval within approximately 45 days fOJlowtng occupancy.
30. OUst contro4 through regUlar watering and other fugitIVe dust abatemenl measures 30. The CIty may, M reasonably necessary, ond n not dUpllcaIJye at During Gracllng ond ConsIrucIJon Prlvale Man.or; CIty Englneertng; CIIy PIaI1nIng Depl
""lulred by .... APeD can __ .... emlsstons by 50-70 _. the monltortng authortty of the APeD. retain a consullanl to monnor MCC
dus!: control to vertty the ImpHKnentalIon ot thJs mItlgauon measure.
The moollor wtll report to the CIty Engineering Department on a
weekly basis during the grading and exterior construction phase.
(Due to the regional and staIeWkSe shortage of water, treated
dttnktng water shoUfd not be used for dust control. The protect
applicant Will use weier conservaUon measures as requ4red by the
SWeeIwaI:er Authority for dust control watering. OIher measures of
dust control may be used If approved by the APeD or the
Sweetwater Authority.) Monnorlng actlvttles assodaIed wnh this
mlllgallon measure cease upon the completion 0( gradtng acllvtttes
and approval ot the -as-bUlr Grading Plan.
~
,
0"-
-
Page 8 of 8
CJO.14MMPCU/OliVV1
RESOLUTION(tI35
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EIR-90-10 AND
ADDENDUM THERETO, ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS
AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION, ADOPTING MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM, ADOPTING FINDINGS
FOR A BUILDING HEIGHT AND SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE, ENTERING INTO A
PARKING AGREEMENT WITH ROHR INDUSTRIES,
AND FINDING ROHR INDUSTRIES' PROPOSAL TO
CONSTRUCT A 245,00 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
BUILDING AS APPROVED BY THE REDEVLOPMENT
AGENCY ON APRIL 23, 1991, IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM, AND APPROVING ISSUANCE
OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 52.
WHEREAS, the
(LCP) has been
Commission; and,
city of Chu1a vista Local Coastal Program
certified by the California Coastal
WHEREAS, said LCP includes Coastal Development
procedures determined by the Commission to be legally
adequate for the issuance of Coastal Development Permits and
the City of Chula vista has assumed permit authority of the
Chula vista Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing
conducted on January 23, 1991
procedures; and,
was duly noticed
in accordance with
and
said
WHEREAS, the city Council of the City of Chula vista
has reviewed and considered the information contained in
EIR-90-10 and Addendum thereto, the candidate CEQA findings
and statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation
monitoring and reporting program attached as Attachement I.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the city of Chu1a vista,
as "approving authority," has reviewed Rohr Industries'
proposal for the construction of a 245,000 square foot
office building at 850 Lagoon Drive as approved by the
Redevelopment Agency of the city of Chula vista on April 23,
1991, considered Rohr Industries' request for a 10 ft.
sideyard and 3 ft. 8 in. height variance, and reviewed the
proposed Parking Agreement attached as Attachment II; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of
the City of Chula vista:
1"/8;/
A. The city council of the City of Chula vista hereby
certifies that EIR-90-10 and Addendum thereto, CEQA findings
and statement of overriding consideration, and mitigation
monitoring and reporting program attached as Attachment I;
have been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
B. The City Council of the city of Chula vista hereby
adopts the following findings and grants a building and
sideyard setback variance:
Findings - sideyard Setback
a) In an effort to meet the goal to protect coastal
resources and to satisfy environmental concerns raised by
the u. S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, the applicant
placed the proposed building along the western edge of the
50 foot westerly side yard setback to form a buffer between
active uses east of the building and the wildlife preserve
on the west side. This placement limited the space for
arrangement of on-site parking and access. The proposed
variance will assist the applicant in complying with parking
and access requirements.
b) The site's westerly side yard setback, normally 20
feet, was required to be increased to 50 feet to provide an
adequate buffer for adjacent sensitive wetlands (FIG Street
Marsh) . This requirement reduces the on-site buildable
space and flexibility of site planning enjoyed by property
owners not located adjacent to wetlands.
c) The granting of a easterly side yard setback reduction,
of 10 feet will allow the applicant to recover 30% of the
land area lost to wetland buffer. The additional land will
be used to provide on-site parking.
Findings - Building Height
a) The applicant proposed an initial building design
consisting of a continuous top of building with an elevation
of 42 feet 3 inches, a height below the site's 44 ft
building limitation. In an effort to meet the Design Review
Committee's request to incorporate vertical architectural
features, the central glass core of the building was
elevated to 47 feet 8 inches, 3 feet 8 inches above the 44
foot building height limitation. The height variation,
though above the limitation, will enhance the design of the
building and aesthetic quality of the coastal area.
b) The proposed height variance allows the applicant to
provide an enhanced building design. No additional building
floor area will result from the allowance.
Iq8"'~
c) The added design enhancement will provide interesting
building silhouette from bay views at a minimum variance to
the LCP height limitation which will not reduce or adversely
affect coastal resources.
C. The city council of the City of Chula vista hereby
enters into a Parking Agreement with Rohr Industries, Inc.
attached as Attachment II; and,
D. The city Council of the City of Chula vista finds that
state and regional interpretive guidelines have been
reviewed and the proposed proj ect has been found to be in
conformance with the public access and public recreational
policies of Chapter 3 of the Public Resources Code.
Further, based on the following findings, Rohr Industries'
proposal to construct a 245,000 sq. ft. office building at
850 Lagoon Drive, as approved by the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Chula vista on April 23, 1991, is found to be
consistent with the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal
Program:
Findings - Coastal consistency
a) The project will provide the number of on-site and
adjacent vehicle parking spaces (through an agreement with
the City of Chula Vista) to meet the vehicle parking
requirements set forth in the certified LCP. The project is
a minimum of one-third of a mile from the Bay I s shoreline
and public coastal park land. with adequate off-street
vehicle parking provided by the development and the site's
substantial distance from the bay I s shoreline, no adverse
impact on public access to the coast line is expected to
occur.
b) The project is located adjacent to the FIG street
Marsh. However, a 50-foot setback has been maintained to
provide a buffer adj acent to the wetland boundary. In
addition, the building has been designed to be in itself a
barrier that will further buffer the wetlands from human
activities on the eastern portion of the site. In
accordance with EIR-90-10, mitigation measures will be
implemented to ensure that the building and associated
activities will not adversely effect the adjacent wetland
habitat.
c) Public improvements in accordance
LCP will be installed in conjunction
street improvements incorporated into
provide an incremental increase toward
coastal resources.
with the certified
with the project.
the project will
improved access to
d) The project site is designated for Industrial Business
Park land uses. Administrative offices and research design
ItJ f!; -- 3
activities related to the industrial land use adjacent to
the south are in conformance with the certified LCP land use
element. Findings in accordance with the LCP have been for
a 3 foot 8 inch building height variance for the central
building element and a 10 foot easterly side yard setback
variance. No adverse affect on coastal resources are
anticipated due to the variances.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
approves Coastal Development Permit No. 52.
j)h M~
Ch~ Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Booga
City Attorney
Presented by:
iZd f
(Rohrreso)
1'i6,1/
ATTACHMENT I a., b., c., & d.
Same as Attachment I a., b., c., and d.
to Agency Resolution to approve
OP/BF No. 03
I GJ 8 "'5
ATTACHMENT II
Recording Requested by:
CITY CLERK
When Recorded, Mail to:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
No transfer tax is due as this
is a conveyance to a public
agency of less than a fee
interest for which no cash
consideration has been paid or
received.
Declarant
Agreement Between the
City of Chula vista
and
Rohr Industries, Inc.
re
Potential Use Restriction on Office space
This Parking Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Chula
vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("city"), and Rohr
Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Rohr"), dated
April 15, 1991 for the purposes for reference only, and effective
as of the date last executed by the parties, is made with reference
to the following facts:
Whereas, the real property which is the subject matter of this
Agreement is commonly known as 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista,
California, and is legally described as set forth on Exhibit A,
incorporated herein by reference ("Property"); and,
Whereas, Rohr is the owner of the Property; and,
Whereas, Rohr proposes to improve the Property with a 245,000
square foot office building, parking lot, and miscellaneous collat-
eral improvements, all of which are more particularly identified in
the following zoning document on file in the Office of the City
Clerk: BF/OP (Bayfront/Owner Participation) No.3 ("Project"); and,
Whereas, the City's Municipal Code, Zoning Chapter, section
19.62 requires that a project of the size and scope of Rohr' s
proposed Project have 816 parking spaces; and,
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 1
,q/J.,fj
Whereas, the Project as proposed by Rohr permits only 760
parking spaces, so that the site is deficient in parking by 56
spaces ("Deficient Spaces") which, according to standard parking
space construction standards permitted by City, would require an
area of approximately 20,000 square feet ("Deficient Area"); and,
Whereas, San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDGE") is the
owner of a 15 acre parcel of property ("SDGE Parcel") the northerly
part of which is diagrammatically represented in the map attached
as Exhibit C, adjacent, in part, to Rohr's Property but consisting
of an area substantially greater than the Deficient Area; and,
Whereas, in February 21, 1981, Rohr has entered into a lease
agreement ("Parking Lease") with SDGE by which Rohr, their
employees, invited guests and visitors may occupy the SDGE Parcel
for the purpose ("Parking Purpose") of parking (and ingress and
egress thereto) their vehicles on the SDGE Parcel for so long as
they are visiting Rohr at the building on the subject Property;
and,
Whereas, said Parking Lease had a 5 year term prior to its
expiration and contains 4 five (5) year options to renew; and,
Whereas, the City is willing to permit the oversized Project
with the proposed parking on the terms and conditions herein
stated;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. Duty to Keep Lease Current and in Full Force and Effect.
Rohr shall keep the Parking Lease, or at least the northerly
most 20,000 square feet of the area which is the subj ect
matter of the Parking Lease ("Rohr Office Building Required
Spaces Portion"), current and in full force and effect.
2. Duty to Use Good Faith and Best Efforts to Renew Parking Lease
Upon Expiation.
Rohr shall use good faith and best efforts to renew, on terms
and conditions satisfactory to Rohr and SDGE, the Parking
Lease with SDGE, or at least the Rohr Office Building Required
Spaces Portion, at such time as it is scheduled for, or may
be, canceled or terminated.
3. Duty to Provide Alternate Parking satisfactory upon
Cancellation of Parking lease.
3.1. Alternate Parking Area.
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 2
/'18 --1-
As used herein, "Alternate Parking Area" shall be used to
define an area of equal or greater size to the Deficient
Area, designed and improved to permit parking spaces
equal to or greater than the Deficient spaces, in the
close or immediate vicinity to the Property.
3.2. Duty.
In the event that Rohr, despite the exercise of good
faith and best efforts, is unable to continue the right
to occupy the SDGE Parcel for the Parking Purpose, Rohr
shall use good faith and best efforts to obtain the right
to occupy for the Parking Purpose of an Alternate Parking
Area which has been submitted to, and has been approved
by, the City, by and through their city Manager, or his
or her designee. In the event that Rohr secures the
Alternate Parking Area, this agreement shall terminate
and be of no further force and effect.
3.2.1.
without limitation of the city's remedies,
upon the failure of Rohr to use good faith and
best efforts to obtained an approved Alternate
Parking Area shall be grounds for requiring,
after notice, Rohr to implement "Office Area
Use Reduction Duty", hereinbelow described.
4. Office Area Use Reduction Dutv.
4.1. Identify Specific Area within Building for Reduction of
Use.
The Area within the proposed building on the Property
which is the subject matter of this Section is shown on
Exhibit B ("Potential Reduction Area"), attached hereto.
4.2 Duty.
Rohr agrees, for its successors and assigns, including
leasees, that if the Parking Lease is no longer available
for the Parking Purpose for any reason whatsoever
regardless of fault, and, within 90 days after written
notice from the City to Rohr, Rohr has not provided an
Alternate Parking Area according to the terms of this
Agreement, Rohr shall, upon written demand by the City,
terminate any usage except pedestrian circulation,
storage, and retrieval and deposit therefrom, of the
Potential Reduction Area. (This Duty shall be herein
referred to as the "Office Area Use Reduction Duty.")
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 3
J",g
4.3. Record Agreement Giving Successor Lessees or Purchasers
or Lenders Notice of Potential Reduction of Use.
This Agreement shall be recorded upon execution of the
parties.
4.4 contain Provision in Subleases.
In the event that Rohr shall lease or sublease all or a
portion of the building which contains the Potential
Reduction Area, the lease or sublease shall contain a
provision notifying the prospective tenant that some or
all of the area of the lease is subject to termination on
exercise of the City's rights under this agreement.
4.5 Burden Touches and Concerns Land; Binding on Successors.
The burden of this covenant touches and concerns the
Property, and as such is binding upon the heirs,
successors, and assigns of Rohr as if they had entered
into this Agreement directly and enforceable by the City
as benefiting any and all land adjacent thereto, or in
the vicinity thereof owned by the City, including but not
limited to the public rights of way which both parties
acknowledge would be substantially impacted as a result
of the loss of the Deficient Spaces.
5. Miscellaneous.
5.1. Proof of Title.
Rohr shall provide proof, satisfactory to the City, that they
have fee simple absolute title to the Property; and that this
Agreement has been recorded prior to interest of any subsequent
purchaser, lessee, or lender except for the interest of a purchase
money lender but then not to the extent that it is in excess of the
purchase price of the land at the time of Rohr's purchase of the
fee interest.
5.2. Attorney Fees.
In the event that litigation is necessary to enforce any of
the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
5.3. Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the
contrary, in the event the City's Municipal Code is hereafter
amended or otherwise changed to permit less than or equal to 760
parking spaces for the Project, the Duties herein imposed on Rohr
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 4
J 'i~ - 9
shall be suspended during such time as said Code permits less than
or equal to 760 parking spaces.
Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood
the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their
consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the
date set forth adjacent thereto.
Dated: April 15, 1991
City of Chula vista
by:
Leonard Moore,
its Mayor Pro Tem
Attest:
Beverly Authelet
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Dated: April 15, 1991
Rohr Industries, Inc,
by:
Ronald M. Miller, Vice President
and Treasurer
by:
Richard w.
Secretary
Madsen, General Counsel
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 5
/9 /J .4/)
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit c:
rohr5.wp
April 15, 1991
Exhibits List
Legal Description of Rohr Property.
Floor Plan of Office Building, marked for Potential
Reduction Area.
Map showing SDGE Parcel.
Agreement re Rohr Parking
Page 6
I~ S ,1/
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
That portion of Quarter section 172 of RANCHO DE LA NACION, in
the City of Chu1a vista, County of San Diego, State of
california, according to Map thereof No. 166 filed in the Office
of the county Recorder of San Die'go County 1 being more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of said Quarter section 172 as
shown on Record of Survey 9039 on file in the Office of the
Recorder of said County~ thence along the Easterly boundary of
said Quarter section North 17046'57" West 332001 feet (Record
North 17047'11" West 332000 feet): thence leaving said Easterly
boundary along the Southerly boundary of said Record of Survey
9039 and its Easterly prolongation, South 72011'56" West (Record
South 72012'12" West) 170002 feet to the Southeasterly corner of
Record of Survey 9039 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this
description: thence continuing south 72011'56" West 1333.57 feet
(Record 1333.46 feet): thence continuing along the boundary of
said Record of survey North 66058'39" West 73.95 feet (Record
North 66058'55" West 73.94 feet): thence South 84048'01" West
339.66 feet (Record South 84047'56" West 339.69 feet); thence
North 38'00'20" West 328.14 feet (Record North 38000'25" west
328008 feet) ~ thence North 31019'51" West 217.16 feet (Record
North 31019'56" West 216.96 feet): thence North 72003'09" -E;:;.:;t
(Record North 72003'22" East) 703.95 feet~ thence North 17056'51"
West 299.96 feet (Record North 17'56'38" West 300.00 feet);
thence North 72'03'09" East 1182.28 feet (Record North 72'03'22"
East 1182005 feet)~ thence South 17'46'57" East 946.30 feet
(Record south 17'47'11" East 946.06 feet) to the 'i'RUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion lying Westerly of the Easterly
line of parcel lOE as shown on Record of Survey No. 11749,
recorded August 10, 1988, in the Office of the county Recorder of
San Diego County, and the Northerly prolongation of said
Easterly line.
1'8 '1 ~
EXHIBIT B
';;1
. ~'\: ....., :,;.......,-.
r
-- ----.- -
"
. .
/
. ,
--r-"
i 1....1
I
THIRD FLOOR
POTENTIAL REDUCTION AREA
~
I' ~ ... /3
, t
.', .
,.:,',' _.',', ....
..--;f?~::J.' .~",:~ ,'~::., .~:'~~
".".,0"..',.,,' .',:
_ ..' ..-,~~:~~~~j :~:::~~.r~'
fASHsil.Y~ 80UN'1lA -
I~
: ,;j~' :/~!)?!);!, '," ~
tfl)-ARlZOII". E,o;'SJERII, RAIL.....'.Y: -',
J'::.';
CIi" Q_.- SEe.
,- /'
'I.
. ""0.. .'" < . ._n
~'t~:\:~;}D~~~i;:~:~t\::~~~;~ '
':t"
\ .-
Om
..,.
/'
-'R.It. SPUR H'I/W
---.'~
:::c:.~'-:~Jo._'::""
I
'"
,"" -
.k,,'~ _
"'b:
'~^:"a~;tiTI" 6
, ;j
Relit n"';~(' rSIl p"lKlrl~'
EXI; ,~c ;i~'i'l
I
"0
. -.-to"'~
,- ",'-'-"'.;
----_. -
.):",~J!'..i!l9
",/", '<"~.-
flRI /'
'.V/., '
.:: >.,,~,'-;.".
=J'
,LlNU"
,...
..;..-
TVPlc";'l :138 t(v,"'to'~~10
WITH'li'~s'''$Q. CUAa01AlL
,,;~
'.....1,':-:.
Q..' SEC; 171
_.-. ..-
,
ROHR
, CORPORATION,
- ..._~-,-'-;..,. .--. _...".-,
-
~
~
,
.....
~
Qj
,'S"E'C"",:'
- . ....':..
. . e':"
\
. '., . '.~ -.:..:,,\;
,162:,
-.'..-.
"0'
"'0.
.----'--..
~ ~
:1..:
... :b....
~ , ~
'<1' .
O'"l C1
I'
It
(jJ
tL
w ~
~ I'"
._~_._--" ----------._~_. -- ---- ..~,~\
, " ~... ~--\~---v-~...~., .~"v~.. ,.~<<
la '.%:. - "".. \\:;:;:.~ ::~;'i'.v.-'~'._:>:. ,/
i1;;ck~.;.;..~_1.;.;~ ,. \:\'\~l' __ .~w..
. I
I
"
"
,UlI'DIHll-AND ARIZONA [ASHRR RAI~WH-
1- . "......<fOO'.Q..'.T,-....,..,.-..'.-.'.., G'! ." .~.
. EXISl'lf.lC",C1.01l LINE , ; __----, '\
t'" T~--' ''''"'I
~~ENDP'RO;E~TY' _I _ . ~ ..,o-~ i II
. I' I 'cC I
~-~. I .... --~
7";t,,!~,~, ~ i'~
~ . SDG&r;t CO.'
z ,> J
g = MO~lG?MEll:'1!'
. Z
.2 0
~U~;:I
U
~ ~
""." ......:
d.',"J;
.'0
::::j~
z 12'
'00
~Il~ ~
~ ~
cTlcT
- '--.-'"
,:~
-'--"-1 .-1
: - ir) ~
-
~=
Rohr Office Building Required Spaces Portion
EXHIBIT "e"
lEI
EXISTING 1t
~.~i~i":'t:~~~i;
'.^..;'~',I'i'I>'i'
!
.
~~:;" \'~
~'~i;
!~,
~"~""
\ Qt"':
:~~;. ,<,
'u~ .~;..l ~.y~
:. ~'~:&:~~;:~':
U... Z,,~l--.:
-,.(/)
WJ~'.:-
..J-<lll"::':'
WU <d.,;..
6aY:\1~
<<5".,:,:,1--'.,
""w:~,::n:;:):)
,tIlo 0:;,.-,:1:::,
'~<z:g)?~i~>
'WI( 0'1'1\\"
:8~ ;~t~%i~~
W', O,-:t\'i:i':'~
'0,:' a:";'.'~l:""'~'
. ,j.',,:, ~',
'z<
,<(
tIl
.'
','c
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 2D-
Meeting Date 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE:
Continued Public Hearing: Matters Related to Adoption of the City's
Growth Management Program
a) Ordinance 1. 4IY a Amending Title 19 of the Chula Vista
Zoning Code by Adding Chapter 19.09 for the Purpose of
Managing the City's Growth
b)
Resolution I (. I 0 I
Program
Adopting the Growth Management
c) Ordinance %4441 Adding Chapter 2.40 to the Chula
Vista Municipal Code Relating to Creation of the Growth
Management Oversight Commission
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ;1fft
.."!
REVIEWED BY: City Manager f-l (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.1U
i/
This report is in response to questions raised at the April 9, 1991, Council hearing on the
Growth Management Program and Ordinance. The continuan<:e of the public hearing was also
for the purpose of providing additional time for the public and the development community to
review the Implementation Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the
Negative Declaration issued on IS-9l-20.
2. Adopt the proposed Growth Management Program and Implementation Ordinance
(Attachment 2).
3. Adopt the attached ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to establish the Growth
Management Oversight Commission pursuant to the City Charter (Attachment 5).
4. Adopt the revised Threshold Standards for Schools and Water proposed in this report and
incorporate these revisions into the Growth Management Program and Implementation
Ordinance.
'1.0-1
Page 2, Item 2D
Meeting Date 4/23/91
5. Refer possible revisions to the Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard to the Parks and
Recreation Commission and staff for review and recommendation.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On January 31, 1991, the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) reviewed the
Growth Management Program and Implementation Ordinance and concurred with the staff
recommendations. On January 21 the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) reviewed the
program and on February 11, 1991, the RCC voted unanimously to support the Growth
Management Program and Implementation Ordinance with the following exceptions:
1. The threshold standards for Water, Schools, Air Quality and Economics should be made
more measurable.
2. That the City should send letters to the appropriate legislators to allow the City to
establish a specific measurable School threshold standard.
3. That specific standards be established for Civic Facilities and Corporation Yard within
the next six months.
The above RCC recommendations will be referred to the Growth Management Oversight
Committee for review and recommendation. The February 11, 1991, minutes of the RCC
meeting are attached per Council's request.
On February 13, 1991, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to support the staff
recommendation with one amendment to include life cycle cost analysis of public facilities.
DISCUSSION:
The questions and comments raised by Council members at the April 9 public hearing largely
centered on the Interim Phasing Policy and the adopted Threshold Standards.
Staff has grouped the Threshold Standard questions into two categories in this report, based upon
whether, in staffs opinion, the recommended action is simply a clarification or minor change
to the Standard, or would involve a substantive revision requiring further analysis.
2D-2.
Page 3, Item 2b
Meeting Date 4/23/91
A. Issues ReQuirine: Clarification
1. Interim Phasing Policy
Several questions were raised at the public hearing concerning the Interim Phasing
Policy (ref. pA-5 of Growth Management Program) and, therefore, there is a
need for some further clarification of the intent and consequences of the policy.
The reason the Interim Phasing Policy is recommended is that future tentative
subdivision maps plus those subdivision maps already approved but not built will
cumulatively exceed the Traffic Threshold Standard without the provision of new
roadway facilities called for by the General Plan in the SR 125 corridor. The
facility needed initially to provide relief for the eastern area is an interim facility.
The majority of future projects in the Eastern Territories will need the SR 125
facility.
Ultimately, SR 125 will be constructed as a ten-lane freeway with high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes extending from the Second Border Crossing to SR 54. The
interim facility may be a limited access (four or six lane) roadway from SR 54
to Telegraph Canyon Road or Orange Avenue because the initial demand may not
warrant full freeway status for the next 10 to 15 years.
A critical point that must be addressed in the SR 125 interim facility financing
plan is the portion of SR 125 between San Miguel Road and SR 54. This
segment is located in the County and will most likely remain in the County in the
future. Therefore, it will be necessary to work with the County to identify an
acceptable financing mechanism for this segment at the time of need.
One alternative to tying the interim phasing policy to tentative subdivisions is to
regulate future development at the building permit stage and allow tentative
subdivision maps to proceed through the approval stage.
However, the problem with approving additional tentative subdivision maps and
allowing projects to proceed with final subdivision map recordation and grading
permit approval is that the legal and financial commitments become locked in to
the point that the city has very little flexibility in stopping or delaying the project
once the building permit stage is reached. Normally, substantial financial
commitments are incurred on property being readied for construction following
tentative map approval. The City is normally requested to approve a development
agreement at this stage to satisfy lending agencies. The legal commitment of the
City is substantial once a tentative map and development agreement are approved.
'2.D -.3
Page 4, Item ~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
However, the development agreement is a negotiated document and the City has
the ability to include provisions in the agreement that will provide it as much
flexibility as it wants to regulate development past the tentative map stage. At
the same time, that additional flexibility could impact a developer's ability to gain
financing at that point in time. But that would be a discussion that would part of
the development agreement's negotiation.
Other service providers (school districts, water districts, etc.) may make
substantial financial commitments toward construction of new facilities following
tentative map approval. However, they would need to decide a prudent course
of action based on the content of the tentative map conditions and the
development agreement.
The SR 125 interim facility financing study will be completed by December 1991.
At that time, the interim phasing policy can be reviewed, and revised as
appropriate.
2. School Threshold
There were two questions and/or comments related to capital and operating
funding from the State and adult education facilities.
The first comment was made by Council related to the State criteria for
construction funding as well as State subventions for operating funding based
upon average daily attendance. The point is that the State will not provide funds
for new school construction until the student population is sufficient to require the
new school. At the local level, school districts cannot afford to operate a school
if the facility is only half full because the average daily attendance revenue would
only provide half the cost to operate the school.
The proposed Growth Management Program incorporates the City's existing
School Threshold Standard. The purpose of the standard is to ensure that the
districts have the necessary school sites and funds to meet the needs of students
in newly developing areas in a timely manner, and to prevent the negative
impacts of overcrowding of existing schools. This purpose statement is akin to
a goal statement. It should not be interpreted literally to mean that new schools
must be open for the initial school population generated by new development.
I).D-'f
Page 5, Item JJ:>
Meeting Date 4/23/91
With respect to Council's point that adult education needs should be addressed in
the School Threshold Standard, this is a worthwhile suggestion and should be
addressed intthe Sweetwater Union High School District's annual report to the
Growth Management Oversight Committee.
As for the RCC recommendation to send letters to our State legislators seeking
changes in State law to permit the City and School Districts to establish more
specific measurable standards for schools, Council may wish to refer this to staff
to coordinate the suggestion with the school districts and then staff will prepare
a letter for Council approval.
The following addition to the School Threshold Standard is recommended:
5. It is recognized that State funding formula for construction and
operation of new school facilities is based upon average daily
attendance and, therefore, this restricts the districts' ability to open
new schools until sufficient numbers of students are present to
generate State funds to construct and pay for school operating
costs. The school districts are encouraged to comment on status
of request for State funding of new school facilities, induding
consideration of criteria for State funding which give highest
priority to projects which alleviate existing school overcrowding.
6. The Sweetwater Union High School District should address adult
education facility needs in its annual report to the GMOC.
3. Periodic Update of the Develo..pment Forecast
Council requested that all references to the periodic updating of the Development
Forecast be changed to annual updates.
Staff has verified that the Growth Management Program document states that the
Development Forecasts will be updated annually (page 4-5, paragraph 3 of the
Growth Management Program). All references to "periodically updated" will be
changed to "updated annually."
4. Development Priority System
Council expressed a concern regarding how projects will be prioritized when
there are competing developments.
~o-s
Page 6, Item 2.D
Meeting Date 4/23/91
The Growth Management Program proposes a phased development program that
depends upon the logical extension of transportation facilities. It is not a first
come, first served program. There will be times when public facilities are not
available and the project proponent will elect to wait for public facilities to reach
the area. In these situations, it becomes a moot point as to which project is the
best and which project offers the most benefits to the City because the project
cannot be built without public facilities and services.
In those situations where two or more projects are competing for limited public
facility capacity, staff has recommended a Development Agreement prioritization
concept that would compare and rate the benefits of each project in terms of
needed housing types, quality of the project amenities, and public facility
financing guarantees. (See page 6-9 of Growth Management Program.)
5. Dual Piping in Water Threshold Standard
Council requested that a policy regarding dual piping for reclaimed water and
potable water be included in the Water Threshold Standard.
The Water Threshold Standard depends upon the respective water districts to
advise the city of their ability to accommodate forecasted growth each year. The
series of questions contained in the Water Threshold Standard should be expanded
to ask each district what projects they intend to carry out in the coming year that
could involve dual piping and other water reclamation projects. The amended
threshold standard would read:
f. Identification of future dual piping and other water reclamation
projects.
In addition to the above, the Growth Management Program contains a new
requirement for a Water Conservation Plan with each new SPA Plan and this
would also address a whole range of measures dealing with dual piping and water
reclamation. Together, these items should provide workable solutions to address
the concern.
6. Jobs Component in the Economics Threshold
Council expressed concern about the lack of a jobs component in the Economics
Threshold.
'],/)-fe1
Page 7, Item 2J>
Meeting Date 4/23/91
The "economic monitoring report" called for in the Economic Threshold Standard
will address employment levels at the regional and/or subregional level. Staff has
prepared an estimate of the commercial and industrial floor area expected to be
constructed in the city during the next 12 to 18 months. This estimate will be
used to prepare a new jobs forecast as part of our economic monitoring report to
the GMOC this year.
7. Finding No.1 of the Implementation Ordinance
Council expressed concern about the first finding in the Implementation
Ordinance which suggests that growth has resulted in shortages in public facilities
and improvements.
Staff had prepared an alternative finding on April 9 which read:
1. Adoption of this Chapter is necessary to ensure that adequate public
facilities and services are available to serve new development. Without
this chapter and the protection imposed by it, adequate public facilities and
services may not be available to serve new development. New
development without adequate public facilities and services is contrary to
the General Plan and to the public health, safety and general welfare.
In addition, the reference in the Traffic Section of the Growth
Management Program relating to the Adequacy Analysis on page 3-13 will
be updated in accordance with the latest information.
B. Issues Re!!arding: Substantive Revisions to Existin!! Thresholds
In addition to the comments and questions addressed above, Council requested response
to a number of comments regarding possible substantive revisions to the existing
threshold standards. It should be noted that the approach taken by the consultants and
City staff in development of the "Growth Management Program" was to use the existing
adopted threshold standards. City Council has established a process for annually
reviewing and revising these standards as part of the Growth Management Oversight
Committee's annual report process, and this approach is recommended to be continued.
The following are responses to each of the questions and comments raised in regard to
the thresholds, along with recommendations as to how they should be addressed.
20.1
Page 8, Item 1J)
Meeting Date 4/23/91
1. Parks and Recreation Threshold
Council requested that staff look at the possibility of crediting tot lots, swimming
pools, and other private recreational areas within private developments toward the
park acreage standard, or reduce the population residing in these complexes from
the total population to be served. Staff would recommend that this issue be
referred to the Parks and Recreation Department and Parks and Recreation
Commission for review in conj unction with a previous referral regarding the
Growth Management Oversight Committee's proposal to make the Parks and
Recreation Threshold standard of 3.0 acres of park land per 1,000 population
applicable to the area west of 1-805.
2. Library Threshold
Council indicated that the Library Threshold should be reviewed, in light of the
lead times which are required prior to construction of new facilities, both for
planning of facilities and in order to collect sufficient funding through the Public
Facilities DIP or other funding sources prior to construction. The Library
Threshold Standard currently contains an implementation measure which states
that "should the GMOC determine that the threshold standard is not being
satisfied, then the City Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the
library system into conformance. Construction or other actual solutions shall be
scheduled to commence within three years."
Council may wish to have staff re-evaluate this provision, in light of recent
experience, and request Growth Management Oversight Committee comments
regarding this issue during its next annual review.
3. Traffic Threshold
City Council asked for a status report on the evaluation of alternative methods of
determining "level of service" of roadways and intersections, as required in the
Traffic Threshold. The Traffic Threshold currently calls for the ICU (intersection
capacity utilization) method. During the Council Conference on the Second
Annual Growth Management Report, the Council directed staff to provide an
analysis of the HCM (Highway Capacity Manual) method, which could provide
a more accurate analysis of existing traffic flow conditions in certain
circumstances. The City subsequently retained IHK and Associates, a traffic
engineering consultant, to provide an analysis and comparison of the two
methods, and recommendations to the City regarding possible revisions to the
City's Traffic Threshold Standard. These recommendations will be presented to
2J>-~
Page 9, Item 2l:>
Meeting Date 4/23/91
the GMOC in May, and will be forwarded to Council in conjunction with the
GMOC annual report.
4. Police Threshold Standard
Council requested a review of the Police Threshold Standard. This standard was
originally intended to be set at the existing level of service as of the date of
adoption of the threshold standards in 1987. The reasoning at the time was that
based upon citizen surveys, there was a high degree of satisfaction with existing
police services. Therefore, the threshold standard was set at what the City staff
estimated the existing service level was at that time. Subsequently, improvements
were made to the monitoring system to gain a more precise measurement of the
existing police service level. At that point, the actual measurement of police
service was incorporated into the threshold standard policy by the City Council.
Subsequent annual reviews by the GMOC have indicated that the adopted standard
has been met, and the GMOC has not raised any concerns regarding the adequacy
of the adopted standard. If the Council wishes to direct any additional review or
re-evaluation of this standard, staff would recommend that such review be
conducted in conjunction with the next annual GMOC review.
5. Fire/Emer!;!ency Medical Service Threshold
Council requested consideration of amending the Fire/Emergency Medical Service
Standard to include private ambulance service. The current standard reads as
follows:
"Emergency response: properly equipped and staffed fire and medical
units shall respond to calls throughout the city within 7 minutes in 85 %
of the cases (measured annually)."
This standard has been used as the basis of evaluation by the GMOC during its
annual reviews, and compliance has been verified. Private ambulance service is
also provided within the City, primarily for non-emergency medical transport and
as backup to the City paramedic units. Evaluation of the adequacy of private
ambulance services within the City, and the impact of new development on these
services, would require separate analysis from that which was used in developing
the existing standard for fire/emergency medical service. If the Council wishes
to direct such an analysis, staff would recommend that such a review be
conducted in conjunction with the next annual GMOC review.
')1)-'
Page 10, Item j))
Meeting Date 4/23/91
6. Water. Air Ouality. School. and Economics Threshold Standards
The Council requested that staff provide additional responses regarding the
recommendations of the Resource Conservation Commission that the Water, Air
Quality, Schools, and Economics Thresholds be made more measurable.
a. Water - The GMOC made a similar recommendation regarding the need
for a more quantifiable Water Standard in its second annual report, but
felt that this matter should be further reviewed after the Inter-Agency
Water Task Force was established. Staff would recommend that this issue
be referred to the Inter-Agency Water Task Force for specific evaluation
and direction to staff regarding the development of such a standard.
b. Air Ouality - The SANDAG Regional Growth Management Board will be
considering adoption of regional standards and strategies regarding air
quality over the next three to four months. We would recommend that
staff return to Council with a report regarding these proposals, and means
by which the City can implement them through locally adopted standards
and policies, immediately following Regional Board action on the draft
proposals.
c. Schools - Possible revisions to the School Standard are discussed above.
In addition, City staff has been in contact with both school district staffs
regarding the "student generation" rates associated with various types of
residential and non-residential development. It is recommended that staff
continue to work with both districts in attempting to refine this
information, in order to improve forecasts and estimates of school facility
needs.
d. Economics - The City Council, at the recommendation of the Growth
Management Oversight Committee, revised the Economics Threshold in
1990, to include both a "fiscal impact" component and "economic
monitoring" component. Staff will be providing the GMOC with a report
during its current annual review which provides specific information in
response to the revised thresholds. Staff would recommend that, as part
of this review, GMOC be requested to provide recommendations as to any
further refinements in this standard.
20 -/0
Page 11, Item ')j)
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Summary
As noted earlier, the process of updating and refining the threshold standards is a continuous
one, and involves a variety of agencies, boards, and commissions, in addition to the Growth
Management Oversight Committee. Based on direction received from Council, staff will prepare
a specific work program to address those revisions and/or updates to the threshold standards
which Council considers to be of highest priority.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
(agstmt.gm)
21>-11 I J() '/1
THIS PAGE BLANK
2.D -/2..
2.0c:ll
ORDINANCE NO. ~~L/-4'i?
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 19
OF THE CHULA VISTA ZONING CODE BY ADDING
CHAPTER 19.09 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANAGING THE
CITY'S GROWTH.
The city Council of the city of Chula Vista, California does
ordain as follows:
section 1. This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the
Growth Management Ordinance of 1991.
section 2. Title 19 of the Chula vista Zoning Code is amended by
the addition of Chapter 19.09, which Chapter shall read as
follows.
"
sections:
19.09.010
19.09.020
19.09.030
19.09.040
19.09.050
19.09.060
19.09.070
19.09.080
19.09.090
19.09.100
19.09.110
10.09.120
19.09.130
19.09.140
19.09.150
Chapter 19.09
Growth Management
Purpose and Intent.
Definitions.
Growth Management Program.
Quality of Life Threshold Standards.
Requirement for Public Facilities Finance
Plans, Air Quality Improvement Plans and
Water Conservation Plans.
Public Facilities Finance Plan Contents.
Public Facilities Finance Plan Preparation.
Public Facilities Finance Plan Review.
Public Facility Finance Plan.
Implementation.
Public Facility Finance Plan Amendment.
Exceptions and Exclusions.
Extensions of Prior Approvals.
Obligation to Pay Fees or Install
Improvements Required by any other Law.
Implementing Guidelines.
Council Actions, Fees, Notice.
J..D,/.J
19.09.160
19.09.170
Severability.
Facility Master Plan Reference Documents
19.09.010
Purpose and Intent.
A. It is the policy of the city of Chula vista to:
1. Provide quality housing opportunities for
all economic sections of the community;
2. Provide a balanced community with adequate
commercial, industrial, recreational and open space areas to
support the residential areas of the City;
3. Provide EHSHre that public facilities,
services and improvements meeting City standards exist or become
available concurrent with the need created by new development;
4. Balance the housing needs of the region
against the public service needs of Chula vista residents and
available fiscal and environmental resources;
5. Provide Ensure that all development is
consistent with the Chula vista general plan;
6. Prevent growth unless adequate public
facilities and improvements are provided in a phased and logical
fashion as required by the general plan;
7. Control the timing and location of
development by tying the pace of development to the provision of
public facilities and improvements to conform to the city's
Threshold Standards and to meet the goals and objectives of the
Growth Management Program.
8. Provide EHsurc that the air quality of the
City of Chula vista improves from existing conditions.
9. Provide EnSHre that the City of Chula vista
conserve water so that an adequate supply be maintained to serve
the needs of current and future residents.
B. Findinas.
The city Council of the City of Chula vista hereby
finds:
1. The demand for facilities and improvements has
outpaced the supply resulting in shortages in public facilities
and improvements including but not limited to streets, schools,
gm04(1) .wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 2
:;'t; .IY
libraries and general governmental facilities. These shortages
are detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens of Chula vista.
2. Since 1986, the City of Chula vista has
been undertaking a comprehensive review of its General Plan. As
part of that review a consultant team prepared a comprehensive
report and recommendation to the City Council. That report was
subject to public hearings by both the Planning Commission and
City Council. Included were recommendations that no new
development should occur unless adequate public facilities are
available concurrently with need to serve the new development.
3. Prohibiting new development unless adequate
public facilities are available concurrently is consistent with
the City'S policy to provide housing opportunities for all
economic sectors of the community, because sufficient
opportunities for new housing continue to exist within the City
and this Chapter does not affect the number of houses which may
be built. In addition, development of housing for low and
moderate income persons and families would most likely occur in
areas of the City which are designated for highest development
priority.
4. Adoption of this Chapter will not adversely
affect the regional welfare. By orovidinq eRs~riR~ that adequate
and safe public facilities and improvements will exist to serve
all of the development in Chula vista and because many of these
facilities and improvements are used by persons residing in
neighboring areas and cities the safety and welfare of the whole
region is enhanced.
5. That the Growth Management Plan Traffic
Monitoring Report prepared in 1989 found that intersections
within areas in the developed portions of the city (as shown on
the figure contained in the Growth Management Program entitled
"potential development" prepared in 1990 for 1989 traffic counts
, denoting both areas of future development as well as existing
development), are operating in conformance with the adopted
Threshold Standards; and, that future large scale developments
planned for the area east of I-80S will require the provision of
major facilities including facility within the SR-125 corridor to
accommodate projected traffic and other needs of development in
accordance with the adopted Threshold Standards.
6. This chapter will further the policies,
goals and objectives set forth above, and will help eliminate the
public facility shortages identified above, by requiring
identification of all public facilities and improvements required
for development, by prohibiting development until adequate
grno4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 3
2-D-I$"
provisions for the public facilities and improvements are made
within the City, as herein provided and by giving development
priority to areas of the City where public facilities and
improvements are already in place.
19.09.020.
Definitions.
Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter
they shall have the meaning established by this section unless
from the context it is apparent that another meaning is intended:
A. "Available Facility and Service Capacity" shall be
determined by the Director of Planning using generally accepted
planning standards and criteria, including the Threshold
Standards established herein. Specific facility service capacity
shall be determined by subtracting from the total capacity for a
specific facility service, the demand of existing development
plus the demand that will be created by approved development.
B. "Development" means any land use, building or
other alteration of land and construction incident thereto.
C. "Discretionary planning approval" means any
permit, entitlement or approval issued under the authority of the
Zoning Chapter of the Chula vista Municipal Code, and any
legislative actions such as zone changes, general plan
amendments, sectional planning area plans or general development
plan approval or amendment.
D. "Facilities" means any schools, parks, corporation
yard or recreational areas or structures providing for fire,
library, traffic controls, streets and highways, including curbs
gutters and sidewalks, bridges, overcrossings, street
interchanges, flood control or storm drain facilities, sewer
facilities, water facilities, lighting facilities or other
governmental services, required to be identified in a public
facilities finance plan.
E. "Facility and Service Capacity" means the maximum
amount of development which could take place prior to increasing
the number or size of a Facility or the level of Service as
determined by applying the appropriate threshold standard.
F. "Growth Management Program" means a plan prepared
and approved according to section 19.09.030 which establishes
compliance with the Threshold Standards, as provided in section
19.09.040
"Project" means the activity for which either an
application for a sectional Planning Area Plan ("SPA") or a
Tentative Map has been or is required to be submitted and which
may be subject to discretionary approvals by the city.
gmo4(1) .wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 4
2o-lb
"Public Facilities Finance Plan" ("PFFP") means a
project specific public facilities finance plan prepared and
approved in accordance with section 19.09.050.
1. "Quality of Life Threshold Standards" means those
certain standards identified in Section 19.09.040 specifying the
facilities and services required to support the present and
future needs of the city.
J. "SPA Plan" means a sectional Planning Area Plan.
K. "Substantial compliance" means performance meeting
the intent of the parties with respect to the obligations imposed
pursuant to the PFFP.
19.09.030 Growth Manaqement Proqram.
A. To implement the City's General Plan and to
provide eHs~re that development does not occur unless facilities
and improvements are available to support that development, the
City Council shall adopt, by resolution, a Growth Management
Program. The program shall: Identify all facilities and
improvements necessary to accommodate land uses specified in the
General Plan and by the Zoning chapter of the Municipal Code"
specify size, capacity, service level and Threshold Standards for
each identified Facility; project total buildout development
levels and identify projected Facility and improvement needs;
provide a policy for timing the construction of each facility and
improvement; identify the financing method or methods for each
Facility and improvement.
B. The Growth Management Program will incorporate and
interpret the Threshold Standards as referenced in 19.09.040.
C. The Growth Management Program will incorporate the
Facility Master Plans for fire protection, schools, libraries,
parks, water, sewer, drainage, traffic, civic center, and
corporation yard. The Growth Management Program will also
address air quality and economic issues.
D. The Growth Management Program will incorporate a
defined public facilities development phasing policy. This
policy will inter-relate the timing, location, Facility capacity
limitations, and fiscal/economic considerations for each public
Facility and service identified in Section 19.09.040. This
phasing policy will insure that approved development has priority
to available public facility capacity and that developed areas of
the City have priority over undeveloped areas.
gmo4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 5
~()..11
E. The Growth Management Oversight commission should
annually review the Growth Management Program and prepare an
annual report and, upon doing so, shall submit such report to the
Planning commission and the City Council.
F. The City Council should annually review the
Growth Management Oversight commission annual report.
G. Amendments to the Growth Management Program may be
initiated by action of the Planning commission or City Council,
or upon request of an applicant. The City Council shall act on
the requested application.
19.09.040 Oualitv of Life Threshold Standards.
In order to provide eHSHFe that public facilities and
services, government and other utility services, and improvements
are adequate to meet present and future needs of the city, the
city Council hereby adopts Quality of Life Threshold Standards
for each Facility or improvement listed below.
A. Police.
1.
staffed police units
One" emergency calls
response time to all
minutes or less.
Emergency Response: Properly equipped and
shall respond to 84 percent of "Priority
within 7 minutes and maintain an average
"Priority One" emergency calls of 4.5
2. Respond to 62 percent of "Priority Two
Urgent" calls within 7 minutes and maintain an average response
time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7 minutes or less.
B. Fire and Emerqencv Medical.
1. Emergency response: Properly equipped and
staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout
the city within seven (7) minutes in 85 percent (current service
to be verified) of the cases (measured annually) .
C. Schools.
The city shall annually provide the two local school
districts with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and request
an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and
continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the
following:
1.
Amount of current capacity now used or
committed.
gm04(1) .wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 6
2..D-/f
2. Ability to absorb forecast growth in
affected facilities.
3. Evaluation of funding and site availability
for projected new facilities.
4. Other relevant information the District(s)
desire(s) to communicate to the City and
GMOC.
The growth forecast and school district response
letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its
review.
D. Libraries.
1. Population ratio: 500 square feet (gross) of
adequately equipped and staffed library facility per 1,000
population.
E. Parks and Recreation Areas.
1. population ratio:
neighborhood and community park land
per 1,000 residents.
Three (3) acres of
with appropriate facilities
F. Water.
Developer will request and deliver to the city a
service availability letter from the Water District for each
project.
G. Sewer.
1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed
city Engineering Standards as set forth in the Subdivision Manual
adopted by City council Resolution Number 11175 on 2/12/83 as may
be amended from time to time.
2. The city shall annually provide the San
Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority with a 12-18 month development
forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within
the city's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their
ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth, or the
City Engineering Department staff shall gather the necessary
data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include the
following:
gmo4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 7
20-/1
(A) Amount of current capacity now used or
committed.
(B) Ability of affected facilities to
absorb forecast growth.
(C) Evaluation of funding and site
availability for projected new facilities.
(0) other relevant information.
The growth forecast and Authority response letters
shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review.
H. Orainaqe.
1. storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed
City Engineering standards as set forth in the Subdivision Manual
adopted by city Council Resolution Number 11175 on 2/23/83 as may
be amended from time to time.
2. The GMOC shall annually review the
performance of the city's storm drain system to determine its
ability to meet the goals and objectives above.
1. Traffic.
1. City-wide: The Level of Service ("LOS")
at all intersections, city-wide, shall be "C" or better, with the
exception that LOS "0" may occur at signalized intersections for
a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. city-wide
no intersection shall operate at LOS "E" or "F" as measured for
the average weekday peak hour.
2. West of Interstate 805: Those signalized
intersections which do not meet Standard #1 above may continue to
operate at their 1987 Level of Service, but shall not worsen.
3. City-wide:
4. Notes to Traffic Standards:
(A)
average weekday peak hour,
circumstance variations.
LOS measurements shall be for the
excluding seasonal and special
(B) The measurement of LOS shall be by
the ICU (intersection Capacity Utilization) calculation utilizing
the city's published designs standards Policy adopted by City
Council Resolution Number 15349 on 10/17/89 as may be amended
from time to time.
gmo4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 8
~o-.2()
(C) The measurement of LOS at City
arterials and freeway ramps shall be a growth management
consideration in situations where proposed developments have a
significant impact at interchanges.
implemented
established
(D) Circulation improvements should be
prior to anticipated deterioration of LOS below
standards.
J.
Air Quality.
The City shall anually provide the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District with a 12 to 18 month development
forecast and request an evaluation of its impact on current and
future air quality management programs, along with recent air
quality data. The growth forecast and APCD response letters shall
be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review.
K. Economics.
The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report
prepared by staff which addresses the economic condition of the
City and its residents, including a 12 to 15 month development
forecast and an evaluation of its anticipated economic effects.
The report will include statistics and data relevant to the
economic well being of residents in general (e.g., income level,
average home price, etc.), the vitality of local business (e.g.,
number of business licenses, commercial vacancy and lease rates,
etc.), and significant fiscal changes over the past year. The
Committee will evaluate the apparent economic effects of local
development policy decisions and report any adverse impacts or
recommended policy adjustments.
L. Amendments and Supplemental Thresholds.
The standards may be amended from time to time on
approval of the City Council. The Growth Management Commission,
following its annual review of the program, may make suggestions
on proposed recommendations to the City Council. Further, City
council may supplement each Threshold Standards and adopt
procedures for its implementation through its Growth Management
Program and Facility Master Plans.
19.09.050 Requirement for Public Facilities Finance Plans.
Air Oualitv Improvement Plans. and Water Conservation Plans.
A.
Public Facility Financing Plans.
gmo4(1) .wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 9
~ /) - ~I
No application for a SPA Plan, or, if a SPA Plan is not
required, no application for a Tentative Map, shall be deemed
complete or accepted for review unless:
(1) It is accompanied by an PFFP which
has been approved by the city; or
(2) An PFFP which includes the Project has
already been initiated; or
(3) The applicant initiates the
preparation of an PFFP.
The PFFP may be waived by the City Council upon a showing that
there are no public service, facility or phasing needs warranting
the preparation of an PFFP.
B. Air Quality Improvement Plans.
No application for an SPA Plan, or, if an SPA Plan is
not required, no application for a Tentative Map, shall be deemed
complete or accepted for review unless:
1. It is accompanied by an Air Quality
Improvement Plan which has been approved by the
city; or
2. An Air Quality Improvement Plan which
includes the project has already been initiated;
or
3. The applicant initiates the preparation of
an Air Quality Improvement Plan in such form
and/or containing such information including maps,
drawings, diagrams, etc., as the City Planning
Director shall require.
C. Water Conservation Plans.
No application for an SPA Plan, or, if an SPA Plan is
not required, no application for a Tentative Map, shall be deemed
complete or accepted for review unless:
1. It is accompanied by a Water Conservation
Plan which has been approved by the city; or
2. An Water Conservation Plan which includes
the project has already been initiated; or
gmo4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 10
~O-22
3. The applicant initiates the preparation of
a Water Conservation Plan in such form and/or
containing such information including maps,
drawings, diagrams, etc., as the city Planning
Director shall require.
D. No SPA Plan, nor any Tentative Subdivision Map
shall be approved or deemed approved, without an approved PFFP,
an approved Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation
Plan. To provide ensure consistency and implementation of said
Plans, the City Council may impose any condition to the approval
of a SPA Plan or Tentative Subdivision Map necessary to implement
the PFFP, the Air Quality Improvement Plan, the Water
Conservation Plan, the Growth Management Program, or the Master
Facility Plans.
E. No final map shall be approved until all of the
conditions of the PFFP, the Water Conservation Plan or the Air
Quality Plan have been met, or the Project applicant has provided
adequate security to the city that said Plans will be
implemented.
F. No other discretionary planning approvals shall be
granted unless the city Council finds that the Project is
consistent with an approved PFFP, an Air Quality Improvement
Plan, and a Water Conservation Plan.
G. No building permit shall be issued unless the
permit is consistent with any applicable PFFP, the Air Quality
Improvement Plan and the Water Conservation Plan and all
applicable fees, including but not limited to, development impact
fees, traffic impact fees, drainage fees, school fees, park fees,
sewer fees, water fees, or other development fees adopted by the
city Council have first been paid or provision for their payment
has been made to the satisfaction of the city Council.
H. No development shall occur in a PFFP area if the
demand for any public facilities or improvements exceeds capacity
and it is not feasible to increase capacity prior to completion
of development unless means, schedule and financing for
increasing the capacity is established through the execution of a
binding Agreement providing for installation and maintenance of
such facilities or improvements in advance of City's phasing
schedule.
19.09.060 Public Facilities Finance Plan Contents.
A. A PFFP shall contain a complete description of the
proposed development project and a complete description of all
public facilities included within the boundaries of the Plan as
gmo4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 11
20-~
defined by the Director of Planning. The Plan shall contain a
description of the individual and cumulative impacts of the
proposed development on the community as it relates to the Growth
Management Program, the specific Facility Master Plans and the
Threshold Standards.
B. The PFFP shall consist of maps, graphs, tables,
and narrative text and shall be based upon the General Plan and
zoning applicable within the area of impact. The PFFP shall be
consistent with the Growth Management Program and Threshold
standards and shall implement the Growth Management Program
within the area.
C. The boundaries of the PFFP shall be established by
the city at the time a SPA Plan or Tentative Map is submitted by
the applicant. The boundaries shall be based upon the impact
created by the Project on existing and future need for
facilities. The project boundaries will correlate the proposed
development project with existing and future development proposed
for the area of impact to cnaurc provide for the economically
efficient and timely installation of both onsite and offsite
facilities and improvements required by the development. In
establishing the boundaries for the PFFP, the city shall be
guided by the following considerations:
1. Service areas or drainage or sewer basins
which serve the Project;
2. Extent to which facilities or improvements
are in place or available;
3. ownership of property;
4. Project impact on public facilities
relationships, especially the impact on the city's planned major
circulation network;
5. Special district service territories;
6. Approved fire, drainage, sewer, or other
facilities or improvement master plans.
D. The boundaries shall be established by resolution
after a public hearing notice of which is given pursuant to
section 19.12.070.
E. The PFFP shall show how and when the Facilities
and Services necessary to accommodate development within the area
will be installed or financed:
gmo4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 12
').0 - ;z 'I
1. Police
2. Fire/EMS
3. Schools
4. Libraries
5. Parks and Recreation
6. Water
7. Sewer
8. Drainage
9. Traffic
10. civic Facilities
11. corporation Yard
F. The PFFP shall include the following information
with regard to each facility and service listed in subsection E:
1. List of Facilities and Services
A list or schedule of facilities and service
requirements correlated to individual development projects within
the area.
2 . Inventorv
An inventory of present and future requirements
for each facility and service based upon the Threshold Standards.
The inventory shall include life cycle cost ("LCC") projections
for each element in 19.09.060(E) above as they pertain to city
fiscal responsibility. The LCC projections shall be for
estimated life cycle for each element analyzed. The model used
shall be able to identify and estimate initial and recurring life
cycle costs for the above elements. Because requirements for
certain facilities and services may overlap plan boundaries, the
plan shall address the need for coordination and shall propose a
coordination plan for facilities and services extending from one
project boundary area to another. Cost estimates for funding
public facilities and services directly related to the impact
created by the Project as well as for proposals for funding
existing deficiencies required by the project prior to the
phasing schedule set forth in the Growth Management Program shall
be included. It must be shown that development in the area will
not reduce the existing facilities or services capabilities
within the Project boundaries or create facilities or
improvements shortages in other areas or reduce capability in
any area below the Threshold Standard which is established
pursuant to section 19.09.040. The growth inducing impact of the
out of area improvements shall be assessed and mitigation
provided if appropriate to the satisfaction of the city council.
gmo4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 13
'}./)-2'S
3. Phasinq Schedule
A phasing schedule, which complies with the
adopted development phasing policy as set forth in the Growth
Management Program and the Threshold Standards which establishes
the timing for installation or provision for facilities and
services required by the project. The phasing schedule shall
ensure provide that development of one area will not utilize more
than the area's prorata share of facility or service capacity
within the projected service area of a facility unless sufficient
capacity is ensured for other areas at the time of development.
The phasing schedule shall include a schedule of development
within the area and a cash flow analysis for financing of
facilities and services for the PFFP area. The phasing schedule
shall identify periods where the demand for facilities and
improvements may exceed the capacity and provide a plan for
eliminating the shortfall. If a Project cannot demonstrate
consistency with the phasing schedule, the PFFP must demonstrate
to the city's satisfaction, how facilities required for the
Project in advance of the phasing schedule as set forth in the
Master Plan will be provided. If no Facility Master Plan or
Threshold Standards exists for a particular facility, the PFFP
for the project must demonstrate how that facility will be
provided and financed in a phased and timely manner.
4. Financinq Plan
A financing plan establishing specific methods of
funding each facility and service identified in the PFFP which
allocates the cost to the various properties within the plan
area. The plan shall identify those facilities and services
which would otherwise be provided as a requirement of processing
a development project (i.e. requirements imposed as a condition
of a development permit) or provided by the developer in order to
establish consistency with the General Plan, Growth Management
Program, Facility Master Plans or this section, and those
facilities and improvements for which new funding methods which
shall be sufficient to ensure that funds are available to
construct or provide facilities or services when required by the
phasing schedule for the Project. Where facilities or services
are required for property within the PFFP area, other than the
Project, the phasing plan shall identify those other properties
and the PFFP for each property shall be coordinated.
coordination, however, shall not require identical funding
methods.
G. The PFFP shall establish the proportionate share
of the cost of facilities and services identified in the Growth
Management Program and the Master Facilities Plans attributable
to the development of each property in the PFFP area.
gmo4(1) .wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 14
~.~
H. In the event that an applicant provides private
financing for public facilities or services to service a project
in advance of the normal time frame for constructing such
facilities, the approval of credits against any city fees for
such advanced private financing may be postponed until the
estimated time of such construction as specified in the specific
Facility Master Plan or the City's capital Improvement Program
budget. In lieu of a Facility Master Plan phasing schedule, such
determination shall be made by the City Council after reviewing
information from the Planning Director, City Engineer, Finance
Director, and Deputy city Manager. In no event shall a developer
receive interest on funds for providing public facilities or
services in advance of the City's schedule. The developer shall
also become responsible for the maintenance and operation costs
associated with the early construction of said facility. No
repayment will be made to the developer for the funds provided
for maintenance and operational costs. All repayments will be
considered in accordance with the City's projected construction
dates for said facilities.
I. Assessment districts requested by the developer
shall not be given credit for facility fees when a facility is
constructed above the standards established by the respective
facility master plan or standards imposed as conditions on the
approval of the project by the city Council.
J. A fiscal analysis/economic impact report shall be
provided identifying capital budget impacts on the City as well
as maintenance and operation costs for each proposed phase of
development. The report shall include an analysis of the Project
impact on school districts and water agencies as well as the life
cycle analysis set forth in Section F.2. Each year during the
development of the Project, the Director of Planning may require
the applicant to provide the city with an updated fiscal impact
report reflecting the actual revenue and expenditure impacts
based upon the development of the Project. The project shall be
conditioned to provide funding for periods where expenditures
exceed projected revenues.
K. Developer contributions shall not be required as a
source of funding for that proportion of the cost of any facility
or service that is needed to reach Threshold Standards due to the
demands created by existing development.
19.09.70 Public Facilities Finance Plan Preparation.
(A.) An PFFP, an Air
Water Conservation Plan may be
SPA Plan or Tentative Map.
Quality Improvement Plan, and a
processed concurrently with the
gmo4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 15
").1)-1. 7
with the
the time
B. A PFFP may be
Planning Director.
any application for
initiated by filing
The applicant shall
a PFFP is accepted.
an application
pay a deposit at
C. A PFFP for a project shall be prepared by the
city, or a consultant selected by the City, according to the
procedures established by this section.
D. The cost of PFFP preparation shall be advanced to
the city by the applicant and any participating owner or owners
prior to PFFP preparation.
19.09.080 Public Facilities Finance Plan Review.
A. PFFP's shall be reviewed according to the
following procedure:
1. A completed PFFP complying with this
chapter, and accompanied by a processing fee in an amount
established by City Council resolution, may be submitted to the
Planning Director for processing. If the Planning Director
determines that the plan complies with the provisions of this
Chapter, the Director shall accept the PFFP for review. Once the
PFFP has been reviewed and complies with the provisions of this
Chapter, it shall be set for public hearing before the Planning
commission together with the accompanying development plan.
2. The hearing shall be noticed according to
the provisions of section 19.12.070. A staff report containing
recommendation on the PFFP shall be prepared and furnished to the
public, the applicant, and the Planning commission prior to the
hearing.
3. The Planning commission shall hear and
consider the application and shall by resolution prepare
recommendations and findings for the City Council. The action of
the Commission shall be filed with the City Clerk, and a copy
shall be mailed to the applicant.
4. When the Planning commission action is
filed with the City Clerk, the Clerk shall set the matter for
public hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be
noticed according to the provisions of section 19.12.070.
5. The city Council shall hear the matter, and
after considering the findings and recommendations of the
Planning commission, may approve, conditionally approve, or deny
the plans. The City council may include in the resolution
adopting the PFFP any fees or facilities improvement requirements
gmo4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 16
~o-~
provided for in City ordinances in order to implement the Growth
Management Program, the Master Facility Plans and the PFFP.
B. A PFFP may be amended following the same
procedures for the original adoption.
19.09.090 Public Facilitv Finance Plan Implementation.
A. The city Manager shall monitor the development
activity for each PFFP and shall require the preparation of an
annual report by the applicant consisting of maps, graphs,
charts, tables and text and which includes a developmental
activity analysis, a facilities and improvements adequacy
analysis, a facility revenue/expenditure analysis and any
necessary amendments to the PFFP, if necessary.
B. In the event that the city council finds that the
Project is not in substantial compliance with the PFFP as
modified or amended, the developer shall be deemed to be in
default and no further building or development permits shall be
issued and development shall cease.
19.09.100 Public Facilitv Finance Plan Amendment.
A.
entitlement or
designation or
Adoption of a PFFP does not establish any
right to any particular general plan or zoning
any particular development proposal.
B. The city council shall annually review the PFFP
Report prepared by the applicant at the time it considers the
Growth Management Oversight commission Annual Report.
C. If, the city Manager determines that facilities or
improvements within a PFFP are inadequate to accommodate any
further development within that area the City Manager shall
immediately report the deficiency to the Council. If the city
council determines that such events or changed circumstances
adversely affects the health, safety or welfare of city, the City
may require the amendment, modification, suspension, or
termination (hereinafter "change") of an approved PFFP. If the
City requires such change, the City shall (i) give Notice to
applicant or owner of (a) City's intended action to change the
PFFP, and (b) the reasons and factual basis for city's
determination; (ii) give Notice to the applicant or owner at
least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing Date, of the time and
place of the hearing; and (iii) hold a city council hearing on
the determination, at which hearing the applicant or owner shall
have the right to present witnesses, reports, and oral and
written testimony. Prior to approving any change, the city shall
find that: (i) the circumstances were unknown or that the
gmo4 (1) . wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 17
2/)-2.f
circumstances have changed; and, (ii) the health, safety or
welfare of the community require the change of the PFFP. This
provision shall neither limit nor expand the rights of
liabilities of either of the Parties with respect to the PFFP or
the Development of the Property.
If, after notice and hearing, the Council determines
that a deficiency exists then no further building or development
permits shall be issued within the affected area, and development
shall cease until an amendment to the applicable PFFP which
mitigates the deficiency is approved by the City Council.
D. The city Council may initiate an amendment to any
PFFP at any time if in its discretion it determines that an
amendment is necessary to provide eRsure adequate facilities and
improvements and subsequent permits will be conditioned on
conformance.
19.09.110 Exceptions and Exclusions.
A. Buildinq Permits for Approved Proiects.
Building permits will be issued for Projects for which
all required development permits were issued or approved on or
before the effective date of the General Plan Update adopted
July 11, 1989, and upon payment of all required fees, except that
Projects with SPA Plans or Tentative Maps approved after July 11,
1989, and prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall not
be issued building permits until an Air Quality Improvement Plan
and a Water Conservation Plan has been approved by the City
Council. Nothing in this paragraph shall alter or amend the
terms and conditions of any Development Agreement entered into
between the City and a developer.
B. Developed Portions of City.
It is the policy of the City to encourage
development in areas where public facility thresholds are met
before allowing development in areas where facilities and
improvements are not assured to meet the needs of such
development. Accordingly, pursuant to the findings in
section 19.09.010 of this Ordinance, that adequate facilities
within the developed portions of the City as shown in the figure
of the Growth Management Program as referenced in 19.09.010 B5,
or their successor provisions, are operating in conformance with
adopted threshold standards, those portions of the city shall be
exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance requiring the
preparation of a PFFP, Air Quality Improvement Plan, or a Water
Conservation Plan.
gmo4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 18
~D.~
C. Exclusions.
Development projects which consist of facilities,
or structures constructed by a city, county, special district,
state, or federal government or any agency, department, or
subsidiary thereof for governmental purposes are excluded from
the provisions of this chapter. To the extent that the City has
authority to regulate such development projects, such projects
shall not be exempt. This exclusion shall not apply to
development projects to which a possessory interest tax would be
applicable.
19.09.120 Extensions of Prior Approvals.
After approval of an applicable PFFP for a development
project, an extension of the expiration date of a tentative
subdivision map may only be granted if the project is in
conformance with the PFFP and the Growth Management Program. The
extension may be conditioned on such matters as the city deems
just, including, but not limited to, compliance with the
applicable public facilities finance plan.
19.09.130 Obliaation to Pav Fees or Install Facilities
Reauired bv any other Law.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as relieving a
builder, developer or subdivider from any requirement to provide
public facilities, to dedicate property or to pay fees, which
requirement is imposed pursuant to this Code or pursuant to any
City Council policy.
19.09.140 Implementina Guidelines.
The City Council may adopt any guidelines it deems
necessary to implement this chapter, including a Growth
Management Program or Master Facility Plan.
19.09.150 Council Actions. Fees. Notice.
A. Whenever this chapter requires or permits an
action or decision of the City Council, that action or decision
shall be accomplished by resolution.
B. The City Council shall establish application and
processing fees for the submission and processing of public
facilities financing plans.
C. Whenever written notice is required to be given to
property owners under this section the notice shall be mailed by
gmo4(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 19
"0- 31
first class mail to the owners shown on the last equalized
assessment roll.
19.09.160 Severabilitv.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of the ordinance codified in this chapter is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance codified in
this chapter. The city Council declares that it would have
passed the ordinance codified in this chapter and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of
the fact that any part thereof be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
A. Police
19.09.170 Facilitv Master Plan Reference Documents
B. Fire/EMS
C. Schools
D. Water
E. Sewer
F. Libraries
G. Parks &
Recreation
H. Drainage
gmo4(1) .wp
April 18, 1991
"A master Plan for the Chula vista civic
Center Solving City Space Needs Through
Year 2010," dated May 8, 1989
"Fire station Master Plan," dated March
23, 1989
Sweetwater Union High School District -
Sweetwater Union High School District
Long Range Comprehensive Master Plan,"
dated November 1984
Sweetwater - "Sweetwater Authority Water
Master Plan," dated December, 1989
"City of Chula vista Wastewater Master
Plan," dated July 19, 1989
"Chula vista Public Library Master Plan.
Facility Planning to the Year 2010,"
dated April 30, 1987
There is no existing detailed master
plan. The Chula vista General Plan
Parks and Recreation Element dated July,
1990 serves as the parks master plan
"City of Chula vista Public Facilities
Plan Flood Control Summary Report, dated
March 1989 (Phase II)"
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 20
7-0- 32.
1. Traffic
"East Chula vista Transportation Phasing
Plan," approval date pending
J. Air Quality No local Master Plan exists for Air
Quality. The Air Pollution Control
District is updating the Air Quality
Maintenance Program to comply with the
California Clean Air Act."
section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on
the 30th day after the final adoption hereof by the City Council
on the affirmative vote of three of its members.
Presented by:
;:re;, as
Bruce M. Boo
City Attorn y
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning
gm04(1).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 21
~-J3 / ~t> -31
THIS PAGE BLANK
J.O . 3 t/
RESOLUTION NO. liD 10 L
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Element as adopted by the
Council on April 17, 1990 is Part I of an overall Growth
Management Program designed to implement a comprehensive public
facilities phasing and financing system that is tied to the
Threshold standards and Facility Master Plans including the
Transportation Phasing Plan recently completed by Engineeing; and
WHEREAS, Part II of this overall program is the Growth
Management Program and Implementation Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted
an Initial Study, Is-9l-20, of potential environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the project and concluded
that there would be no signifciant environmental impacts, and
recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-9l-20; and
WHEREAS, on January 31, 1991,
Oversight Committee reviewed the Growth
concurred with the staff recommendations;
the Growth
Management
and
Management
Program and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 1991 the Resource Conservation
Commission voted unanimously to support the Growth Management
Program with the following exceptions:
1. That the threshold standards for Water, School, Air
Quality and Economics should be made more measurable.
2. That the City should send letters to the appropriate
legislators to allow the city to establish a specific measurable
School threshold standard.
3. That specific standards be established for Civic
Facilities and Corporation Yard within the next six months; and
WHEREAS, on February
voted unanimously to support
amendment to include life
facilities.
13, 1991, the Planning Commission
the staff recommendation with one
cycle cost analysis of public
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby adopt the Growth Management
Program, on file in the office of the City Cler
Robert A. Leiter, Director~of Bru2ceDM_.~B~ooJ20aa
Planning
8723a
Attorney
Presented by
THIS PAGE BLANK
2{)-31o
ORDINANCE NO. ~tJ"7
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADDING CHAPTER 2.40 TO THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CREATION OF
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
Section 1. That Chapter 2.40 is added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to read as
follows:
Chapter 2.40
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
Section 2.40.010 Creation.
There is hereby created a Growth Management Oversight Commission (Commission).
Section 2.040.020 Purpose and Intent
It is the purpose and intent of the City Council in establishing the Commission is to
create an advisory body to provide an independent annual review of the effectiveness of
the General Plan regarding development issues. The Commission should use the
threshold criteria to make determinations regarding the impact of development on the
"quality of life" in Chula Vista, publish fmdings and make recommendations thereon.
Section 2.40.030 Functions and Duties
The functions and duties of the Commission shall be as follows:
A. Consider the quality of life threshold standards set forth in the Growth Management
Plan (and, when adopted, in the new Growth Management Ordinance) an and make
determinations, or recommendations, as appropriate, regarding the following:
1. Whether the thresholds have been complied with, on both a project and cumulative
basis;
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
13 31 ;i!O - 37 3/21191Page I
2. Whether each threshold is appropriate for its goal;
3. Whether any new threshold should be adopted for any issue;
4. Whether any new issues should added to, or deleted from the thresholds analysis
group;
5. Whether the City has been using fees and funds derived from developers for the
intended purpose;
6. Whether enforcement is being achieved.
B. Annually, on or before June 30, make and publish its findings and
recommendations, including those for imposition of a moratorium, or formal
"Statements of Concern" regarding water, sewer, schools, and air quality thresholds.
C. The Commission's annual report shall be forwarded for City Council in a timely
manner through the Planning Commission, and, as to those thresholds affecting the
Montgomery area, the Montgomery Planning Committee.
D. Annually review implementation of the Growth Management Element of the
General Plan and the Growth Management Program. Such review shall include the
adequacy of master facility plans to account for the effective use of public facilities
required by future growth in connection with the planning and phasing of development
projects.
Section 2.40.040 Membership.
A. Number of Members.
The Commission shall consist of nine (9) Voting Members, a Staff Ex-officio
Member and up to three (3) General Ex- officio Members.
B. Designation of Members.
1. Voting Members.
The Voting Members shall be appointed by the City Council from the qualified
electors of the City, one (1) each of whom shall be appointed from a classification
consisting of residents of the four residential general plan areas (Central City,
Montgomery/Otay, Sweetwater/Bonita, and the Eastern Territories) and who shall, at
the time of their appointment reside in their respective area; one (1) each representing,
respectively, local educational, development, environmental, and business interests and
who shall, throughout their term, maintain their residency and elector status; and one
(1) of whom shall be a member of the Planning Commission.
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
3/21/91Page 2
" 3- 3~ ,2b-!J
2. Staff Ex-officio Member.
The City Manager or his/her designate representative shall be an ex-officio
member of the commission, who shall not be required to be a qualified elector of the
City, but who shall have no vote ("Staff Ex-officio Member").
3. General Ex-Officio Members.
The City Council, or its designee, may appoint not greater than three (3)
additional ex-officio members of the Commission, who shall not be required to be
qualified elector(s) of the City, but any such appointed ex-officio members shall have
no vote ("General Ex-Officio Member").
Section 2.30.050 Term of Office.
A. Term of Office--All Classes of Members.
1. Post-Initial Terms.
Except as otherwise provided in this Subsection A, the term of office of all
members, and all classes of members, of said Commission shall be for a nominal
period of four (4) years, and shall terminate on June 30th of the fourth year of their
term, unless they shall otherwise sooner resign, die, become disqualified or
incompetent to hold Office.
2. Initial Terms of Voting Members.
Notwithstanding subsection A.l., the Initial Terms shall commence upon
appointment and shall conclude, for two (2) Voting Members on June 30, 1992; for
two (2) Voting Members on June 30, 1993; for two (2) Voting Member members on
June 30, 1994; and for two (2) Voting Members on June 30, 1995, unless they shall
otherwise sooner resign, die, become disqualified or incompetent to hold Office. The
Planning Commission position shall have no set term; the Planning Commission has the
discretion to change its representative annually, except that no individual member may
serve more than four (4) consecutive years.
a. Assignment to Initial Terms by Lot.
I~
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
3/21191Page 3
33
,20- 31
Voting Members shall be assigned to Initial Terms by lot at the first
regular meeting at which all Voting Members are present, but in any event not later
than the third month after initial appointment of the 9th Voting Member.
3. General Ex-officio Member.
The term of General Ex-officio members shall be for a period of four years
from the time of appointment.
4. Staff Ex-officio Member.
The term of the Staff Ex-officio Member shall be indefinite.
5. Holdover Office.
Notwithstanding the end of any Member's Initial Term or Post-initial Term as
herein provided, a Member, other than the Staff Ex-officio Member, shall be permitted
to continue to exercise the privileges of his former Office after the end of his term until
the Office to which he was assigned is fIlled by his re-appointment or by the
appointment of a qualified successor to his Office.
6. Vacancies.
Notwithstanding the term of Office to which a Member is assigned, said Office
shall be deemed vacant upon any of the following events ("Event of Vacancy"):
a. The death or disability of said Member that renders said Member
incapable of performing the duties of his Office.
b. The termination of his status as Member of the Commission or the
classification he was assigned to represent on the Commission.
c. The member's conviction of a felony or crime involving moral
turpitude.
d. The member's absence from three (3) regular, consecutive meetings
of the Commission, unless excused by majority vote of such board or commission
expressed in its official minutes.
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
13 - ~ tf ~O -tftJ 3/21191Page 4
e. The member's has submitted his resignation which resignation has
been accepted by the City Council.
f. The membership has been terminated by a majority vote of the City
Council.
Upon the occurrence of an Event of Vacancy as hereinabove listed, the City Council
shall so declare the Office to be vacant, and shall expeditiously take such steps as are
necessary to fill said vacancy.
B. Number of Terms.
1. Voting Members.
a. No Voting Member shall be appointed to more than two (2) terms
except as herein provided.
b. A Voting Member assigned to an Initial Term of less than two (2)
years may be appointed at the natural expiration of their Initial Term to two (2) terms
in addition to their Initial Term. A Voting Member who currently occupies an Office
under an Initial Term may not be appointed to fill the Unexpired Term of another
Office which has become vacant.
c. A Voting Member appointed to the Commission to fIll the unexpired
term of an Office of a Voting Member which has become vacant ("Unexpired Term")
which has less than two (2) years remaining on said Unexpired Term, may be
appointed to two (2) terms in addition to their Unexpired Term. A Voting Member
who currently occupies an Office may not be re- appointed to fill the Unexpired Term
of another Office which has become vacant.
d. Any member may be re-appointed after two (2) successive years of
not serving on the Commission in any Office or Membership capacity--Voting, General
Ex-officio or Staff Ex-officio.
2.General Ex-officio Members.
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
-1''3 - ~ .20 - 'II 3/21191Page 5
A. General Ex-()fficio member may be reappointed without limitation as to
number of terms.
3. Staff Ex-()fficio Member.
The Staff Ex-()fficio member shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council.
Section 2.40.060 Operation of Commission.
A. Time of Meetings.
1. "Organizational Meeting". Among such other meetings as the Commission
may desire to have, the Commission shall meet not later than in the first week of
January each year ("Organizational Meeting"), and thereupon shall do the following:
a. Select a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson from among its Voting
Members to serve for a period of one (1) year.
b. Assign such duties to its members as it determines may be necessary.
c. Deliberate upon agenda issues for further deliberation and discussion
by the Commission.
2. Other Meetings. The Commission shall meet at such other times as it shall
establish by majority vote, or at such time as the Chairperson thereof may call, or at
such times as a majority of the members thereof may call a meeting.
B. Place of Meetings.
Unless the Commission shall otherwise establish another regular place for its
meetings and advise the City Clerk accordingly, the Commission shall meet in the
Council Conference Room in the Administrative Building at the City Hall Complex
located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, or at such other place as may be posted
upon the door of said Conference Room at least thirty (30) minutes in advance of the
Meeting.
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
_~ ,2/)-'12. 312119lPage 6
C. Conduct of Meetings.
The meetings of the Commission, and notice thereof, shall be governed by the
same rules and regulations by which the City Council is bound in the conduct of public
meetings.
D. Quorum.
Five Voting Members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
E. Resolutions.
The affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership shall be required
for the pa~Sllge of any resolution of the Commission.
F. Reports and Recommendations.
All reports and recommendations shall be made in writing.
G. Staff Support.
All officers and department heads shall cooperate with and render reasonable
assistance to the Commission. The City Manager may make available staff and clerical
support to the Commission to fulfill its functions and duties, provided such staff and
clerical support is available.
H. Rules and Regulations.
The Commission may make such rules and regulations not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Chapter.
Section 2: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from
and after its adoption.
Approved as to form by:
Presented by:
tLt1t.4rP
Bruce M. Boogaard,
City Attorney
Robert A. Leiter
t3 - :) -") 2D.~.3
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
312119lPage 7
THIS PAGE BLANK
ZO .. (1'1
\
\
#tJ:>
J
,
ATTACHMENT 1
~D -'15
-. ~
Attachment 1
Responses to Comments Regarding
the Draft Growth Management Program
. . and Preliminary Transportation Phasing Plan Report
The following comments address each response submitted to the City as requested at
the City Council\Planning Commission Workshop on August 30, 1990. Where changes
will be made to either report, as a result of the specific comment received, it is
indicated in the response.
Each response or letter received is attached. In the left hand margin of the attached
comments is a number which corresponds to the response provided below.
Sun bow
Transportation Phasing Plan - Preliminary Report
1. Calibration - A cordon line analysis was conducted. The model predicted
146,000 trips on the City's streets east of 1-805 and 142,000 were measures in
1990. This represents a 3 percent variation which is well within acceptable
limits. (See Appendix B of the report for further details)
The calibration process was reviewed and discussed with a technical group of
traffic engineers (your traffic engineering consultant included) as it was being
done. This group reviewed the process and the specific data generated from the
various calibration model runs. The re-calibration of the transportation model
was completed with a high degree of accuracy. There is no need to do further
analysis.
2. Roadway Performance System Testing - The information requested here was
provided to your traffic engineering consultant as previously requested during
a technical traffic consultants meeting. This information will be documented
in the technical appendix to the final report.
3. Approved Projects Test - There is a comment that incorrect network
assumptions were made along Telegraph Canyon Road between 1-805 and Crest
Drive/Oleander Avenue. WiIldan Associates at the direction of City staff, has
reviewed these network loading assumptions. The model has been manually
adjusted to reflect the new network assumptions.
1
,;)IJ-l/Ip
A more detailed analysis was conducted at the Telegraph Canyon Road\Crest
Drive\Oleander Avenue intersection with approved projects and Rancho Del
Rey SPA ill conditions. This analysis incorporated observed interaction
between commercial land uses on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road
and observed intersection operations. Although the traffic volumes are reduced,
there is still a projected problem at this location.
Technical data being prepared for Rancho Del Rey SPA II shows that with
mitigation this problem can be corrected. A similar analysis at H Street as
suggested would not change the traffic volume information.
The comment regarding the use of enhancements at key intersections was to
indicate that the Circulation Element provides a different level of analysis and
that the volumes shown in the Element to determine level of service can not be
directly transferred to the analysis contained in the T.P.P. It is anticipated that
special enhancements to intersections may be considered as part of the
Sectional Planning Area Plan review.
4. Developer Phasing Year 1994 and 1995 Test - The data requested will be
incorporated into the technical appendix of the final report. This information
was reviewed and discussed during the technical traffic consultant meetings.
5. Additional Transportation Analysis - It is recommended in your comments that
additional testing be undertaken regarding the maximum development which
can be permitted without State Route 125 and the maximum development that
could be permitted with an interim facility. The report indicates that the
approved final and tentative subdivision maps will utilize the remaining and
programmed roadway capacity. Additional approvals can not be made until a
guaranteed finance plan and facility improvement in the State Route 125
corridor has been approved by the City Council.
It is recommended that a specific study be undertaken to determine what
facility improvements will be required. The study will also review the available
finance alternatives and recommend that the City Council approve a proposed
plan to guarantee funding and the construction of this facility. Once this study
and finance plan is approved which guarantees the facility improvement,
additional transportation testing can be done to determine what development
can proceed prior to the physical construction of the identified facility
improvement in the State Route 125 corridor.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations - noted.
2
.)0...'19-
. .
Draft Growth Manaiement Prowam.' - :.. . ." .
1. Existing Circulation. ~ 'correction noted and changes will be made in the final
report.
2. Future Circulation - correction noted and changes will be made in the final
report.
3. As discussed previously there was a loading assumption question not a modeling
error.
4. Same comment as #3.
5. Summary and Recommendations - comment noted.
6. There was an additional comment regarding the Second Annual Growth
Management Oversight Committee Report which was referred to the Public
Works Department.
The Buie Corporation
~
Development Phasing Forecast clarification - The Development Phasing Forecast is
a prediction of how development is likely to proceed in the next 5 to 7 years. The
forecast will be updated annually as additional information is available. The forecast
will also be used as stated on page 117, item 4 of the Draft Program, that is it shall be
used as baseline information in the evaluation of new development proposals, to
evaluate cumulative impact on public facilities.
At the present time there is a limitation on development based upon available facility
capacity. As additional studies are undertaken and completed, there may be
refinements proposed to the interim Phasing Policy.
Rancho Del Rey
Draft Growth Management Program
I. Financing is guaranteed when an irrevocable agreement is approved by the City
Council which provides the funding necessary to make the identified
improvements in the State Route 125 corridor.
3
;J() - 'I '8
The selection of this facility as a private\pubIic toll facility by the State does1lQ1
guarantee the facility can be built or financed. California Transportation
Ventures (CfY) is in the process of negotiating a franchise agreement with
CALTRANS at this time. As Bruce Podwal, President of crv; indicated at our
meeting on October 1, 1990, the first stage of their overall approach is the
completion of the federal environmental review requirements. This is
anticipated to be completed by November 1992. If the environmental
documents and route alignment are approved, cry will then be in a position
to secure financing for this facility. At the present, there is no financial
guarantee to fund an improvement in the State Route 125 corridor.
The formation of a financing district may be one alternative to guaranteeing the
financing for this facility.
The allocation of funds by itself in the State Transportation Improvement Plan
is not a financial guarantee. This designation does not guarantee that the
monies will be available when needed to finance the construction of this
improvement.
2. Based upon the City's experience with Development Agreements, they are
generally entered into after the conditions of approval for the tentative map
have been determined. This reference in the Growth Management Program is
not intended to serve as a City Council policy, but it is provided as general
information.
3. An additional footnote will be added in the final report to indicate remaining
units as of January 1, 1990. This figure was not intended to show the total
number of units approved.
4. The exact procedure to be followed has not been specifically defined at this
time. City staff will be formalizing this process as part of the implementation
of the Growth Management Program. In the meantime, should a threshold
violation be noted it would be brought to the attention of the GMOC and then
reported to the City Council with a specific action recommended. City staff
would determine the causal relationship. If a developer felt the determination
was in error, an appeal could be made to the City Council.
5. The difference has to due with the Growth Management Program showing the
buildout nenvork and the Transportation Phasing Plan preliminary report
showing the roadway network prior to buildout.
4
,;)0 - '19
6. These questions can .not be answered at this time nor would the answers affect
the draft Growth Management Program or Preliminary TPP. These questions
will be conSIdered and answer as part of the specific State Route 125 study.
7. Fire stations - correction noted and it will be reflected in the final report.
8. The H Street park site has a fire station and library site located on it. This site
is no longer of sufficient size and the Park and Recreation Department has
removed it from the list.
9. This item is being reviewed by the Park and Recreation Department. If
determined appropriate, it will be changed in the final report.
10. See comment #8 and #9.
11. It is not foreseeable that the situation described in your response would actually
occur. However, the intent of this is to ensure that new development pays for
those facilities its project demands require.
12. Comments have been noted regarding why Rancho Del Rey SPA ill should be
shown as an exempt project. As indicated in the draft Growth Management
Program, if RDR SPA III can demonstrate how the traffic threshold standard
can be met then it would be allowed to proceed so long as all other conditions
are met. Staff has requested that specific information be provided to the City
regarding the assessment district and Community Facilities District financing
assumptions.
13. Same comment as 12.
14. This is a guideline to be considered when determining maximum debt. It is not
a policy.
15. The reference on page 131, item b, means each project must provide facilities
concurrent with the specific impacts of the project. If a facility has existing
capacity, the first project can not use up this capacity without providing for
added capacity in the future. The exact wording will be modified (shown with
underlining) as follows, "The phasing schedule shall ensure that development
of one area will not utilize more than the area's prorata share of the facility or
improvement capacity within the proiected service area of the proposed facility
unless sufficient capacity is ensured for other areas at the time of first
5
~() ,Sf.)
development." This is intended to overcome the first come first serve approach
to available facility capacity.
16. The cashflow requirement is not intended to be provided for internal
improvements, but will be required to be provided for facilities where public
funding is anticipated such as from a fee program or assessment district.
17. The facility listing will be provided as part of the Sectional Planning Area Plan
process. These facilities will be correlated with the projected phasing of
development from the SPA Plan.
Transportation Phasing Plan - Preliminary Report
1. The three points contained in the response were reviewed and noted.
San Mi~el Partners
1. The proposed language change regarding the interim policies contained in the
letter dated October 2, 1990 was reviewed. The reference to a 12 month time
frame is being considered for inclusion into the final language of the interim
policy. The suggestion to allow certain projects to move forward with tentative
maps before the financing of an improvement in the State Route 125 corridor
is approved by the City Council is not consistent with the overall Growth
Management Program which requires that facility capacity be guaranteed as
part of the Sectional Planning Area Plan process.
2. The use of Development Impact Fees for Streets to finance an State Route 125
corridor improvement will not provide sufficient funds when they are needed
for this improvement; Although fees are being and have been collected, they
have been used to finance other DIF Streets.
3. Adding language, as proposed on Exhibit A to your letter, which would allow
certain projects to move forward to tentative map prior to the financial
guarantee for an improvement in the State Route 125 corridor being approved
by the City Council, is counter productive. The projects which would be
exempted create facility impacts which would not be adequately addressed.
Following the approval of a finance plan and construction schedule, it would be
acceptable to determine what projects could receive tentative map approvals
and could build a certain portion of their development project prior to the
6
:J~ ,.51
physical opening of the:facility in the State Route 125 corridor provided level
of service standards are met.
4. The entire General Plan Area was included in the study including the roadway
network used in conjunction with the SANDAG 1995 data for those areas
outside of the planning area.
5. There are projected facility capacity problems which are not addressed in your
suggestion. The exemptions suggested impact facilities where capacity has been
identified as being insufficient.
6. The primary goal is not to identify the financial planning for an improvement
in the State Route 125 corridor, but to have the City Council approve a finance
program which guarantees funding.
The Baldwin Comnany
1. The initial point made in your letter is that tentative maps do not buildout in
the order in which they are approved. Although this may be correct, it has little
bearing on the conclusions contained in the draft Growth Management
Program. The Growth Management Program analyzed the cumulative impacts
from those projects which have received discretionary approvals in the form of
final or tentative maps. These impacts where compared with the existing and
programmed capacity for each facility to determine adequacy. This analysis
indicated a projected shortfall of Traffic capacity. It is the intention of the
interim phasing policy to ensure that no additional tentative maps be approved
until such time as additional roadway capacity can be financially guaranteed
within the State Route 125 corridor.
Once this finance plan has been approved by the City Council, the City will
consider increasing circulation capacity to allow certain developments to occur
prior to the physical opening of a transportation improvement along the State
. Route 125 corridor provided level of service standards are met.
2. Stopping the processing of tentative maps does not reduce the ability of the
development community and City from working toward facility solutions as
indicated in your letter. It does ensure that additional development approvals
(tentative and final maps) will not be made until the planning for additional
facilities is complete. The implementation process contained in the draft
Growth Management Program ensures that the necessary planning is done and
7
:l () ....S~
opportunities for creative facility solutions are developed. The processing of
General Development Plans and Sectional Planning Area Plans are not effected
by the interim phasing policy.
This process allows for the planning of development and corresponding facility
improvements to take place. This is where the phasing of development is
projected and compliance with the City's Threshold Ordinance for Public
Facilities is demonstrated. Then at the tentative map stage, these solutions can
be agreed to and conditions incorporated into the approval of the tentative map
to ensure that these facilities are provided as required. When the fmal map is
approved, these conditions will be implemented and building permits can be
issued so long as the thresholds for all facilities are maintained.
The processing of a tentative map could proceed quicker than the 18 months
to two years as described in your letter.
3. The interim phasing policy will not have an effect the availability of new
housing in ChuIa Vista. There are approximately 8,000 approved dwelling units
which can be built under the interim phasing policy.
4. California Transportation Ventures (CTV) has been awarded a public/private
partnership to build a toll facility within State Route 125. It is our
understanding as indicated by Bruce Podwal, President of crv, they are just
now finalizing the franchise agreement which will allow them to move forward
with the environmental review process necessary to adopt a specific alignment
for State Route 125. It is their optimistic estimate that the environmental
documents could be completed and approved as soon as November of 1992. At
that time crv will then attempt to secure the final financing for the interim
facility. The financing for this facility has not been guaranteed and based on
our meeting with crv will not be secured until sometime after the
environmental documents are approved.
5. . The suggestion to change the language III the Eastern Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan to allow tentative maps to be approved and
building permits conditioned to comply with the threshold standard is not
consistent with the Growth Management Program. This process would allow
projects to be approved that would not be providing the facilities necessary to
meet the project impacts.
8
,;)() -5.3
The Growth Management Program requires development projects to
demonstrate how compliance with the threshold ordinance for each facility will
be maintained as development is projected to occur in the SPA Plan. In
addition, the monitoring of facilities will be done to verify that the thresholds
are actually being met.
Once the finance plan has been approved by the City Council to fund an
interim improvement in the State Route 125 corridor, then the City through the
Sectional Planning Area Plan process and Tentative Map review and approval
process would consider allowing development to be approved and building
permits to be issued prior to the opening of State Route 125. ApprovaIs would
be contingent upon the developer providing added roadway capacity to serve
the project and to meet the level of service standards.
6. Tentative Map Moratorium - This has been addressed.
7. Page 22 Right-of-way dedication. Yes, this should provide for the ultimate
right-of-way to be dedicated and the final report will be changed.
8. Page 25 Cost Estimates. It should be noted that cost estimates provided in this
plan are just that, estimates. They are not intended to serve as the final cost
figure for any project or improvement within the Growth Management Program.
These costs are anticipated to be updated by the City and developers as
additional information becomes available.
9. Pages 37 and 38 Police Substations. It is the City's desire not to indicate at this
time that the police substation may be moved in the future. If during the
processing of the SPA plans this is determined to be a practical item, the
Growth Management Program would be modified to indicate this.
10. Page 41, Temporary Fire Facilities. It was suggested that the draft Growth
Management Program should expressly provide that, in some instances, it may
be appropriate and desirable to use temporary facilities if approved by the Fire
Department. This consideration would occur as part of the SPA Plan process.
11. Page 68, Park Standards. This reference would not preclude a large project
from proposing to dedicate land in an amount greater than that required by the
threshold standard for an individual portion of the overall project. The
applicant could propose to do this and it would be considered by the City. The
park land dedication requirements for a project will be taken in total. Should
9
.)0 -S~
the phasing of this park land be conducted in such a way that surplus acreage
is dedicated prior to the need established by the threshold ordinance, the
applicant may be able to receive credit for surplus park acreage in subsequent
phases provided this is agreed to by the City prior to the initial dedication.
This reference in the draft program was meant to indicate that a project would
not be approved unless it paid park fees or dedicated sufficient land to meet the
Park standard.
12. Page 70, Water. The suggestions regarding water reclamation, water
conservation, and the specific role of water agencies will be considered by the
City through the implementation of the Water Task Force recommendations.
13. Page 71, Water Master Plans. The suggestion that the processing requirements
of the Sectional Planning Area Plan reference conformance to the applicable
master plan of the water district serving the proposed project will be added to
this section in the final report.
14. Page 84, Sewer Trunk Estimates. The dollar amounts shown are estimates. It
is anticipated that facility cost estimates will be refined over time as additional
information is provided. These updated estimates would be shown in the Public
Facilities Finance Plan.
15. Page 108, Civic Facilities. The suggestion to develop a specific standard for
Civic Facilities to aid in the implementation process will be considered and
addressed by the appropriate City departments.
16. Page 123, Reimbursement Agreements. Current fee programs do not include
any funds to pay interest. The desire for a developer to move ahead of the
City's proposed development fee program funding schedule to make a facility
improvement is at the option of the developer pending approval by the City.
Therefore, the developer in choosing to go ahead of the City's schedule assumes
the responsibility to pay any carrying costs or interest associated with that
decision. The developer would be reimbursed for the cost of the facility as
contained in the fee program at the time the City had anticipated to construct
the improvement.
17. Page 127, Implementation. Yes, the implementation of this program will
require year-round commitment of significant resources and the diligent good
faith and cooperative efforts of both public and private sectors.
10
-'t> -55
EastLake DevelQDment ComDany
1. Exemptions - These have been reviewed and no exemptions can be
recommended due to the projected facility capacity problems which have been
identified.
2. The scope of work for the TPP update was modified by staff during the
development of this update. This determination was made based upon the
Growth Management Program findings that the existing approved final and
tentative maps traffic generation will utilize the remaining roadway capacity.
It further identified a need for a facility to be constructed in the State Route
125 corridor prior to approving additional projects.
3. Item II 2, "the end product of the report is not as useful as it could have been
in that the analysis is predicated on levels of development rather than levels of
roadway system implementation" is a statement which is unclear. Whether the
analysis looked at roadway system implementation or levels of development, the
fmal result is the same. Existing approved projects, final and tentative maps,
utilize the remaining and programmed roadway capacity. Additional approvals
will over burden the roadway system unless there is a guaranteed finance plan
to construct a new facility in the State Route 125 corridor.
It is the intention of the interim phasing policy to ensure that no additional
tentative maps be approved until such time as additional roadway capacity can
be financially guaranteed within the State Route 125 corridor. A two part study
is being considered. The first phase would be the finance plan to guarantee the
funding of the facility in the State Route 125 corridor. Once the finance plan
has been approved by the City Council, then the second phase of the study
would be to specifically examine what other roadway facilities could be built to
increase circulation capacity which would allow some development to occur
. prior to the opening of a transportation improvement along the State Route 125
corridor.
4. These intersections may be mitigable. The City is looking at possible mitigation
for these locations in conjunction with the review of development proposals.
11
~()-Sb
5. Excess Capacity - The Growth Management Program indicates on page 131,
item b, how this issue will be addressed. The specific language is being
modified (new language is underlined) as follows, "The phasing schedule shall
ensure that development of one area will not utilize more than the area's
prorata share of the facility or improvement capacity within the projected
service area of the proposed facility unless sufficient capacity is ensured for
other areas at the time of first development." This is intended to overcome the
first come first serve approach to available facility capacity. Each project must
provide facilities concurrent with the specific impacts of the project. If a facility
has existing capacity, the first project can not use up this capacity without
providing for added capacity in the future to meet the projects total impacts.
6. Parks - EastLake Community Park will be changed in the final report to a
future park. The statement on park size will also be clarified in the final
report.
Chula Vista City School District
1. Figure 14 as well as related paragraphs will be changed to clarify the fact that
the schools listed as "over capacity" are the schools which were reported to the
GMOC as being impacted by the 12-18 month growth projections only.
2. The specific order for the construction of future elementary facilities will be
deleted to reflect the fact that the opening dates and order of construction have
not yet been determined.
3. The text will be changed explain that the schools listed as "over capacity" do not
represent the status of the entire district but only the schools impacted by the
12-18 month growth projections. Reference is made to the fact that 17 of the
schools are actually operating over capacity.
4. The reference to Figure 15 will be deleted.
5. The comment regarding paragraph three was correct and will be incorporated
into the summary statements regarding the cities needed support for the
District.
6. In response to the previous letter, of July II, 1990, corrections will be made to
the map.
12
:Ii) -S ":/a
Sweetwater Union Hil!h School District
1. The suggested changes in items 1 through 6 will be incorporated into the final
report.
2. The paragraph regarding the three schools sites owned by the District will be
re-written to reflect this information.
Additional Comments Received
1. Will Hyde suggested that the Threshold Ordinance standard recommendations
presented as part of the second Annual Growth Management Oversight
Committee (GMOC) be added into the final Growth Management Program.
The City Council's action taken to accept the recommendations from the
GMOC to update the Threshold Ordinance standards will be reflected in the
final Growth Management Program.
2. Will Hyde also commented that with the added responsibilities for the GMOC
as a result of the recommendations contained in the Growth Management
Program that staff should consider reconvening the Committee early in the year.
As part of the implementation process, staff will be examining the most
effective way to process information through the GMOC to ensure there is
sufficient time for the Committee to complete its charge each year.
13
~()-5i
SUNBOWe
October 1, 1990
Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Re:
Comments on Preliminary Report on
Transportation Phasing Plan and City
Management Program
Eastern Chula Vista
of Chula Vista Growth
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Response to comment
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment upon the
Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) and the
Chula Vista Growth Management Program. As you know, we have been
monitoring the preparation of these documents carefully and can
certainly appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the
p,ocess. We extend our congratulations to you and your staff on
accomplishing this tremendous task.
In order to fully comprehend the ECVTPP,
with our traffic engineering consultant.
discussions, we submit the following
consideration:
we discussed the Report
As a result of those
comments for your
1.
1. Pace 7 - Calibration: Our traffic engineering consultant
believes this section should be expanded to include an
analysis of the cordon lines for comparison of regional
traffic.. We believe it is important to include a study of
cordon lines in order to obtain realistic data concerning the
volume of traffic. Including an analysis of cordon lines in
the recalibration of the Travel Forecast Model for 1990 would
contribute to the reliability of the updated modeling work.
2.
2.. Pace 7 - Roadway System Performance Testina: This section
should be expanded to describe how AM/PM peak hour volumes
were generated and calibrated. We would like an opportunity
to review the resulting AM/PM volumes in order to effectively
comment on the Report's conclusions that certain areas are
problem areas.
3.
3. Paqe 8 - "Aooroved" Proiects Test: Our traffic engineering
consultant met with a representative from Willdan Associates
2445 F,r.h A~enue. f"out11'l Floor. San D>eqo. Cahlotnca 92\01-1692. (619) 231-3637. FAX (619) 232-4717
;; ~ - S,
Response to comment
3. continued
4.
5.
Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director
October 1, 1990
Page 2
and with your City Traffic Engineer, Harold Rosenberg.
Together, they reviewed the peak hour volume data for the
intersection at Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest Drive/Oleander and
they came to the conclusion that the peak hour volume data was
incorrectly modeled. A similar review of H street/Hidden
Vista/Terra Nova Shopping Center also should be conducted to
determine the validity of the peak hour volume data for this
intersection. The Report should look at all intersections
from I-80S east to these critical intersections.
The Report appears to be based on incorrect network
assumptions along Telegraph Canyon Road between I-80S and
Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue. For example, traffic originating
from the residential development and the shopping center were
loaded at the Telegraph Canyon Road/Oleander Avenue/Crest
Drive intersection. The correct loadings should have included
Telegraph Canyon Road at Halecrest and the access to/from the
shopping center.
Because it appears that the conclusions formed in this section
are based on incorrect --information, we request that this
section be corrected and revised accordingly.
The last paragraph of this section implies that special
enhancements will be provided to key intersections throughout
the City. These special enhancements were not incorporated
into the Circulation Element. We believe it would be
beneficial to include a discussion of how and where these
enhancements are used and the results that will be obtained
from them.
4.
Pace 10 - Develooer Phasinc Year 1994 and 1995 Test: We
request that information and data be provided in sufficient
detail concerning, for example, network plots, TAZ map, and
land use. data to determine the accuracy of the 1994 and 1995
model. Confirming the accuracy of the 1994 and 1995 model,
will enable us to effectively comment on the conclusions
reached in this section.
5.
Paae 12 - Additional TransDortation Analvsis: This section
addresses a transportation analysis which takes into account
an interim facility in the same corridor that SR 125 will
ultimately be located within. The interim facility assumed
is a four lane at-grade expressway from East Orange Avenue to
SR 54.
This section concludes that, from a review of traffic volumes
at the identified intersections with standard geometries, they
would fail to meet the threshold standards. Therefore, this
;J 0 - '0
Response to comment
5. continued
6.
1.
2.
3.
Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director
October 1, 1990
Page 3
interim alternative would not provide the necessary roadway
capacity to support additional developer phasing as proposed.
We believe this section of the Report needs to be expanded to
identify the maximum development that could be permitted
without SR 125 and the maximum development that could be
permitted with an interim facility.
6.
Pace 13 - Conclusions and Recommendations: This section
identifies the need for further study of SR 125. Until
addi tional studies are completed and the information requested
. in the previous comments are provided, these conclusions
cannot be confirmed and may have to be expanded and/or
revised.
We also reviewed the Chula Vista Growth Management Program with our
traffic engineering consultant and have the following comments
regarding the Growth' Management Program:
A. Section 3.2 - Traffic:
1.
Pace 26 - Existinc Circulation: Palomar Road, east of
I-80S, and Orange Avenue, east of I-80S, are not shown
on this Figure but should be included because they are
existing roadways. Also, Telegraph Canyon Road, east of
I-80S, should be corrected to indicate that it is a "six-
lane prime arterial" as opposed to a IIfour-lane major
street," as is currently depicted on this Figure.
';"..
2.
Pace 27 - Future Circulation System: Telegraph Canyon
Road, east of I-80S, should be corrected to indicate that
it will be a "six-lane prime arterialll as opposed to a
liS ix-lane major street, II as it is depicted on this
Figure.
3.
Pace 31; The fifth paragraph identifies two problem
intersections: the intersection at Telegraph Canyon
Road/Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue and the intersection at
East H Street/Hidden Vista/Terra Nova S'hopping Center
main entrance. The paragraph concludes that these
intersections will need to be closely monitored to ensure
conformance wi th the threshold standards. This
conclusion is not documented in the ECVTPP update. It
should be noted that we have identified modeling errors
regarding this conclusion and therefore this statement
will need to be revised. When the ECVTPP revisions are
completed, analYSis of these intersections should be
included with the analysis contained in the updated
ECVTPP document.
~()-~I
Respon::;~ Lv \,;t.aUllJ~nt
4.
5.
6.
Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director
October 1, 1990
Page 4
4. Paae 32: The fourth paragraph identifies three problem
intersections: the intersection at East H street/Hidden
Vista/Terra Nova Shopping Center main entrance, the
intersection at Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest
Drive/Oleander Avenue, and the intersection at East
Orange Avenue/Oleander Avenue. The paragraph concludes
that these intersections will need to be closely
- ..IIIonitored . to.. ensure.-conformance. with the threshold
standards. This conclusion, also, is not documented in
the ECVTPP update. It should be noted that we have
identified modeling errors and therefore this conclusion
will need to be revised. When the ECVTPP revisions are
completed, analysis of these intersections should be
included with the analysis contained in the updated
ECVTPP document.
s. Pace 33 Summary and Recommendations: The second
paragraph concludes SR 125 is needed by Increment 5 (9100
DU). The Growth Management Program and ECVTPP address
four development scenarios as approved by the City and/or
proposed by the developers. However, we believe this
document should contain an analysis and provide
documentation as to how much and where development can
Occur with full development of the arterial street system
without SR 125.
B. Attachment "AIt_ The Growth Manacement Oversicht Committee
Second Annual Reoort:
Pace 5. Paraaraoh 4:
This paragraph states that:
Adequacy of sewers must also be
addressed in the environmental
documents of proposed new projects,
which will be required to pay a
proportional share for the
construction of needed new sewers.
The Sunbow development, which will'
connect to an undersized 8 inch
line...,is an example of such a
development.
We believe the last sentence in this paragraph should be
clarified to provide that Sunbow development is not
connecting to an inadequate pipeline. We suggest the
following language be substituted:
;;J~ -~~
Respone to comment
6. continued
Mr. Robert
October 1,
Page 5
A. Leiter, Planning Director
1990
Adequacy of sewers must also be
addressed in the environmental
documents of proposed new projects,
which will be required to pay a
proportional share for the
construction of needed new sewers.
A aood examole of such a orooosal is
the Sunbow develoDment. The Sunbow
develooment has aareed to install
adeauate sewer facilities even
thouah it will utilize only a
Dortion of the uoaraded caoacity in
the uoaraded sewer system. A sewer
reimbursement aareement will be
entered into by Sun bow and the City
which will Drovide for fair share
reimbursement to the develoDer of
Sun bow from oroceeds of fees
collected bv the City at the time of
future connections to the sewer
system.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Very truly yours,
SUNBOW ASSOCIATES
BY:~~
ge T. Kruer, Managing Director
0: \3\3330\3SS8S\lTRLEIT2. 278
~()-'3
. .. TheBuieCorporation
1e935 WEST BEANAROO Of=lJVE
SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO CAlIFOFlNlA 92127-1696
(61i)"S7-3050
~
September 28, 1990
Response to comment
PERSONAL DELIVERY
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Re: Growth Management Program
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Response on Page 3.
These comments are submitted on behalf of The Buie Corporation,
the owner and developer of Bonita Meadows which is located in
the eastern territories.
The Buie Corporation has reviewed the draft Growth Management
Program and seeks to clarify the "Development Phasing Forecast"
in section 4.2 on Page 118. It is the Buie Corporation's
understanding that the Development Phasing Forecast, as depicted
on Figure 36 on Page 119 does not prevent any project from
proceeding which is not listed. The Buie Corporation is of the
opinion that the existing constraints on its ability to develop
Bonita Meadows will be removed in order to permit the
development of the property within five to seven years.
Accordingly, we suggest the inclusion of strengthening of the
fourth paragraph on Page 118 to insure that the Development
Phasing Forecast does not limit or permit the development of any
given project.
Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter,
please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
/)
THE BUIE, OR~RATION
/ ~~
SM/lw
cc: Doug Buie
Charlie Gill
Sh~j~;tM~rado
pre:; nager
.;J()- h'Y
ill
Q\."iQK)OO~
Response to comment
1.
2.
3.
2Tl7 noovw A\o"l.
P.O. ~OX 9016
NATIONAL CITY
CA 920;0-6625
(619) 41T.411i
October I, 1990
Mr. Robert Leiter, Director
Planning Department
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
275 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Re: Draft Growth Management Program
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Thank you for allowing us to comment on the Draft Growth Management
Program (DGMP) and Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan
(ECVTPP). The following comments and questions are organized by the order
in which the issues are raised in the DGMP first, then in the ECVTPP.
DRAFr GROWfH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1. Page iv - Paragraph 2
What is meant by "until the financing of State Route 125 is guaranteed"?
Is approval of the construction of a toll road facility by tbe California
Transportation Commission considered a "guarantee" of financing? Is the
formation of an assessment district or some other fee district considered
a guarantee? Is tbe allocation of funds for the facility in the State
Transportation Improvement Plan considered a guarantee?
2. Page 14 - Paragraph 2
Recognizing that a development agreement is a voluntary option for both
tbe City and the property owner, must consideration of the adoption of a
development agreement wait until after conditions of approval on the
tentative subdivision map are established by the City Council? Might
there not be times when a development agreement at the SPA or even the
Specific Plan level of approval be desired by both the City and the
developer?
3. Page 15 - Figure 4
It should be noted that the number of dwelling units and acres of
commercial and industrial under the "Approved Final Maps" section reflect
that amount without building permits pulled as of 1/1/90 and not the total
number approved.
;J() ... ,s
,.
Response to comment
Robert Leiter
Page 2
October 1, 1990
4.
4. Page 21 - Paragraph 1
If the City Council were to establish a moratorium on the acceptance of
new tentative map applications because the GMOC has reported that
threshold standards have been exceeded, who would decide and in what
manner would the decision be made as to the 'area wherein a causal
relationship to the problem has been established?' Is there an appeal
process to the determination?
5.
s. Page 27 - Future Circulation System
Otay Lakes Road is shown as a six-lane prime arterial, but the exhibits in
the ECVTPP shows this road as a four-lane major. Why is there a
difference?
6.
6. Page 33 - Summary and Recommendations
A number of projects in the eastern portion of the City have been paying
a transportation development impact fee for the last several years. This
fee has included a component to provide the financing for an interim
facility on the State Route 125 right-of-way. What will happen to these
funds if the City and/or State determine to finance the SR 125 facility
through some other means? What rights will the projects that have paid
these funds have to access the facility when finally built?
7.
7. Page 42 - Paragraph 1
The County of San Diego does not provide fire protection services. Any
reference to the County in relation to fire protection should be changed
to reflect the applicable special fire protection district(s).
8. Page 64 - Figure 19
Under existing neighborhood park the 'H' Street Park in Rancho del Rey
(SPA I) should be added which is 16 acres.
9. Page 66 - Figure 20
Under future neighborhood parks the Rancho del Rey. SPA 3
neighborhood park should be added which is 10 acres.
10. Page 67 - Parks .
Under existing neighborhood park the "H' Street Park in Rancho del rey
(SPA I) should be added which is 16 acres. Under future neighborhood
parks the Rancho del Rey SPA 3 neighborhood park should be added
which is 10 acres.
8.
9.
10.
:20-~"
Response to comment
Robert Leiter
Page 3
October I, 1990
11.
11. Page 115 - Paragraph 6 and Page 116 - Paragraph I, 2, and 3
The discussion concerning finance policies states in part that it is the
"City's intent to build new facilities only when increases in revenues allow
sufficient funding to operate, maintain and staff these new facilities."
There might be occasions when it is in the City's interest to have facilities
opened prior to sufficient revenue being available to operate. In these
cases advance construction should be allowed if a willing party were to
commit to advance funding for operations subject to reimbursement from
future City revenue.
12.
12. Page 117 - Paragraph 4
Rancho del Rey SPA ill should not be considered an "exception" to the
interim policy but should be represented as an "approved" project for the
following reasons:
. RDR SPA ill is final development phase of the EI Rancho del
Rey Specific Plan approved in 1985.
RDR in its entirety has been annexed to the City of Chula
Vista.
. RDR is an inflll project surrounded by previously approved
development and previously installed infrastructure (i.e. sewer,
water, etc.)
The immediate development of SPA ill is consistent with the
City's policy of west to east developmenL
SPA III will complete needed public improvements including
street and utility extensions, I.e. Paseo Ranch and East 'J'
Street.
The immediate development of SPA ill will provide a needed
junior high school site, projected to be opened in 1995.
SPA III will provide a 10 acre neighborhood park determined
by the Parks anti Recreation Department to be critically needed
for the area.
The SPA Plan for SPA III was submitted over one year ago and
should be considered a "pipeline project". This is the only
project with a SPA Plan in process. The tentative tract map for
SPA III has also been formally submitted and is in the review
pipeline which is also unique to any other project east of I-80S.
SPA III is within two previously approved City of Chula Vista
public improvement assessment districts, 87-1 and 88-2. When
the bonds were sold certain assumptions were made concerning
the timing, intensity and density of SPA III. Any action of the
City which alters these assumptions may affect the security for
the bonds.
,;)IJ - dJ r
Response to comment
Robert Leiter
Page 4
October 1, 1990
1 Z. continued
.
SPA ill is within Community Facilities District No. 3 of the
Sweetwater Union High School District and Chula Vista School
District. When the bonds were sold certain assumptions were
made concerning the timing, intensity and density of SPA ill.
Any action of the City which alters there assumptions may affect
the security for the bonds.
Transportation DIF credit has been accrued by SPA ill because
of the completion of "H" Street, Otay Lakes Road, and 1-
80S/"H" Street interchange improvements.
,
i3.
13. Page 119 - Figure 3
Rancbo del Rey SPA m should not be considered an .exception" to the
interim policy but should be represented as an "approved" project for the
following reasons:
. RDR SPA ill is final development phase of the EI Rancho del
Rey Specific Plan approved in 1985.
RDR in its entirety has been annexed to the City of Chula
Vista.
RDR is an infI!1 project surrounded by previously approved
development and previously installed infrastructure (i.e. sewer,
water, etc.)
The immediate development of SPA m is consistent with the
City's policy of west to east development.
SPA m will complete needed public improvements including
street and utility extensions, i.e. Paseo Ranch and East oJ"
Street.
The immediate development of SPA ill will provide a needed
junior high school site, projected to be opened in 1995.
SPA III will provide a 10 acre neighborhood park determined
by the Parks and Recreation Depanment to be critically needed
for the area.
The SPA Plan for SPA III was submitted over one year ago and
should be considered a "pipeline project". This is the only
project with a SPA Plan in process. The tentative tract map for
SPA III has also been formally submitted and is in the review
pipeline which is also unique to any other project east of I-80S.
SPA III is within two previously approved City of Chula Vista
public improvement assessment districts, 87-1 and 88-2. When
the bonds were <old certain assumptions were made concerning
the timing, intensity and density of SPA III. Any action of the
City which alters these assumptions may affect the security for
the bonds.
O]()-he
Response to comment
Robert Leiter
Page 5
October 1. 1990
13. continued
SPA ill is within Community Facilities District No. 3 of the
Sweetwater Union High School District and Chula Vista School
District. When the bonds were sold certain assumptions were
made concerning the timing, intensity and density of SPA m.
Any action of the City which alters there assumptions may affect
the securi ty for the bonds.
Transportation DIF credit has been accrued by SPA m because
of the completion of "H" Street, Otay Lakes Road, and 1-
805/"H. Street interchange improvements.
14.
14. Page 121 - Paragraph 6
A statement is made that the .City uses 2 :eline of 1 percent of the
assessment (SIC) valuation of a residential iling unit as a limit of the
maximum debt which can be levied: Wh., is the basis for this limit?
There is a rule of thumb used by many juriSdictions that the annual debt
service should not exceed 1 percent of the assessed valuation, but not the
limit of the amount of debt of not exceeding 1 percent. If this in fact the
policy of the City of Chula Vista, how is the debt measured? Is it only the
principal financed by the debt, or is the entire amount of the debt to be
repaid over the term of the debt? Is the .debt. amount determined in
current dollars or constant dollars? does the total amount of debt include
debt from other agencies such as the water district and school districts?
15.
15. Page 131 - Item b.
Reference is made to the need of the public facilities financing plan to
contain a phasing schedule which .shall ensure that development of one
area will not utilize more than the area's prorata share of facility or
improvement capacity within that area unless sufficient capacity is ensured
for other areas at the time of the first development.' Its unclear how this
statement would apply in practice.
16.
16. Page 131 - Item b.
Item b. states that the puhlic facilities financing plan shall contain a cash
flow analysis for financing of facilities and improvements for the project.
This would appear to not be appropriate for those facilities which will be
made subdivision exactions and become the complete responsibility of the
developer. This statement would only seem to apply to those facilities that
use some form of public financing including a fee program and/or
assessment districts.
~O-b9
Response to comment
Robert Leiter
Page 6
October I, 1990
17.
17. Page 132 - Item d.
Item d. states tbat tbe public facilities financing plans shall contain 'A list
or schedule of facilities requirements correlated to individual development
projects within tbe area." What does this mean? Is an 'individual
development project' a tentative map within tbe SPA Plan area or is it an
entire SPA Plan or something else? H it is an entire SPA Plan, will tbere
be a need to show how particular portions of tbe SPA Plan correlate to
tbe facilities projects?
I,
EAST CHl1TA VISTA TRANSPORTATION PHASING PLAN
1. Page 8 - Paragraph 1 and 4
Explanation of Rancho del rey SPA ITI's unique status should be expanded
to include comments presented in comment #12 of DGMP.
1.
2. Page 13 - Paragraph 3
Reference to approve Rancho del Rey SPA ill should be included here.
See page 8, paragraph 4:
3. Page 13 . Paragraph 3
The same comment contained in #1 under tbe DGMP discussion also
applies here.
This concludes our comments on tbe DGMP and ECvrPP. Thank you for
providing tbe opportunity for us to comment.
1.
Please contact me if you may have any questions.
ce: Phil Carter - WilIdan Associates
;10 - ':10
R~~ SY:WILL~~~ S~N 0::.0 :10- 2-50 ; A:le?W :CITY OF CH~A VISTA ~ WILLOkN SAN DIEGO:. 2
Oc~- 2-.m TU. ISI~O
, ~..2
SAN .MIGUEL PARTNERS
Deve10prJr of Rancho San MigueJ
Octob., 2, 1990
Rohrt Lelia:
Plannlr.g Dl:~er
Cry of CIrJla Vista
Z7' Founb A\'eI1ue
Ch~la VU:a, CA. 92010
" ~
IXu Bo~:
~
1. Response to this
letter
AJ a m\llt ot our !:Jeeting all Friday, SepICClber 28th, II II'll! susgested th&l
we (Ortn'Jlale specIfic 1anlunse to aid the ell)' Ccl\l:lcil in their undtrs:u.ding
of Ihe Ir.ten: alld lem of Ihe interim phLling ordlnon" prop",.d II hem "1
on p'ae 117 o! the Olat! OroWlh ManaielT.enl I'rOglom.
OJI e~.buis !I 10 IMlre thU the c~lY council unclelstll!ldl the condidons
lurrounlllng tl:e adoption of tl:c Interlc oldiIunce by addlnf Ihe foUolling
li.1BUtge to the stalf repor\:
'TIo pro?"sed PO!:')" is In:er.de<lIO provld. a l:!-rM:lth lilf.e
frem. for tl:e el:lblish::enr of a (lnlnclr:l 1'1 In fOI lh.
c::>nltn::tJO:l of SR.l~, ultimately leaeing to adoption by the
cily cour.oil. Should no fln.nc!ll8 rnolution be determlneu
within thls time (rame, then funber public heeringl and
eel"eloper Input would be secured to 'eleralbe how the
oor.st."'etio" 01 Il!llnten."t\ hcilily in the SR.125 tr~ntportation
CQrrido: could ~ funded, Feth'rll~ro";~ l.!:Q ~mp:emenlatio.,
e( A DLr r..... lE4 =iram er ".her til".Al"'.e~, ~..;....1.,"",.~l....
Accordingly. ~pec c proJe,"" wowd be gamed the opportunit>""
"to process theIr d""'lo~rr.tats through the ten:a:!ve ~t.? lage
l~ the project spooiic traffic anti circu!uion Itudies
~eJ:lOrl!lraICd thet tbose p:'Ojeeu will rneetlhe accepta,:o IC\-el
of service requIred by the city (ot tl:e poniorl of the tlro'ect
b'U:j( dlveJoped. Commit"..,n:s fro:n Ille c!eve:opers to N:lA'nce
their (oj,.hut ot tl:e SR.I2S oorridorv.'O'Jld .100 be required.
nil would be ,"bjee! to negollerion end apee",.nt b.t.."een
,he city and the re'pective developer at the titr.e o! t."lllive
jUP &pprOI"I..l.'
,
\
"
m07 Hi:., B!uU on", Suit. 1\0' SIll DlelQ, C.!.h>:nis 91lJJ' fl\X 16~17gH117' :6191792"~J6Z
;J() - 1'/
"CV aY:wllLOAN S~~ Ol:GO
;10- ,~EO ':17,N ;C1TY Cf CHUlA VISTA ~ WlllO~~ SAN OIE~O;' ,
oc;..,..~ ;':-",e
..' .
TUE 1::5 :41
~.Qoa
..........
..
..
Roben I..eh.r, Plonnlng DireC'lor
O~obet 2, 1990 . pas' 2
Bob, I beU,v, thai th!s !$ & very 'c;"iu.ble wrf of a6c1ressfns the clll'"
conl:ttl1 about insuring that a told or !loWly in Ihe SR.l2.5 transponation
oorti60r .,.ill be co~.slnlele6. while =mmod&tlnS those 6cv.lcp.rs wbo are
~ins 10 meel Ille clt)"1 reqult,menu fOI Ihe cor.slnlc:tion of Ih:s facility,
thw allo\lo1ng 111e1r pro)e... 10 mO\'e tor....ard.
...
WJH~
e: Otolle Krompl
,
,
;)()-~~
.,
Response to comment
2.
3.
4.
SAN MIGUEL PARTNERS
Developer of Rancho San Miguel
/(B)'~ @ rn 0 \'!1 rg 11m
Wi OCT - 3 1900 WI
October I, 1990
Mr. Roben Leiter
Planning Director
City of Chula Vista
276 Founh Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Subject:
Comments Concerning the Proposed Growth Management Program and the East
Chula Vista Transponation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) Update
Dear Bob:
Funher to the City's request for comments concerning the above items proposed for review at a
public hearing on October 16, 1990, San Miguel Panners would offer the following comments on
each item.
East Chula Vista Transponation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) Update _
San Miguel Panners is committed to working with the city and other developers in the Eastern
Territories to insure that SR-I2S becomes reality, Identifying the options for financing this facility
is obviously necessary, although it is likely that there are several additional approaches which are
.very achievable given the likelibood of privatization of the facility. The pending recommendation
in the Growth Management Plan concerning an interim ordinance to limit processing of new
projects to the SPA leve~ though not desirable, may be acceptable if done strictly as an interim
measure not to exceed a 12 month period and with the explicit understanding that every reasonable
effon will be undenaken by the city in conjunction with the development community to identify
legitimate solutions.
Following the completion of this 12 month study, processing of tentative maps should resume unless
there are absolutely no solutions that have been identified and agreed to by the city and developers
in the Eastern Territories. In the unlikely event that there is not a proper financial plan agreed to
within this 12 month period, we recommend that the city continue to proceed with the
implementation of a DIF fee which would be intended to generate sufficient funds for at least an
interim facility.
San Miguel Panners would also like to recommend additional wording to be included in the
ECVTPP which would allow some projects to move forward during this interim period.
Supplemental wording should be included which grants fleXIbility to process projects through and
including a tentative map level based upon the geographic areas which were not previously included
in the TPP. These areas which were not previously studied may have a legitimate opportunity for
a minimum amount of development to occur prior to the actual need for SRa125. These areas
which would be evaluated through appropriate traffic and circulation studies at the SPA level.
would then complete the picture for the development of the surface street circulation network
within the Chula Vista planning area. Although it is clear that SR.I2S is extremely imponant to
the future development of Chula Vista and the South Bay sub-regional area, surface street
circulation is also important for local travel, the delivery of goods and services, and the provision
of safety services. To this end we have included as 'Exhibit A" allernative language which may be
appropriate for inclusion of page 33 of the ECVfPP
12707 Hi,gh Bluit Drive. Suite 110. San Dit'go, Callfornl:1 92130. FAX (f)191 792.6217. (61Yl 792-5Jo2
,21J .. :f- .3
Response to comment
5.
6.
---- --- --.-
Robert Leiter
October I, 1990
Page Two
Growth Management Plan -
The Growth Management Program outlines a comprehensive approach in threshold determination
for development within the City of Chula Vi ,nd from this perspective gives guidance to the
developer which is appropriate. It may ho\" also be desirable to create incentives for the
development community to achieve projects. n may be in the best long tenn interest nf the
community from an image .. well .. service and income perspective. Enhancement of a
community, especially from an aesthetic and economic perspective increases the desirability and
usually the quality of life. Uses that may deserve ellemptions from the Growth Management
Program, or at least additional consideration may include such alternatives .. the development of
custom lot projects which are oriented toward the development of custom homes on large lots
which will enhance the image of the community and produce income to the city far in excess of the
nonnal cost of delivery of public services. Commercial and tourist oriented development which
frequently serves to bring more income to the city than the cost of public service delivery may also
deserve additional attention in the Growth Management Program. The creation of jobs for
residents of Chula Vista through the placement of new industries within the city limits could
hopefu1ly serve to reduce or minimize traffic and transportation impacts thus being beneficial to
the community.
In summary we would ask that the Council accept the infonnation which h.. been assembled for
the Growtb Management Program and the ECVTPP and at the same time recognize the unique
circumstance of several geographic areas within the city relative to the transportation needs that
will be required both along SR-I25 as a regional facility as well.. within the loca1ized community.
The provision of alternatives based upon the ultimate decision by the City Council .. to there
validity would not in any way compromise the primary goal, that of identifying the financial planning
for SR-I25 and ultimately seeing its development.
~iCTIffi~
Partner
Wlli:bs
cc: George Kremp! w/attachments
attachment
j/) - TV
"
'EXHIBIT A'
3.2.6 Summary and Recommendations
Presently, the circulation system is working in conformance with the threshold standard. Those
initial improvements identified in the original ECVTPP are being plaMed and constructed.
The original ECVfPP projected that by increment 5. (or 9,100 dwelling units, 172 acres of industrial
and 85 acres of commercial development). it would be necessary to construct Slate Route 125 as
a 4 lane freeway from Telegraph Canyon Road, north, to State Route 54.
This conclusion specificallv aoolies to the Eastern Territories oroiects which have ~:nFf~ew~d
8oproved or anticioated in the lleo2l"anhic area south of "HI! Street and west ~f B~ i i hlan s.
The update to the ECVTPP is projecting tha~ based upon demands geoerated from projects with
approved final and tentative subdivision maps, in the Eastern Territories area south of .HI! Street
and west of Bonita Hi.hlands. the total traffic generation is approaching the threshold requirement
for State Route 125. The threshold for the construction of SR 125 which was first presented in the
original ECVTPP has been validated as part of the update to the original study as it aDolies to this
I!C02T30hic area.
Ot~er areas within the Eastern Territories ~orth of "H" Street ar:;: eas;g~ t~e ~~~~ ~:hla::
neumborhood have not been evaluated relative to the traffic caps tv BV b t r t _ us
existinV or orooosed su.rface .streets in the area. 11.'ere mav be si""if~can~ ca~ac~~ ~:le :~ if:
SYstem that would scrnce thIS area such that certam levels of develo me t ul th t
threshold standards for local streets and oriDr to the need for Hi.hwav 125 as ~ith;': a te;;;~-;;r;;;;
or oerrnanent imorovement.
SDecific .eooraphic areas that mav be aDoroDriate for further evaluati~n such as R:cho sa~
Mi~el should be identified in this document as "candidate studv'" a eas for tran ortatio
imorovements and ,"Yen the oooortunitv to perform the technical transoortation studies that can
identify needed levels local street of imorovement consistent with traffic ;en~rati~n. These studies
should be reQuired at the time of orocessin. of soecific area Dlans and wou d be used to establish
oroiect conditions consistent with the Growth Manae:ement Plan and the Eastern Chuta V~ta
TransDortation Phasine: Plan.
(Balance of page 33 to remain the same)
NOTE: Areas underlined are recommended by San Miguel Partners for inclusion in the Draft
ECVTPP to be reviewed by City Council on 10-1-90
~fJ - rS
...~~.
~1
Ifjjy~ ~ m a ~ mIll/)
rtJUl O.,T - 1" WJI
The Baldwin Company
Craftsmanship in bUilding since /956
...-"'-
October I, 1990
Mr. Robert Lieter
Director of Planning
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Mr. Lieter:
Response to comment
The Baldwin Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed
draft Growth Management Program. Your Council, staff and consultants should be
commended on the preparation of a comprehensive and coherent statement of
modern land use policy.
While generally impressed with the proposal, our initial review has lead us to
identify the areas of concern discussed below.
TRANSPORTATION PHASING PLAN
Growth Management Pages 30, 33, 115, 117, 118 and 119
Transportation Phasing Plan Page 13
Portions of the draft Growth Management Plan and the draft Eastern Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan recommend:
Until the financing for the construction of State Route 125 is
adopted by the City Council, no additional tentative subdivision
maps may be approved for areas for which a General Development
Plan (or Specific Plan) and Sectional Planning Area Plan have not
been adopted, prior to the date of the approval of the growth
management program;
The City undertake a study to determine the appropriate
improvements required to be made in the State Route 125 corridor,
and attendant funding options; and
The City prepare a Development Phasing Forecast (5 to 7 years) to
"effectively and efficiently manage future development."
11995 EJ Camino Real. Suite JO:! . 5an Diego, CA 92JJO. (619) 259-2900
ao - rJ,
Response to comment
1.
These recommendations are inter-related. The proposed SR 125 tentative map
moratorium and the SR 125 improvement and funding study are dependent upon
the Development Phasing Forecast's underlying assumptions. Therefore all three
of these recommendations must be evaluated jointly.
The Development Phasing Forecast assumes that previously approved tentative
maps will pull building permits before pending future tentative maps. The
Development Phasing Forecast also assumes traffic generated from previously
approved projects will exhaust circulation capacities. These assumptions provide
the foundation for the proposed SR 125 tentative map moratorium. These
assumptions overlook real world practices and the dynantic influences of market
conditions. Tenlative maps do not build-out in the order that they are approved.
Furthermore. halting the processing of tentative maps will not remedy projected
road capacity challenges. To the contrary, continued planning and discretionary
approvals consistent with adopted plans generate the resources necessary to solve
the projected facility problems. Since it takes 18 months to two years to process a
typical tenlative map, refusing to consider tentative map applications will simply
create a planning hiatus and housing supply gap.
Finally, the recommendation that the City undertake a study to determine Slate
Route 125 corridor improvements was prepared before the Governor designated
Slate Route 125 as a public-private partnership facility. This designation greatly
expedites SR 125. The CIV program provides that the route will be completed by
January I, 1996. Accordingly, the focus of additional local studies concerning SR
125 should address how best to provide needed capacity until the opening of the
route.
2.
3.
4.
Consistent with the comments above, it is recommended that the draft Growth
Management Plan and the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan be
modified as follows:
5.
Until the financing for the construction of State Route 125 is
adopted by the City Council. approval oftenlative subdivision maps
for which a General Development Plan (or Specific Plan) and
Sectional Planning Area Plan have not been adopted prior to the date
of the approval of the growth management program, should be
conditioned to provide that building permits shall not be issued if at
the time of the application of the building permit the City Council
has determined that issuance of additional building permits will
cause the City to violate the traffic threshold standard. If the City
receives more building permit applications than can be served by
available road capacity, the City may prepare allocation criteria to
govern the issuance of building permits .
The City shall undertake a study to determine the appropriate traffic
capacity and attendant funding options, suflicient to provide
adequate traffic capacity pending the construction of State Route
125, scheduled for January I, 1996. The City shall establish an ad
hoc advisory committee comprised of City staff. City consultants
and representatives of Eastern Territory property owners to assist in
aO-1r
Response to comment
the preparation of the improvement study, and the Development
Phasing Forecast
6.
TENTATIVE MAP MORATORIUM
Pages: Through-out Plan
The implementation provisions for several of the facility thresholds provide that the
City should consider a mmatorium on the acceptance of tentative map applications
should the GMOC determine that a threshold standard is not being met Rarely is a
tentative map mmatorium an effective solution for a facility problem because
discretionary approvals are generally necessary to generate the resources to solve
facility deficiencies. Therefore, the implementation section should permit
processing of tentative maps, but require that the issuance of the building permit be
conditioned upon satisfying the threshold standard.
RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION
Page 22
7.
8.
The project processing requirements for tentative maps should be clarified to
provide that the ultimate right-of-way be dedicated.
COST ESTIMATES
Page 25
The listed cost estimates for the circulation street inventory should be closely
examined. The estimates for Orange Avenue seem low, while Palomar Street
appears high.
POLICE SUBSTATION
Page 37 and 38
The textual reference to a substation on page 38 is not graphically depicted on page
37. Also the Chula Vista Police Master Plan indicates the possibility of moving the
headquarters to the medical center area. This possibility is not referenced in the
draft Growth Management Plan.
Temporary Fire Facilities
Page 41
9.
10.
The draft Growth Management Plan should expressly provide that in some
instances it may be appropriate and desirable to use temporary facilities if approved
by the Fire Department
The map on page 38 should also depict the two facilities planned for Otay Mesa
East and Brown Field.
11.
PARK STANDARDS
Page 68
The park adequacy analysis states that 'each project seeking approval will provide
acreage or pay fees equivalent to the three acres per 1,000 population standard
regardless of the amount of surplus park acreage existing in the City at the time of
~() -?-g
Response to comment
the approval." It is foreseeable that in some instances, especially involving a large
scale phased project, an applicant may dedicate local park acreage in excess of the
three acre standard. The surplus dedication may be intentional (planned "up front"
facilities) or unanticipated (a subdivision builds out with a product type different
than that anticipated). In these instances, the applicant should be able to receive
"credit" for the surplus acreage in subsequent phases.
WATER
Page 70
The water section should include a more thorough discussion of the following
items:
lZ.
Water Reclamation - The City of Chuia Vista should take an active
role in the coordination of reclamation facilities. These facilities
should be reconciled between the Sweetwater Authority and the Otay
Water District to assure a coordinated supply of =laimed water.
Water Conservation - The City of Chula Vista should take the lead
role as the land planning agency for installation of water conserving
devices within the City. These measures should be coordinated with
the Otay Water District and the Sweetwater Authority.
Role of the Water Mencies - The City ofChuia Vista should clearly
state that the role of the water districls is to provide water in
accordance with the City's general plan. If districts are unable to
provide these supplies, the City of Chula Vista will take steps
necessary to assure that there is adequate water to meet the general
plan needs.
13.
WATER MASTER PLANS
Page 71
The project processing requirements of the sectional planning areas references
conformance with the Sweetwater Authority Master Plan. Since the Otay Water
District is in the process of preparing a master plan,. It would be appropriate to
modify the statement to require conformance with the "master plan of the water
district serving the proposed project. .
Sewer Truck Estimates
Page 84
14.
IS.
The cost estimate for the Main Street Basin should be increased from $5,784,300 to
$12,555,350. Also, be advised that the cost estimate for the Date-Faivre trunk
sewer (7,300 foot parallel trunk line along Orange Avenue) is $1,963,750.
CIVIC FACILITIES
Page 108
In order to provide guidance in the implementation of this section it will be
desirable for the City to prepare a Civic Center Master Plan to eS14blish standards
and thresholds.
~o - 7'
Response to comment
16.
17.
R \mURSEMENT AGREEMENTS
p" .c 123
The paragraph concerning reimbursement agreements provides that no interest
accrues to the developer when the developer constructs a facility at a date earlier
than scheduled under the pay-as-you-go or fee system. nus paragraph should be
clarified to provide that payment of interest does commence at the originally
scheduled construction dale.
Implementation
Page 127
It is worth noting that the draft Growth Management Plan is a very thorough and
ambitious program. Implementation of the program will require a year-round
commitment of significant resources, and the diligence, good faith and cooperation
of both the public and private sectors.
Your consideration of these comments is appreciated.
;)0 -10
Response to comment
RECEIVED
..
\
OCT I I99J
September 28, 1990
W1LLDAN ASsoc. SAN DIEGO
George Krempl
Deputy City Manager
CITY OF CHOLA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92011
RE: DRAFT GROWTH I'.ANAGEMENT PROGRAM/TRANSPORTATION
PHASING PLAN
Dear Sir,
..
..
EastLake Development Company has reviewed the
referenced documents. The attached comments are
being submitted to you as requested in our meeting
of September 12, 1990. We look forward to further
diSCUSSing these issues in our meeting scheduled
for October 3 at 8:30 q.~ If in the interim you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
me or Kent Aden.
Sincerely,
EASTLAKE DEVELCPMENT COMPANY
~.#-.
Bruce N. Sloan
Project Manager
BNS/cll
CC: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
Phil Carter, Willdan & Associate~
o>o....f I
.~. ..
..4IiI
......
....
E4STlAKE
DMlOPMENT
COMPANY
900 lone Avenue
Su,lelOQ
C~'o Vlslo. CA 92013
/6191421-0127
F.l.X(61Q) .21.18]0
Response to comment
1.
1.
1.
z.
3.
3.
4.
5.
SUMI'_>'ll'i EASTL1.KE COM!1ENTS ..
..
,
,
RE: DR.>'FT CHUIA VISTA GI1?/TPP
I. GMP/TPP Permit Exemptions (see attached letter of 8/15/90)
1.
The exemptions in our letter of 8/15/90 would apply to
the interim phasing policy outlined on page 117 of the
draft GMP.
The traffic generated by the exemptions being requested
would continue to be monitored under the city's annual
intersection analysis and traffic threshold evaluation.
Examples of tentative maps in EastLake which could be
processed, were the exemptions to be implemented, would
include:
The EastLake Business Center Phase II,
Low/moderate income housing within the EastLake
Greens project if approved in future applications,
CUstom lots within the EastLake Greens, Trails,
Vistas and Woods neighborhoods.
2.
3.
~
~
a.
b.
c.
II. TPP/Scope of Work
1.
The draft TPP does not conform with the consultant
scope of services contained in the Chula Vista/Willdan
contract.
2.
The end product of the report is not as useful as it
could have been in that the-analysis is predicated on
levels of development rather than levels of roadway
system implementation. -
The TPPwas to have investigated possible
improvement/mitigation efforts which could be
implemented prior to SR 125. As an example, this
investigation should have identified the level of
development which could be achieved with the
construction of Orange Ave. (Sunbow to EastLake) prior
to the completion of any SR 125 improvements.
3.
,
4.
The two intersection capacity constraints identified in
the report are mitigable and should be demonstrated as
such during the studies outlined in section 11.3 above.
III. Excess capacity
--1,- The GMP/TPP implies that a minimum of 1380 EDU's_ of
roadway system capacity is available following the full
development of currently approved tentative maps.
O}o-8a
5. continued
..
5. continued
6.
6.
2.
Capacity above 1380 EDU's may be available with the
,stUdy of alternatives outlined~in section 11.3 above.
3.
Since they have approved general development plans, th~
EastLake Trails, Business Center II, Woods and Vista's
should be considered eligible to utilize any additional
capacity.
VI. GMP/Parks
1.
Page 66 of the draft GMP should be modified to show the
EastLake Greens Community Park under the "Future
Community Parks" category.
2.
The EastLake project, as approved by the City, conforms
to all general plan park acreage requirements and is
consistent with the current City policies. The
statement.on page 66 of the draft G~P regarding park
acreage requirements does not conform to general plan
requirements and should be deleted from the report.
",
jo-r3
Response to comment
Responses made as part
of first letter
~
,
..
Auqus'e 15, 1990
Mr. George Kr~mpl
Deputy City Manager
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92011
RE: GROw~H ~_~NAGEMENT PUL~/T~~SPORTATION pa~SING
PLAN (GMP/TPP) PE~~IT EXEMPTIONS
Dear Mr. Krempl:
It is our understanding that the Chula Vista city
Council will soon be reviewing the draft GMP/TPP.
One of their i~~ediate tasks will be to ace rove a
formal review and adoption schedule for the plan.
Havinq not been afforded the opportunity to review
the plans development we are not totally familiar
with its content. It is our understanding that it
will be a facilities driven plan whiCh will limit
growth rates if public facilities and services are
not maintained at pre-established threshold levels.
In anticipation of periods of "controlled" qrow"th
(i.e. caps, moratoriums, etc.) EastLake ~ould
propose that the follo~ing uses be given special
consideration.
1. Low/Moderate Income Housing
2. Commercial/Industrial/Office
3. Custom Lots
A discussion of the issues relating to the
exemption of these Uses fro~ building res~rictio~s
established during controlled gro~th periods is
presented below:
1. LOW/Moderate Incowe Housing
A. This type of housing is defined"as the
product which is purchased by individuals
or families whose inco~e level is less
than sot of the state ~edian inco~e (low)
and SO-120t of the state median incorne
(moderate) .
.;)()-I~
,
- ,
.-,
~
~
~
~
EASTLAKE
CMLOPMENT
COMPANY
,
E:::stlc:ke !usines.s Cenler
900 lcr'l. Alleonue
S..."I.IOO
C~vIO Visto. CA 92013
(019) 421.0127
""-X (019) 421.1130
..
"'
Mr. Gedr;e Kre~pl
Augus~ 1.5, 1990
Page 2
,
B. EastLake I (Hills and Shores) provided
over 200 homes to fa~ilies with ooderate
income. In addition, 109 homes were
purchased by families with low income.
C. The newly adopted Chula Vista general
plan encourages the provision of
lo~/mocerate inco~e housinq. T~is
exemotion should be considered an
extension of the City's existinq
policies.
Given the difficulty in econo~ically
providing this type of product i~ would
be in the City'S best interest to
~aintain and encouraqe a continuous
supply of. low/moderate income housing.
This effort would enable Chula Vista to
maintain a healthy, balanced housing.mix.
2. co~ercial/lndustrial/Office
D.
..
A. The City's cor.~ercial, industrial and
office uses provide a major portion of
the annual city operating budget.
B. It is in Chula Vista's best interest to
. maintain a continuous supply of this
product in order to provide an expanding
tax base to support its services.
C. Corporate relocation decisions typically
take 2-3 years to implement and given t~e
magnitude of the effort involved,
uncertainties about pe~it availability
would have an celeterious imcac~ on the
City's ability to at~ract new indus~=i.
Many of the corporate prospects which
have exoressed interest in the EastLake
Business Center were attracted to Chula
Vista due to uncertainties in San Diego'S
fee structure and pe~it availability.
D. Providing for and encouraging business
expansion as a part of the. East-Lake
Masterplanned Co~~unity creates ~ore
opportunity for individuals to live and
work in Chula Vista. This will
inherently benefit t~e city by reducing
;;0 - 85
...
"
'.
~r. Geor;e K=e~pl
;'ugus't 1.5, 1990
?age 3
..
commute distances, traffic and associated
air pollution.
E. Local employees who commute to work !ro~
residences outside chula.Vis~a usually do
not add to oeak traffic counts. Their
transportation demand is generally
"contra-flc!J1I rather than additive.
3. custO!il Lots
Custom lot owners building residences for
personal occupance generally comprise a
small percentage of the total bui~ding
product. -
B. The City of Chula vista has expressed
interest in achieving the positive
upscale i~age created by custom lots.
This use typically involves "high end"
product which has a net positive impact:-
on the City'S fisca~ stature.
A.
C. It is inherently unfair to ask
individuals to compete with large scale
developers and merchant builders for a -
limitad quantity of building permits.
We woulq propose that the issuance of pe~its for
these uses continue as.no~al during periods of
controlled growth.
Additional deficiencies in City services caused by
the approvals would be added to those deficiencies
which precipitated the original rnoratoriu~, caps,
etc.
We urge you to sincerely consid~r this proposal.
The exe~9tions outlined would help ~aintain Chula
Vista's economic prosperity and housing ~ix goals.
I would w~lcome the opportunity to discuss these
issues with you ~t your earliest convenience.
sincerely,
EASTLAKE DEVELOP~ENT CO~PANY
~---71#__
Bruce H. sroan
Project Manager
BNS:cll
jO -8h
,
..
BOARD Df EDUCATION
JOSEPH O. CUMMINGS. A1.0
SHARON GilES
PATRICK ~JlJDO
JUOY WlULENBERG
fRANK~ TARANTINO
SUPERlHTENOEHT
XlHH F. VUGAH. Ph.D.
Response to comment
2.
3.
1.
CHULA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
September 7, 1990
1('-"
]
Mr. Bob Leiter
Director of Planning
City of Chul a Vi sta
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE. Draft Growth Management Program Comments
SEP 1'0 1990
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft
Growth Management Program.
On July 11, 1990, I responded to a draft of the facilities section
of this document (copy enclosed). Unfortunately, some of my comments
appear to have been misunderstood and the draft document still contains
several errors. My comments are listed below.
Page 48 - Figure 14 lists existing schools with projected numbers
of students over capacity and proposed new schools and their estimated
costs. As explained in my July 11 letter, it is incorrect to state
that this information represents the District's projected number
of students over capacity. The information contained in Figure 14
was extracted from the District's March 13, 1990, report to the City's
Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC). This data pertains
only to seven of the twelve schools located within the Sweetwater
Authority service area which are affected by the City's 12 - 18 month
growth projections. Since not all schools were projected to be
impacted by the City's growth forcast, information was provided only
for those affected. Figure 14 appears, erroneously, to present data
for all District schools. The Growth Management Element should discuss
school capacity district-wide, and information on all District schools
should be provided. For your information, enclosed is a breakdown
of all facilities, including projected Fall enrollments, and permanent
and temporary capacity figures.
Page 50 - The order of future elementary facilities is incorrect.
It is likely that the District's next school will be located in the
Rancho Del Rey Community, not EastLake Greens. Beyond that, new
schools will be provided based on development phasing. My July 11-
letter states that information relative to future schools was derived
from the District's Draft Master Plan, and that the estimated opening
dates and order of construction of new schools have not yet been
determi ned.
Jo,.8?-
3. continued
4.
5.
Page 53. 3.5.5, Adequacy Analysis - The statement that eight existing
schools are operating over permanent capacity as defined by District
standards is incorrect. Again, this statement was extracted from
the District's I.larch 13 GMDC report and pertains only to those 12
schools discussed in that report. As seen in the attached data sheet,
17 schools are operating Over permanent capacity.
Reference is made in this section to Figure 15. There is no data
on CVESD in Figure 15.
Paragraph three of this section states "...with the City's support
and the coordination of the construction of facilities like streets,
water and sewer, the District can provide elementary school facilities
in a timely manner". While constuction of the infrastructure cited
above is essential, it won't assure that the District can provide
facilities. I believe what is intended here is a statement relative
to the District's need for City support in implementing alternative
financing mechanisms such as Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
to pay for new facilities.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact my office.
Sincerely,
~~~r~~
Director of Planning
KS:bjo
cc: John Li nn
Tom Silva
;l0-88
BOARD Of EDtfCA llOH
JOSEPH D. ClJ.M(;S, Ph,D
SHARON GUS
PAlRCK A, Jl.IOO
A()VSCHl.tENBEAG
FRNlKA. TAFWlrtfQ
SUPERIN1EHD€Nl
.otlf.vtXiRtf,AI.D
Response to comment
CHULA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST"J" STREET' CIIUJ.A VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92010 . 619425.9600
EACII CIIII.O IS AN INDIVIDUAL OFGREAT WORTII
July II, 1990
Ur. Bud Gray
City Plannln9 Oept.
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Draft Facflltles Section - Growth Hanagement Program
Dear Bud:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and co","ent on the D,'aft
Facilities Section of the City's Growth Management Program.
I have the following co","ents:
Under "Project Specific Analysis", reference is made to the Chula VIsta
City School District's long Range Haster Plan. This document was a
draft, and was accepted, not adopted, by the Board of Education.
Therefore, please delete reference to this plan and replace It with
"...in conformance with Chula Vista City School District's standards
and criteria."
The School Facilities Inventory section again references a document
from the Draft Chula Vista City School District's long Range Facilities
Plan, Table 4.2, the Facilities Schedule for New Residential Development,
dated January 24, 1990. It Is stated that this table "...lists the
existing schools with the projected number of students over capacity
and the proposed schools and their estimated costs." This is incorrect.
Table 4.2 is the facilities schedule for nell residential development
from the aforementioned Draft Haster Plan, and does not list existing
schools or discuss capacity. Further, since this is not an adopted
District document, we ask that reference to it be deleted. The District
does tentatively plan for construction of three new schools over the
next three years, depending on growth; however, the estimated opening
dates and the order of construcUon of these schools, shown in Table
8, have not yet been determined by the District.
The Facilities Inventory Section includes a map, presumed to be
Exhibit 7. Please note that an additional elementary school site 'has
been designated in the northern portion of the Salt Creek Ranch
Development. The starred District sites on the map refer to Chula
Vista City School District sites, and should not be confused with
Sweehlater Union High School District. Only 26 of the District's 31
existing schools are shown on the map; three lie outside the City's
boundaries to the south, and the fourth is Southwestern Satellite Scllool,
adjacent to Southwestern College.
do-g,
Response to comment
July 11, 1990.
Mr. Bud Gray
Page 2
RE: Draft Facilities Section - Growth Management Program
The data presented In Table 8 of the Growth Management Program appear
to represent existing relocatable classrooms and numbers of students over
capacity at various schools. This material was taken from the Dlstr'ict's
March 13, 199D, report to the Growth Management Oversight Conmlttee (GHDC)
and Is out of context as presented here. That report discusses the
Sweetwater Authority's area and the fact that seven schools In that area
are projected to be over capacity by 481 students. or these 481, capacity
exists for 244 students at other schools discussed In that portion of
the report, and the remaining 237 children will be accomnodated through
facilities modifications, program changes, or busing. Also shown In Table
8 are the 12 relocatable classrooms the District added to five western
schools In 1989. It appears that the District only utilizes 12 relocatable
buildings, whereas In reality approximately 65 are In use at eighteen
schools throughout the District.
The Adequacy Ana Iys I s sec t Ion of the Growth Managemen t Program discusses
District alternatives to overcrowding. We are currently evaluating the
feaSibility of Implementing year-round multi-track programs at several
schools. The report states the opening of Eastlake Elementary School
and realignment of attendance area boundaries will lessen projected
overcrowding shown In Table B. Given that EastLake Elementary was
constructed to serve chlldren generated by new development east of the
I-80S, and the geographical difficulties associated with the distances
between the crowded western area and EastLake Elementary, It Is highly
unlikely that this new school will In any way alleviate overcrowding In
western Chula Vista. The District does not open a new school until 300
- 400 children are present in an area, and additional growth in these
new planned conmunlties quickly fills up any remaining space.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft. If you have any
questions, please give me a call.
5 i ncere 1 y,
~\'? .'Sh~
Ka te Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Tom Silva
~() - Cjo
FALL. 1990
PRnTF.CTEn ENROLLMENTS/PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY. CAPACITIE~
Pro;ected Ettm....
School Enrollment Canacity**
Allen/Ann Daly 737 602
Castle Park 532 555
Chula Vista Hills 741 602
Cook 505 514
EastLake 521 590
Feaster 837 528
Finney 692 481
Halecrest 600 542
Harborside 817 510
Hilltop 550 543
Juarez-Lincoln 611 602
Kellogg 454 437
Lauderbach 798 587
Loma Verde 553 589
Los Altos 493 514
Montgomery 471 425
Mueller 655 654
Otay 619 649
Palomar 492 479
Parkview 479 590
Rice 744 679
Rogers/R. Center 576 586
Rohr 491 514
Rosebank 639 542
Silver Wing 591 600
Southwestern Sat. 90
Sunnyside 800 587
Tiffany 613 528
Valle Lindo 516 561
Valley Vista 656 506
Vista Square 539 514
TOTALS 18,412 16,610
1EnR...
canacity
102
180
180
60
210
30
180
60
30
50
90
150
90
210
180
150
60
2,012
* Temporary/relocatable classrooms, providing interim housing. Schools
utilizing re10catables are over permanent capacity.
**Based on current usage of all regular classrooms. Totals include
Kindergarten classrooms which can only be used for Kindergarten due
to classroom confiquration (AM/PM classes).
CVESD
4/30/90
~() - '11
.'
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
JOSEPH O. CUMMINGS, PIl.O.
LARRY CUNNINGHAM
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A. JUDD
GREG R SANDOVAL
January 18, 1991
;~ ,'" @ @ D~ 19 IT
U \1 ' 2 '"91 Jli
BOARD OF EOUCAnON
SUPERINTENDENT
JOHN F, VUGR04, Ph.D.
Mr. Bob Leiter
Planning Director
City of Chu1a Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, CA 91910
RE: Draft Growth
Ordinance
Management
Program
& Implementation
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Thank you for
revised draft
Ordinance.
the opportunity to review and comment on the
Growth Management Program and Implementation
We appreciate the modifications which were made to the
Program at the District's request, particularly replacement
of Figure 14 with District data.
I have a few remaining concerns. The first relates to
Section 3.5.5, Adequacy Analysis. The second sentence
discusses the District's response to the City's 12 - 18
month growth forecast. As previously explained, this
reference ~s incorrect, having been taken out of context
from the District's report to the GMOC. Data from Figure 14
is also cited, data which refers to Figure 14 prior to its
revision. These inaccuracies could be remedied by deleting
the first paragraph after the first sentence and replacing
it with the following: Total current District capacity is
18,622 students, with permanent facilities to accommodate
16,610 and temporary facilities for 2,012 students. 1990
enrollment is projected at 18,412. Several District schools
will be unable to accommodate new growth within their
attendance areas; however, through a combination of changes
in facilities usage, program changes, busing or conversion
to year-round multi-track programs, the District will be
able to accommodate this projected growth at other schools.
My second concern relates to the Draft Ordinance. In
earlier correspondence on this subject, I expressed the
District's desire to have the ordinance apply uniformly
throughout the City. I understand from our conversation
that the ordinance is intended to deal only with the eastern
territories, and that another ordinance may be considered
for the area west of the 805 at some future date, but that
is not clear in the Ordinance. As written, paragraph (b)
states that Section 2 makes findings that adequate
~o - 9 ~
-
January 18, 1991
Mr. Bob Leiter
Page 2
RE: Draft Growth Mgmt. Program & Implementation Ordinance
facilities within the developed portions of the City are
currently operating in conformance with adopted threshold
standards; therefore, these areas are exempt from the
ordinance. Review of Section 2 revea~s discussion only ?f
the threshold for traffic which ~s found to be ~n
conformance. Other thresholds and compliance with standards
are not mentioned. The City's GMOC found that the Threshold
for Schools has been exceeded for most schools in western
Chula Vista. Almost all facilities in this area are
operating above permanent capacity, and the projected
infill, redevelopment and rezoning currently being approved
by the City will further exacerbate this situation. The
District has no means to finance needed facilities to serve
this growth, and exempting these developed areas from the
requirement to provide a public facilities financing plan
will worsen the problem. If this Ordinance is intended only
to apply to new development to the east, inserting language
to this effect, instead of exempting the western area by
finding it in compliance with standards, would seem more
appropriate. The current wording is inconsistent with
actual conditions relative to schools and the findings of
the GMOC. Section 2.2 of the Ordinance states that "the
City Council finds that these actions are necessary to
ensure adequate public facilities are available to serve BnY
new develooment in the citv" (emphasis added). Additional
development west of 1-805 will exacerbate current facility
inadequacies, as well as further exceed the Threshold
Standard for Schools.
Of additional concern to the District is the potential that
the findings relative to conformance with threshold
standards contained in the Draft Ordinance could negatively
impact the District's ability to justify imposition of
developer fees and other mitigation for impacts on schools
in the western portion of the District.
We welcome the opportunity to continue working cooperatively
with the City in this important endeavor. If you have any
questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~~~~~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: John Linn
~o - tt.3
Response to comment
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
- Sweetwater Union HiglrSchool-Distriet------ _.
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FIFTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 82011
16Ul) 691.5553
~NNING OE~ARTMENT
)
September 10, 1990
Mr. Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
City of Chu1a Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chu1a Vista, CA 92010
SEP 1 3 1990
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Re: City of Chu1a Vista Draft Growth Management Program
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Growth
Management Program prepared for the City of Chu1a Vista. The
Sweetwater Union High School District supports the City's efforts
to comprehensively plan for the public facilities and services
that new development requires. In the construction of schools, it
is vital that the provision of streets and utilities be
coordinated with the district's plans if schools are to be made
available in a timely manner. The Growth Management Program will
facilitate this coordination.
In my review of the draft document I have found that the following
sections should be revised. Due to the large number of households
required to justify the construction of new seCondary school
facilities, not all development applications will warrant the need
for a school site and/or facilities:
1. Sentence 3 in Section 3.5.3 (Sectional Planning Area P1an/
Public Facilities Finance Plan) should be revised to read:
"Reserve school sites, if necessary, or coordinate with the
district a solution to accommodate student housing."
2.
Sentence l(a) in Section 3.5.3
revised to read: IIprovision
necessary. "
(Tentative Map) should be
of school site(s), if
3.
Sentence l(a) in
amended to read:
if required in the
Section 3.5.3 (Final Map) should be
"executed agreements for site dedication
approval of the tentative map."
4. Figure 15 (Future Schools) - delete the word "Greens". The
name of the new school is Eastlake High School.
5. Page 54, third sentence of the first paragraph, delete the
word uGreensll.
6.
Page 54, fourth sentence of the first
"EastLake Trai 1s High" and replace
high/middle school in the EastLake Trails
paragraph,
wi t h II a
Community."
delete
junior
~ () -9'1
Mr. Robert A. Leiter
September 10, 1990
Page 2
2.
The third sentence on page 50 (Schools Facilities Inventory,
Sweetwater Union High School District) should be deleted _ it is
false. The district owns three sites east of I-80S, however, two
are unbuildable due to seismic constraints and the proposed
alignment of State Route 125. One site is located adjacent to the
Chula Vista Community Hospital, and the other is in the Sunnyside
Community. The third site is in the EastLake Greens Community.
Construction plans for a new high school are underway and its
completion is antiCipated for the 1992 school year.
Mr. Leiter, thank you again for the opportunity to review the
Draft Growth Management Program. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 69l-5553.
Cordially,
~
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sf
cc: Kate Shurson, Chula Vista Elementary School District
Bud Gray, Bud Gray and Associates
~~ -'5
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 3
JClhn K. Kral:ha
Resource Conservation Commission
COMMENTS ON
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Df;:AFT GRD I NANCE
I3POWTH MANAGEMENT PPOI3PAM
1. What' s
"Sectional
Development
on page '3.
a SPA? Should be within definitions. If it is
Planning Area", is there a GDP f.:IY' IIGeneral
Plan"? The first time a definition is identified is
Suggest it be moved forward.
2. Can't find IIfigure
Pre-gram". I don't think
she-wn on page 2-8.
5 at page 16 of the Growth Manaoement
that this is the "Potential Development"
3. Why are the words
cases and not others?
"threshold standards" capitalized in some
The Program itself uses lower case.
4. Para 21.07. Might it not be mOre correct to refer back to
para 21.02(9) rather than para 21.06 when referring to the baSIS
for threS~lo1d standards?
5. Para 21.0'3. Can't this be made more
going to implement the py.:.gram shl:luldn't
PFFP is prepared by the City or agent.
clear? If the PFFP is
it be consistent? The
6. Para 21.09. Ordinance requires both review as single entity
and cooperation between two separate entities. What would happen
if one PFFP provided less than threshold standard in one area and
the other PFFF' prOVided an excess. Then there would be
reciprocatIon in another thrEshold standard. Bot~l In the
Interests of economy. WOLlld this be permiSSIve)
i. Para 21.(19(i). Isn't this the first tIme we have mentioned
trle "Ci-c:y's o=,chedule'J? What h~_ppens In ttle case whey€? t~le
develclper ~las made an investment 3nd the City ctlanqeS its
development schedule"? The investor has everything to lose.
~hoUldn't tllS credItS/Interest be based c'n the C:lty's sC~ledtJle at
ttle tlmE' ol tfle tIlin~ I:::,t" ttle t-fFF' i:\DpllC>3,tlon?
,::). r'B.rA. 21.11 l.a.l (2). ;~~;:~fers to ~:::ection
~q~:"ln in para "::':1.11.(a)(~-f.). believe It IS
~uqqest It SdY 50.
1 'j. 1:.:;.'. U / i) .:. or
"ttle r-1unlClP3_1
l,.,It-, at';>
COde.
':;/.
F'21'"cJ :.c.:l. 1:..:.:(':'>.
Sectlorl 21.(_)3(2,) and
(d)(l.l reler
to wtlat:
d,:,,: ument 0.;"
Ie). J-'C:~,'("ci :':'::1. lb. L..fHAT<:'
11. '::;e'= t I on ..... i . St~e
J"2.\~1 st 1 nq deve.l clprnC?nt j. .:<.nd
, ,
.:ornment
( can't
~~_bove
e~<c ept
ttll S. l.~___ tor\
- :' \''-U
,...v'_,. .4..
I
.
fInd It.
020 -9(.
John 1<. Kral:ha
Resource Conservation Commission
12. If SR-125 becomes toll road, will it still bear the name of
SR-125. If it is a private operation, what is the developer's
responsibility insofar as effect on the Growth Management Plan?
COMMENTS ON
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GFWWTH MANAGEMENT PF:OGRAM
1. Page 3-14 (center). What's an EDU? Is
Units? Whatever it is should be defined.
page 3-62 as "Equivalent Dwelling Unit".
it Estimated Dwelllng
Ah, there it is on
2. General question. What are enhanced geometrics? Refers to
traffic. It appears it includes free right-turn lanes, dual
left-turn lanes and additional trough lanes but how many of these
enhancements can be crammed into the existing land area?
3. "Fire and Emergency Medical Servi.:e"
the City Fire Department Facilities.
medical serVIces rendered by Harts~D's?
the formula if at all?
appears to cover only
What about emergency
How are these put into
4.
f-'age 3-31.
Threshold item 3.
What is "sit avallabllity"?
5. Page 3-31. Threshold statement is not as defInItive as that
for previous facilities. Why can it not be made more specific as
to stUdent/teacher ratio or some other measuring stick?
b. r'eo.ge 3-34 Figure 14. Surprised at the lIPro.]ected Enrollmentll
over "Current Capa':ityll for several schools west ()i I-S05. Is
there a reason.? l.he permanent capacity r.elates to cllrren't Llsaqe
of all regular classrooms. Is there no DIstrict/State/Federal
definItion as to sq.ft/stlldent by type of operation or class
type..}
7. I-'a.ge 3-:37.
(n ':'\N 0(" :.zOot).>.
Recommend a time line or date for
l':tY(~t. C apac 1 t Y
8. F-'8.ge
Ini2i-rlClent.
~:-3'~. H.:.w
c.lutmorJeo. c:l.nd
does the "t1\jequ2':Y ':"ndl '/513"
dete("i'~ratlnq sct,ool Slt~s
take
1 ntl:'
Con:'::-l Cl'2(- dt 1 ''::'rl "
'd. f-'=<.q+:.? :':;-.:.1-0. dTh'("eshold ~:jta.lltJ.,:..(.d" i"etl.?rs ()nly to t:tle~t-ed. C:.H~il
ot I-dU~. SLlqqest d t'Standard" i'~r tt,e CIty arid tt,en ~evel.:,p a
".'hrestlold ~;tandard '-:Ofifot-mance" that states cert3ln arec<.s dO not
currelltly meet tt,e crlterld and ettorts WIll be underta~::en to
attaIn the standard. I don't believe ttlere ShCtLlld lJe separdte
stand~rd5 tor East and West. It appears tt,at cine tJ)(estlold
standard WOLtld be roalntenance or dally per caOlta LISdwe ':', l~o
qallons.
20 - 91-
Jc,hn f<. Kracha
Resource Conservation Commission
10. Page 3-56. Threshold statement is not definitive. Can't we
develop some specifics? The statement is not a standard but only
a statement. ObViously the water authorities have such standards
Or they would not be able to project t.leir requirements.
11. Page 3-55.
tflelr capa':ity?
go dry'?
Storage facilities.
How many days reserve?
What are they? What
What happens when
is
tfley
1~ Page 3-68. Center of page item 4. Recommend brief one
sentence statement of the findings of the LUke-Dudek study. Is
the stUdy of wastewater treatment still on-going? Accordlng to
Page 3-80, para 2 it is.
13.
add
Page 3-72.
!land pyoposed
Public Facilities Finance Plans
financing responslbilities.11
#..,
~.
Pecommend
14.
add
Page 3-83. Public Facilities Finance Plans #3.
I'and proposed financing responsibilities.'1
Pe':ommend
15. Page 3-87. (Does everYI:)ne else know what IIdownstream
facilities" are? This could mean that drainage fr-I:lm the Eastlake
Area flowing down the l'elegr-aph Canyon Basin would have to funded
by Eastlake and Baldwln. Several portions of thls system have
never been Improved and others probably could not handle the flow
(I.e., Hilltop and Telegraph Canyon). What is the correct
definition?)
16. F'age 3-8':;. Threshold should be est2'.blished. the threstlold
ffilqtlt identity specific maximum levels e,f pOllutants such as
~arbon monoxlde;Nltrogen oxides; SulfLtr OXidES; organIC
compc'unds; partIculate matter; Lead compounds inClUding elemental
lead; Msbestos; 8eryllium; Mercury; Vinyl C~llorlde; /--luorides;
~ulfuric ACid mist; Hydrogen Sulfide; and Compounds cc,ntalnlng
.....educed suI fur.
17. I-'Ct.ge 3-':'(1. The ent ire ~dequac y Anal YSl S Si-.?E'ms
.leavily on transportation. Recommend mor~ speCIfIC
industrial protllbitions. One way oT dOing t.l1S
.:lea'rly Id(.Entlfy 'to "F"rohibltions outli,-'ed bv kules
aT t~le COLtnty of San Dieqo Air ~ollution L:c'n'crol
dnd r~:fJqul El,t Ion':;.'..
to be focLlsed
.=.1ttentI ':In to
1:3 to more
SO .t hr ':.uqh 71
L'l::=.tt-l ct t~'Lll t~S
18. F'~,(_:jt? ::::~-'::!::'j. Tr'!reshold. Thi;3 is P(':'l1dbly t~-Ie le2<.sC t.:ancllble
of trle t.lrestlo,Lds. It appeci.....s to be the 5ulnmatloll or ~ll ottlers
threS~lolds. A separate facility ttlrestlold nllght be valuable
espeCially w~lere ttlere is a deqrad3tlon ,:,f eX15tlnq areas.
"":ec':'1nmendatloll is t,-. eIther .:hanqe ttH2 tlt;le to s,:.mettllnq llLe
"I~:edevelopment,j ,:,r .}ust lncorpor_~te thl5 sLlDse,:tlc.n Into
"~l nE~nl:2".
~o-'11
John K. Kral:ha
19. Page 3-99. Threshold. Maintain the consistent format of
1l1;].:lalll, 1l0bjectivell. This simply seems to be an add-on tel the
GMOC and if the Committee is in agreement, prepare it correctly
without excuse. If they are not currently in agreement, delete
the facility until such time as the SMOC feels it should be
incorporated. Recommend inclusion and establish speclfic goals,
objectives and standards.
20. Page 3-103. Threshold. Maintain the consIstent format of
I'Goal", "Objective". This simply seems to be an add-on to the
SMOC and if the Committee is in agreement, prepare it correctly
without excuse. If they are not currently in agreement, delete
the faCIlity until such tIme as the GMOC feels it should be
incorporated. Recommend inclusion and establish specific goals,
Objectives and standards.
21. Page 4-4.
sentenl:e.
Paragraph 3.
Line 3. Capitalize at start of new
22. Page 5-4. Paragraph 1. Identi fy the bar chart as a "Chart
4-11' or something similar rather than saying Ilfollowing bar
chart" since the chart page precedes the paragraph.
23.
Appendix.
Include Glossary of acronyms.
~()-9'
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Draft Growth Manaaement Ordinance Responses
1. A SPA is a Sectional Planning Area Plan. SPA plans are
referred to in the Definitions Section 21.02(2) on page 3.
GDP refers to General Devr''''pment Plan. Each of these terms
are defined in the Zonir. Jrdinance as follows -- General
Development Plan in Sectie.. 19.48.040 and Sectional Planning
Area Plan in Section 19.48.090.
2.
Figure 5
Ordinance
Ordinance
is "Potential Development" on page 2-8. The
reference to Figure 5 at page 16 on page 4 of the
will be corrected to read "on page 2-8."
3. The formally adopted title of "Quality of Life Threshold
Standards" is capitalized or defined in Section 21.02(9) on
page 4 of the Ordinance. The shorter reference to these
standards are commonly not capitalized.
4.
Either reference would be correct. Section
because it is more convenient for the reader.
does refer the reader back to 21.02(9).
21. 06 is used
Section 21. 06
5. The PFFP must be consistent with the Growth Management Program
and General Plan. The PFFP will be prepared by consultants
under contract to the City.
6. Each PFFP must provide facilities to meet or exceed the
requirements necessary to maintain the Threshold Standards.
Later on the developer who provided excess facilities would be
paid back by the City from fees paid by the next developer
when he/she pays his fair share.
7. When the Council approves a Sectional Planning Area Plan and
a Public Facilities Financing Plan in accordance with the
City'S schedule, then that is the schedule for the completion
of the project even though the City's schedule may be changed
later on.
8. This refers to the Municipal Code. Since this ordinance is
being added to the Municipal Code as identified in the title
of the ordinance, it is a correct reference.
9.
Section 21.03(a) refers
Implementation Ordinance.
typographical error that has
to the Growth
The reference to
been corrected.
Management
(d) (1) is a
~() -/00
10. Guidelines refer to the handout materials available at the
City that explain to applicants how to prepare planning and
zoning applications. Usually these guidelines are prepared by
the staff for permits that generate recurring questions. This
section simply requires Council approval of the procedural
guidelines for Public Facility Finance Plan due to the
importance of specifically carrying out the Council's
direction.
11. The page number is incorrect and has been corrected to 2-8.
12a. The specific name for state Route 125 and whether or not it
will be changed if the road does become a private road cannot
be answered at this time.
b. The second question deals with the developer's responsibility
in regard to the Growth Management Program. The developers
are responsible for ensuring that the City's threshold
standard for traffic is maintained in order to allow
development to occur. The effect of State Route 125 becoming
a toll road is not fully known at this time and the City is
undertaking specific studies to analyze this impact. In any
case, whether the road is public or private, the developer's
responsibility will be to ensure that the Growth Management
traffic standards, as well as all facility standards, are
maintained as growth occurs.
Draft Growth Manaqement Proqram Responses
1. EDU is an equivalent dwelling unit. It is referenced for the
first time on page 3-14 and it should be indicated in that
section of the document that it is an equivalent dwelling
unit.
2. Enhanced geometries are those items mentioned above. In
regard to how many enhancements can be made to an
intersection, it is determined based upon the size of the
existing right-of-way and the ability for those enhancements
to fit within the existing land area. Enhanced geometries are
not intended to over utilize the existing land area, but are
intended to maximize the available space which would allow for
the intersection to operate at more efficient levels of
service.
3. This covers fire and emergency medical response.
4. The City's performance standard for fire and emergency medical
services deals with the City's ability to respond for calls
for service and do not include services rendered by private
agencies.
~() -/01
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
5. This item can be referred to the Growth Management Oversight
Committee for further review as they analyze the appropriate
nature of each of the threshold standards. The Threshold
standards which have been developed were those first adopted
in 1987 by the city Council ~nd, since that time, have been
reviewed by the Special r~ricts, the Growth Management
Oversight Committee, and tht J.ty Council. There is no reason
why this threshold standard could not be reviewed in the
future.
6. There are classroom size guidelines but no guideline for
allowable numbers of temporary classrooms.
7. This is up to the School District.
8. The School District determines the adequacy of their
facilities.
The second annual Growth Management Oversight Committee report
recommended to the City Council that there be a change to the
threshold standard for parks. On August 23, 1990, the City
Council referred the proposed change to the Parks & Recreation
Commission to review and make their recommendations to the
City Council.
The City has chosen to defer to the three water districts to
determine their respective water storage, supply and
distribution standards. Once these districts have adopted
Facility Master Plans, it may be desirable to consider
incorporating their standards into the Threshold standards.
The reference to storage facilities pertains to the otay
Municipal Water District. This District is under a
requirement from MWD to build a 10-day storage facility in
case of an interruption in deliveries from pipelines carrying
water into San Diego County. The District is currently
preparing a master plan to locate and size the needed storage
facilities.
Agree to add a one sentence description of Luke-Dudek Study.
Agree to add "and proposed financing responsibilities" to page
3-72, #3.
Agree to add "and proposed financing responsibilities" to page
3-83, #3.
Downstream facilities is the correct terminology to refer to
drainage channels , culverts and other drainage facilities.
The developer contributing the extra runoff is responsible for
improving downstream facilities or constructing on-site
retention facilities to hold the water so that peak period
drainage flows to not increase overflows prior to the new
development.
J,O -I()~
16. These standards have been established by the state and Federal
government. The City is required to assist in the
implementation of the Clean Air Act strategy presently being
prepared by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District (A.P.C.D.).
17. All of these industrial standards are being enforced by
A.P.C.D> The new State law is focusing mainly on indirect
sources such as transportation.
18. The economics threshold is exactly as recommended by the
Growth Management Oversight Committee in last year's report to
the City Council. Staff agrees that it is more difficult to
quantify this standard since it is a relative measurement
rather than a fixed capacity such as a sewer pipe.
This threshold is not solely dealing with the degradation of
existing areas. It also involves the new projects developing
east of 1-805.
19. The addition of a threshold standard for civic Center will be
discussed with GMOC this year. They will start their review
on February 14, 1991.
20. Same response as #19 above.
21. This will be corrected.
22. This will be corrected.
23. Concur with comment.
(GMORD.COM)
:2() -/d.3
'-d~...- ~a:h.c
~'-\-c....t- ~~~-L,....,.~df~'-~<4Z..J-t:~
':::-~~~.-qx;2"d,;_____ ~ /: ,l..
~e " ...6''-<""",~ )H"""J~,.7d7u- rp~,~ 'z";,?~lV
I. ~<"Xn?~ .;2",,~~ .3-/~
" f., ,
.....0 ~<<~ .i2~~ r=.c~7'?d'_Y"l.beZ./'U--;JJ "/,t:.---.>C. oxJ..-z
~c:~ .~d-&~~ff~""I.7-.a"d'~
. ' . ',' ' ?
......~ ~.A2'--"e..v~~_A~~e..',4lU<--n-<-;P,tf A-"~_ ~...,z,
.;?, t!&.~
~ .8 -<:.<:. ~ y~o,,:?L R?A''''7I~-Z );;;7-''''''''' ~.Ja"...z.. /9'r~
~~~~~.?"-~ ,~~~~;.v. ...b..L--z-:.,~~"I.;""'-~
~~~ T '-i1',~ /,.'>t~~;"_~.Ad.e ~/~~ ----;1'" //u::e<6..L
fi~~'K~'~a/~x.L r~ -1f+ ,2 ~.L~~r~A ~ ~
..e.t:~"d_~~ /.~c',o ,4Y7df.J':e~",-<=.e.-'/""2~''''~;!f~-&--;t-<--'~=~7 .
~w-'UZz..? ,t;~.... ..<'",~-z..GO /,><uu.0--T~ ~k"7 ~~;. ~~ ~-'C.--...., ~'V~FCa..
. 7 " ~" i"
_k."" e;....... ....U::~"'';C,U-.Z/ .,4/><"""~-e./>' /z---.P~ '7 ,,<""'~~"U"7c.<-.
~ c::~~~c-,~"dFv c8-/~C
-I' ~ .
k.......':;,?2<'-z.~~7.~'~/~ ~"''''~ 0H-'kudxrf'';JP......d-:'.7J;Pd?<-<Z<0?
" ~
_U~.~'-"/ ....~7~-z:;:--~? "77W-&--':..~!~~7-<': ..
, -
,
~ V';' .Z::~'L<--- .#1-7, ,C/...O I<-~ .~ ~ _C?:~ ~~.t.~....g'''-::''~_~_/ /rn~c:~....-~....~,~ 7.i'..'-' l.."-'_.-....rc.':-G....
. .' ~ z .. ~.. ;" .,/ t.-oJ ' ~ - '. !'/. ~ "-.. '. /
~ ~.r~_1 ~_ ....... ,d'"7"?~r.ccC':-i'c:-~~L all!...L.- T.e.'J..~.-/~~ ,<:!'L~c.-A:..J <<7tc,/-?<-e.<--, _c.a..c....-. .(hl..<,,~-"4
- ____.-1-<C'-.;;_. / .'. ., . 2/
A .~ /-' I/7J.. ';L1('.r..~_:--,C- tI_L-e..-/-e~ ,.'(?/>>~--~;X-<!~ p_~d~_7L-C- 6:~"'""t?z:,...'-;/
;<:..-r)!dt:C-'I'?t:-_ t/ .-c_?~~ /~- ..-......- ~.,,/ . / ~-
LP/.Y j ...."r
;;r:;<...--- '.,r<-~-e"-C--alfZ-/~
~o -/() 'f
~~:,':~
\ -~
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - HALL
1. Economics - Section 3-12
The impacts of economic growth is managed in several ways. First, the
City annually prepare a long range development forecast (5 to 7 years) to
be able to project where development is most likely to be located.
Second, the City evaluates the compliance of new projects with the
Threshold Standards whenever a tentative subdivisiC" map is filed. This
eva 1 uat ion is performed withi n the project envi r ':!nta 1 impact report.
Third, the Growth Management Oversight Committee cviews the compl iance
with the Threshold Standards from all projects each year and prepares a
report and recommendat i on to the City Counc il on any observed problem.
In summary, the City's growth management program tries to consider the
economic impacts on all parts of the City.
2. Water - Page 3-66
This amount of water usage is for all urban uses. It is not a standard
or basel i ne amount. For resi dent i a 1 uses, the typi ca 1 water use is 130
gallons per capita per day. This typical is broken down between inside
use (72 g.p.c.p.d.) and outside use (58.0 g.p.c.p.d.). With a three
person household, the baseline amount would be 390 gallons per day. The
State is currently discussing a 300 gallon per day 1 imit based upon the
current drought.
The City does not provide water and, therefore, rel ies upon the water
di stri cts to adopt conservat i on measures for water use. The MWD is
currently in a Stage 3 water alert which requires the water districts to
reduce water usage by about 14.7 percent, adjusted for population
growth. Stage IV would require a 21.6 percent conservation goal. Water
districts will focus largely on requiring efficient outdoor irrigation
systems, promoting drought tolerant landscaping, eliminating washing cars
or washing down driveways and sidewal ks, and perhaps odd day/even day
outdoor watering among other means to achieve water conservation goals.
3. Civic Center - Page 3-100
If the Civic Center and/or parking lots are expanded, the City would
purchase land at fair market value from the owners.
4. General Question
No. The Growth Management Program focuses on Tentative Subdivision Maps
and not on Conditional Use Permits because new residential growth is
largely a result of new subdivisions rather than Conditional Use Permits.
WPC 8919P
:Jf) -IDS
ATTACHMENT 4
Attachment 4
MINUTES OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETING
January 31, 1991
1. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Hugh Chri stensen, Susan J. Full er, Steve Hann, Harry
Hillock, Will Hyde, Lupe Jimenez, Nancy Palmer, Chuck
Peter, Frank Tarantino
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
GUESTS:
None
Bob Leiter, Bud Gray and Phil Carter
Bruce Sloan, Eastlake Development Company
Tom Bandy, Willdan & Associates
2. The purpose of the meet i ng was to revi ew the proposed Growth Management
Program and Implementation Ordinance with the Growth Management Oversight
Committee. Bob Leiter explained to the committee members that staff had
been worki ng in conjunct i on with Wi 11 dan Associ ates, putting together
this program as a follow-up to the Council's adoption of the Growth
Management Element of the General Plan. The schedule for public hearings
on the Growth Management Program entail a public hearing by the Planning
Commission on February 13, and thereafter a publ ic hearing by the City
Council for final adoption.
The authors of the program and ordinance were introduced. Mr. Phil
Carter, from Willdan Associates and Bud Gray, Planning Consultant to the
City of Chula Vista, were available to present an overview of the program
and to answer questions by members of the Committee.
Ph il Carter presented an overvi ew of the program begi nn i ng with the
facility threshold standards and explaining that the most recently
amended threshold standards by the City Council have been included in the
program. The most recent amendments to the traffic threshold have been
incorporated as well as the amended economi c threshold standard. The
recommended changes to the parks threshold standard was referred to the
Parks and Recreation Commission by the City Council. On January 18, the
Parks and Recreat i on Commi ss i on endorsed the GMOC recommendat ions. The
Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation will now be forwarded back
to the City Council for final action and following the Council's action,
the amended parks threshold standard wi 11 be incorporated into the fi na 1
printing of the Growth Management Program.
Phil Carter also explained the relationship of public facility master
plans that have been used in conjunction with each of the public facility
sections of the Growth Management Program. These facility plans identify
needs, locations of future facil ities and costs at full buildout of the
planning area and they indicate how facilities should be phased as
development occurs.
~~-I()"
GMOC Minutes
-2-
Januarv 31. 1990
Mr. Carter reviewed how the Growth Management Threshold Standards and
Facility Master Plans are linked to project processing requirements,
part i cularly in terms of the use of the general development pl an, spa
plans, public facility financing plans, subdivision maps and bUilding
permits for any new project that wi 11 be subject to growth management
review.
In addition, the development phasing policies included in the program
were discussed and it was indicated that the city has identified the need
for five- to seven-year development phasing forecast which will be
updated on an annual basis and monitored on a quarterly basis to direct
and phase future growth in the undeveloped area of the city. Of
part i cular note is the findi ng that only a certai n amount of approved
development can proceed to construction without the addition of SR-125 to
the highway system. Accordingly, the program recommends that the Council
adopt an interim Growth Management Phasing Pol icy which restricts the
approval of new tentative subdivision maps east of I-80S, beyond what is
currently approved until such time as a financing plan guaranteeing the
construction of SR-125 is adopted by the Council.
The final component of the program overview presented by Phil Carter
involves the compliance monitoring and the role of the Growth Management
Oversight Committee. The role of the Committee is expected to be
expanded to i ncl ude the revi ew and approval of the proposed development
phasing forecast which will be discussed at the first meeting of the GMOC
on February 14 of this year.
It was also ment i oned that there is an Imp 1 ementat ion Ordi nance bei ng
proposed to guarantee that the requirements of the Growth Management
Program are adopted by law and enforceable by the staff with respect to a
new development project.
In terms of the Commi ttee' s di scuss i on, Mr. Chuck Peter asked how the
City of Chula Vista compares with other cities with respect to our
adopted threshold standards.
Mr. Carter responded that most cities in California really do not have
threshold standards in the eleven areas that Chula Vista has and
therefore Chul a Vi sta is really qu i te a bit ahead of many of the other
cities in the State.
Mr. Hugh Chri stensen asked about the status of the computeri zed traffi c
signal system and staff responded that a report will be made back to the
Committee by the Engineering Department when traffic is discussed in one
of our future meetings. It was also asked about the impact of SR-54 in
terms of traffic volumes on east-west streets, and this is another area
where the Engineering Department is currently having a consultant study.
The status of traffic on the various intersections of the city and the
impact of SR-54 is one of those special questions that will be reported
on at a future meeting of the GMOC.
;;'0 - IO~
GMOC Minutes
-3-
Januarv 31. 1990
Member Hyde asked if anything new had occurred with respect to the
statement of concern about the school situation. Mr. Bob Leiter
responded that the di stri cts are amendi ng the Mell o-Roos di stri ct to
include projects 20 units or less as well as including commercial and
industrial areas within the district in an attempt to generate funding
for future school facilities.
Mr. Chuck Peter indicated it would be desirable to ask speakers to this
year's GMOC meetings to submit the written statements in advance of their
appearance so that the Committee members could become more familiar with
the subject matter of the particular meeting.
Mr. Hugh Christensen asked why the School District did not show a school
in the mid-Bayfront? Mr. Leiter responded that the City and the School
District have been working cooperatively on the mid-Bayfront plan and
that if residential is included in that project area, then provisions
wi 11 have to be made up front by the developer to the School Di stri ct' s
satisfaction to accommodate the children anticipated in the project.
Mr. Hugh Christensen asked about the Boy's Club and indicated that there
is a very critical need for that type of facility in the city. This is a
quest i on that wi 11 be referred to the Parks and Recreation staff for a
response.
Mr. Will Hyde suggested that a member of the newly created Water
Commission be invited to attend the appropriate meeting of the GMOC when
water is being discussed this year. Staff agreed to invite both a staff
member and a policy member of that Commission to the appropriate meeting.
Mr. Hyde asked what is happening with respect to the Air Pollution
Control District situation which the GMOC had some concerns about last
year, and Mr. Leiter i ndi cated that the Di rector of the Ai r Poll ut i on
Control District and he had met that day and discussed the current
efforts in responding to the State Clean Air Act of 1988. This new law
mandates a new air qual ity strategy be submitted to the State Resources
Board by July 1991. Mr. Sommerville also indicated that this year's GMOC
meeting will provide an overview to implement the Clean Air Act as well
as review the role of local cities and other public agencies in
attempting to improve air quality. Mr. Leiter also explained that the
Growth. Management Program includes an "Air Quality Improvement Plan"
which will be a program prepared in conjunction with future SPA plans to
incorporate design features in new projects to encourage mass transit
usage, pedestrian bicycle usage, and to decrease future reliance upon the
automobile for unnecessary trips.
Mr. Hugh Chri stensen suggested with respect to the economi c threshold
that the city could obtain many excellent studies of the local economy
from such organizations as the Realtor Group and the Chamber of Commerce,
and that those might be useful to the GMOC. Mr. Will Hyde indicated that
the newl y created Economi c Development Commi ss i on shoul d be appri sed of
;J() -If) K
GMOC Minutes
-4-
Januarv 31. 1990
the GMOC Economic Threshold and invited to the April 11 meeting to see if
there can be some mutual cooperation between the two bodies with respect
to the economi c threshold work. The staff of the Pl anni ng Department
will focus on the fiscal side of the threshold in conjunction with
working with John McTighue and Associates in trying to update an overall
fiscal report for the city. The Community Development Department will
assist us in looking at the economic information available on the local
economy.
Mr. Hugh Christensen spoke to the need for a financial briefing on the
fiscal health of the City by the City Manager and, after some discussion,
it was agreed to invite Mr. John Goss, the City Manager, and/or the
Budget Officer to attend a future meeting to brief the Committee (April
18) on the future budget outlook for the City, particularly with respect
to the significance of revenues generated by new development on the
fiscal health of the City.
Mr. Chuck Peter indicated that he has been disappointed about the length
of time it takes to get feedback from the city on the GMOC
Recommendat ions and suggested that there needs to be some mechani sm to
advi se the members of the GMOC on follow up actions by the city. The
staff was al so asked to prepare a report on the status of the terms of
office of the GMOC members for thei r i nformat i on at the February 14
meeting. Mr. Will Hyde indicated that at the February 14 meeting the
Committee will be asked to elect a chairperson for 1991.
Mr. Gray asked whether or not the GMOC wished to make a formal
recommendation on the Growth Management Program and Implementation
Ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Committee
members agreed that Susan Fuller, who is the Planning Commission's
representat i ve to the GMOC, coul d share the GMOC' s perspective of the
Growth Management Program with the Pl anni ng Commi ssion at the
Commission's February 13 Public Hearing.
WPC 8904P
:lO-ld'1
ATTACHMENT 5
Attachment 5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADDING CHAPTER 2.40 TO THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CREATION OF
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
Section 1. That Chapter 2.40 is added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to read as
follows:
Chapter 2.40
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
Section 2.40.010 Creation.
There is hereby created a Growth Management Oversight Commission (Commission).
Section 2.040.020 Purpose and Intent
It is the purpose and intent of the City Council in establishing the Commission is to
create an advisory body to provide an independent annual review of the effectiveness of
the General Plan regarding development issues. The Commission should use the
threshold criteria to make determinations regarding the impact of development on the
"quality of life" in Chula Vista, publish findings and make recommendations thereon.
Section 2.40.030 Functions and Duties
The functions and duties of the Commission shall be as follows:
A. Consider the quality of life threshold standards set forth in the Growth Management
Plan (and, when adopted, in the new Growth Management Ordinance) an and make
determinations, or recommendations, as appropriate, regarding the following:
1. Whether the thresholds have been complied with, on both a project and cumulative
basis;
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
3/21/91 Page I
;)0-1/0
2. Whether each threshold is appropriate for its goal;
3. Whether any new threshold should be adopted for any issue;
4. Whether any new issues should added to, or deleted from the thresholds analysis
group;
5. Whether the City has been using fees and funds derived from developers for the
intended purpose;
6. Whether enforcement is being achieved.
B. Annually, on or before June 30, make and publish its findings and
recommendations, including those for imposition of a moratorium, or formal
.Statements of Concern" regarding water, sewer, schools, and air quality thresholds.
C. The Commission's annual report shall be forwarded for City Council in a timely
manner through the Planning Commission, and, as to those thresholds affecting the
Montgomery area, the Montgomery Planning Committee.
D. Annually review implementation of the Growth Management Element of the
General Plan and the Growth Management Program. Such review shall include the
adequacy of master facility plans to account for the effective use of public facilities
required by future growth in connection with the planning and phasing of development
projects.
Section 2.40.040 Membership.
A. Number of Members.
The Commission shall consist of nine (9) Voting Members, a Staff Ex-officio
Member and up to three (3) General Ex- officio Members.
B. Designation of Members.
1. Voting Members.
The Voting Members shall be appointed by the City Council from the qualified
electors of the City, one (1) each of whom shall be appointed from a classification
consisting of residents of the four residential general plan areas (Central City,
Montgomery/Otay, Sweetwater/Bonita, and the Eastern Territories) and who shall, at
the time of their appointment reside in their respective area; one (1) each representing,
respectively, local educational, development, environmental, and business interests and
who shall, throughout their term, maintain their residency and elector status; and one
(1) of whom shall be a member of the Planning Commission.
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
3/21191Page 2
~o-III
,
2. stafr Ex-officio Member.
The City Manager or his/her designate representative shall be an ex-officio
member of the commission, who shall not be required to be a qualified elector of the
City, but who shall have no vote ("Staff Ex-officio Member").
3. General Ex-Officio Members.
The City Council, or its designee, may appoint not greater than three (3)
additional ex-officio members of the Commission, who shall not be required to be
qualified elector(s) of the City, but any such appointed ex-officio members shall have
no vote ("General Ex-Officio Member").
Section 2.30.050 Term of Office.
A. Term of Office--All Classes of Members.
1. Post-Initial Terms.
Except as otherwise provided in this Subsection A, the term of office of all
members, and all classes of members, of said Commission shall be for a nominal
period of four (4) years, and shall terminate on June 30th of the fourth year of their
term, unless they shall otherwise sooner resign, die, become disqualified or
incompetent to hold Office.
2. Initial Terms of Voting Members.
Notwithstanding subsection A.I., the Initial Terms shall commence upon
appointment and shall conclude, for two (2) Voting Members on June 30, 1992; for
two (2) Voting Members on June 30, 1993; for two (2) Voting Member members on
June 30, 1994; and for two (2) Voting Members on June 30, 1995, unless they shall
otherwise sooner resign, die, become disqualified or incompetent to hold Office. The
Planning Commission position shall have no set term; the Planning Commission has the
discretion to change its representative annually, except that no individual member may
serve more than four (4) consecutive years.
a. Assignment to Initial Terms by Lot.
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
3/21191Page 3
~o -/l:l.
.
Voting Members shall be assigned to Initial Terms by lot at the first
regular meeting at which all Voting Members are present, but in any event not later
than the third month after initial appointment of the 9th Voting Member.
3. General Ex-officio Member.
The term of General Ex-officio members shall be for a period of four years
from the time of appointment.
4. Staff Ex-officio Member.
The term of the Staff Ex-officio Member shall be indefInite.
5. Holdover Office.
Notwithstanding the end of any Member's Initial Term or Post-initial Term as
herein provided, a Member, other than the Staff Ex-offlcio Member, shall be permitted
to continue to exercise the privileges of his former Office after the end of his term until
the Office to which he was assigned is fIlled by his re-appointment or by the
appointment of a qualifIed successor to his Office.
6. Vacancies.
Notwithstanding the term of Office to which a Member is assigned, said Office
shall be deemed vacant upon any of the following events ("Event of Vacancy"):
a. The death or disability of said Member that renders said Member
incapable of performing the duties of his Office.
b. The termination of his status as Member of the Commission or the
classifIcation he was assigned to represent on the Commission.
c. The member's conviction of a felony or crime involving moral
turpitude.
d. The member's absence from three (3) regular, consecutive meetings
of the Commission, unless excused by majority vote of such board or commission
expressed in its offIcial minutes.
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
3/21191Page 4
dO -1/3
e. The member's has submitted his resignation which resignation has
been accepted by the City Council.
f. The membership has been terminated by a majority vote of the City
Council.
Upon the occurrence of an Event of Vacancy as hereinabove listed, the City Council
shall SO declare the Office to be vacant, and shall expeditiously take such steps as are
necessary to fill said vacancy.
B. Number of Terms.
1. Voting Members.
a. No Voting Member shall be appointed to more than two (2) terms
except as herein provided.
b. A Voting Member assigned to an Initial Term of less than two (2)
years may be appointed at the natural expiration of their Initial Term to two (2) terms
in addition to their Initial Term. A Voting Member who currently occupies an Office
under an Initial Term may not be appointed to fill the Unexpired Term of another
Office which has become vacant.
c. A Voting Member appointed to the Commission to fill the unexpired
term of an Office of a Voting Member which has become vacant ("Unexpired Term")
which has less than two (2) years remaining on said Unexpired Term, may be
appointed to two (2) terms in addition to their Unexpired Term. A Voting Member
who currently occupies an Office may not be re- appointed to fill the Unexpired Term
of another Office which has become vacant.
d. Any member may be re-appointed after two (2) successive years of
not serving on the Commission in any Office or Membership capacity-Voting, General
Ex -officio or Staff Ex-officio.
2.General Ex-officio Members.
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
3/21191Page 5
~() -/1 Y
A. General Ex-officio member may be reappointed without limitation as to
number of terms.
3. Staff Ex-officio Member.
The Staff Ex-officio member shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council.
Section 2.40.060 Operation of Commission.
A. Time of Meetings.
1. "Organizational Meeting". Among such other meetings as the Commission
may desire to have, the Commission shall meet not later than in the first week of
January each year ("Organizational Meeting"), and thereupon shall do the following:
a. Select a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson from among its Voting
Members to serve for a period of one (1) year.
b. Assign such duties to its members as it determines may be necessary.
c. Deliberate upon agenda issues for further deliberation and discussion
by the Commission.
2. Other Meetings. The Commission shall meet at such other times as it shall
establish by majority vote, or at such time as the Chairperson thereof may call, or at
such times as a majority of the members thereof may call a meeting.
B. Place of Meetings.
Unless the Commission shall otherwise establish another regular place for its
meetings and advise the City Clerk accordingly, the Commission shall meet in the
Council Conference Room in the Administrative Building at the City Hall Complex
located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, or at such other place as may be posted
upon the door of said Conference Room at least thirty (30) minutes in advance of the
Meeting.
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
3/21/9IPage 6
.JO -//.5
C. Conduct of Meetings.
The meetings of the Commission, and notice thereof, shall be governed by the
same rules and regulations by which the City Council is bound in the conduct of public
meetings.
D. Quorum.
Five Voting Members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
E. Resolutions.
The affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership shall be required
for the passage of any resolution of the Commission.
F. Reports and Recommendations.
All reports and recommendations shall be made in writing.
G. Staff Support.
All officers and department heads shall cooperate with and render reasonable
assistance to the Commission. The City Manager may make available staff and clerical
support to the Commission to fulfill its functions and duties, provided such staff and
clerical support is available.
H. Rules and Regulations.
The Commission may make such rules and regulations not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Chapter.
Section 2: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from
and after its adoption.
Approved as to form by:
Presented by:
Robert A. Leiter
Bruce M. Boogaard,
City Attorney
GMOCORD.DOC Creating Grwth Mgmt Commission
312119lPage 7
~o -11ft,
ATTACHMENT 6
Attachment 6
February 13, 1991
Planning Commission
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Growth Management Program
Dear Commissioners:
EastLake Development Company would like to extend
our compliments to the City staff on their hard
work and express our support for the Growth
Management Program before you tonight. We support
the city of Chula vista's efforts for managed
growth, improved air quality, water conservation
and traffic management. In this regard, we would
request that the Planning Commission consider
inclusion of the EastLake Business Center, Phase II
as approved in the EastLake III General Development
Plan (attached), as eligible for a tentative map
under section 21.03 of the proposed Growth
Management ordinance. The rationale for this
request is as follows:
1. Development of a well located
commercial/industrial base is consistent with
the city's transportation management goals.
Trips to and from the Business Center are
largely contra-flow and do not exacerbate
existing traffic congestion.
2. Business Center development is compatible with
the City's air quality goals in terms of
locating work places adjacent to residential
development, thereby reducing commuter miles
traveled.
3. The development of the EastLake Business
Center is fiscally prudent for the City as a
tax revenue source.
~O-II1-
~
...
..
...
EASTLAKE
DMLOPMENT
COMPANY
900 Lane Avenue
Suite 100
Chula Vista. CA 92013
(619) 421-0127
fAX (619) 421-1830
Planning Commission
Growth Management Program
February 13, 1991
Page 2
4. The project is consistent with the City of
Chula Vista General Plan, has an approved
General Development Plan, and is covered by a
Development Agreement.
I believe you will concur that these factors are
consistent with your goals and do not negatively
impact the proposed results from the Growth
Management Program. Therefore, we request your
consideration of the inclusion EastLake Business
Center Phase II within the "approved projects"
category.
Sincerely,
EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
~d~
Vice President, Community Development
KA:td
cc: Bob Leiter
George Krempl
~D-118
General
Development
~~ Plan
l ",
I \ .
, \ ....
. \ '...
)0'\
I ;
~
L t7.~/ II
~!E:= (
~-;J' ~
r....-
/,
I 0) /,,;'/
\ j /,/~
p \, -'
\ \,..........Y'
, .'
,
~Q r
--4
,
,
,
"
I
\
,
~
~'i
\
\
,
I
,
I
I
o
!
l..
"
r-
.
'"
,
, '
"
,0\
'" "
(,p, ....
'"
{'Ol
--
'"
--,-
,
, ,
P<J'l
.' ,
....~--, I.M
l-
.,
I" ,
',0. '
.... ' I"'-__J
: l.N <....,/
-'-
'"
.
o
o /,"j
( I
r-) l
o r I
; '11 I
II r-/I/ . I
.; ;/.... I I
.; . ... I I
\__..~ .
RESIDENTlAL
NON-RESIDENTIAL
!..AND USE
MAX. PROJECTED
OU OU/AC
"" ..
"'" .,
.... ..,
.... ,u
... ....
-
L
'" I
.
-
"
LAND USE ACRES DUlAC
"'" i!31.7 ..,
~ -. ,..
~ 31!5.~ ..."
-- 13001.2 11-'.
.... 37.11 1~27'
- ---
,..rUac
,...
C~
...
-
'"
,
0
-
~~-
....
-
-.
--
-.
.......,............
-......-
......,"-'--
....,...
--
.>.eLl'..
U-I_",_
-----
---
0'_"_'_'
*c:-.._....
......TOI~
~~~
-.--....--
..............-.--...-..
--...--..--
-.-,.....-
~Ollldr_
AI E'ASTLAKE
A PLANNED COMMUNITY BY EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT CO
;)0-1/'7
'"
t
~
1\~,8~
'.
ACRES
....
...
17.5
2711
...,
315.a
-.
,...
1151..1
..
""'.~ -.
\
'" " /
- j
\'
~J
'(
\
~
Cinti
&""""""'"
,..c.a('..l.-~-
rid 1
."..
Summary of Comments
The Baldwin Company
2/13/91
GROWTIl MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Pal!e 4-5
Interim Phasinl! Policy
Recommendation: Modify the proposed policy to delete the absolute prohibition
against approval of tentative maps in favor of language which would provide:
Aooroval of new tentative shall be l'eQuired to orovide that buildinl:
oermits shall not be issued if at the time of the a,wlication for the
buildinlZ oermit the City Council has determined that issuance of
additional buildin~ permits will cause the City to exceed the Traffic
Threshold Standard.
ORDINANCE
Policv
Pal!e 5
P8l!e7
Pal!e 7
P8l!e9
Existinl! Deficiencies
Recommendation: Add clarifying policy language to the ordinance which
provides:
(I) New develop is responsible for satisfying its proportionate share of
a facility deficiency and shall not be compelled to remedy
deficiencies not caused by the proposed development; and
(2) Payment of impact fees satisfies new development's obligation to
provide its proportionate share of a facility deficiency.
"Advance Of" or "Consistent With" 21.07 (c)
Recommendation: Clarify that the applicant must provide facilities "consistent
with" the phasing schedule as set forth in the Master Plan, not "in advance of" the
phasing schedule.
Air Oualitv and Economic Thresholds 21.09 (d) (1)
Recommendation: Delete sections until standards are adopted.
Not Reduce Facilitv Caoabilities 21.09 (3)
Recommendation: Clarify the sentence to read:
"It must be shown that development in the area will not reduce the existing facilities
or improvements capabilities within the project boundaries ar ereate faeilities er
imprevemetlt sRet1ages ill ether Mess below the Threshold Standard or reduce
service capability in any area below the Threshold Standard... "
Maintenance and Operation Costs 21.09 (d)
Recommendation: Clarify the sentence to read:
The developer or benefitinl: orooerty may silllH abe become responsible for the
maintenance and operation costs associated with the early construction of said
facility.
~o -1:20
---
... . -0
'lTl7 ftOOVlll ^ YI.
D.O. BOX 90lb
NhTlONhL CITY
. c^ 9~050-6625
. (6191 411.4111
February 8, 1991
Mr. Robert Leiter
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Draft Growth Management Program
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Thank you for allowing us to comment on the Growth Management Program and
Growth Management Ordinance. The Rancho del Rey Partnership would offer
the following comments. These comments are being directed to the most recent
drafts distributed in January 1991.
DRAFI' GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1. Pa&e 2-7 . Fi~re 4
Rancho del Rey SPA ill should be moved to the section of "Approved
Sectional Planning Area Plan" (Approved 1/15/91, Resolution 15993).
2. Pa&e 3-15. Para~apU
Reference to the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest
Drive/Oleander Avenue of failing to comply with City threshold standards
should be removed. Findings presented in EIR No. 89-10 (Rancho del
Rey SPA ill) indicate that this intersection will comply with traffic
threshold standards.
3. Pa~e 4-5. Interim Phasini Poli"-Y. Para~aph 1
This paragraph should be revised to reflect an affirmative statement of
tentative map approval for Rancho del Rey SPA ill for which EIR 89-10
was certified with all traffic impacts being mitigated.
4. Pa&e 4-7. Figure 36
Footnote No.3 should be removed. (See comments 2 & 3 above).
~D -J~I
----- ..
Mr. Robert Leiter
Page 2
February 8, 1991
DRAFr GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
1. The ordinance needs to provide a definition of the word "project" and
needs to be consistent in the use of this word. In some places it appears
that "project" refers to a SPA, in other it appears to refer to a PFFP and
in others it is not clear. See for example Sections 21.03 (a) & (b), 21.04
(a), 21.07 (b), 21.08 (b), etc.
2. It is not clear if Section 21.03 (a) is interpreted to exempt PFFPs that
have been approved by the City Council prior to the effective date of this
ordinance. It is suggested that language be added that states "Any PFFP
approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be deemed in
compliance with this ordinance,"
3. In Section 21.08 (b) it appears PFFPs can be larger than SPA plan areas.
Is this true? If so, under what circumstances would they be larger than
SPA plan areas, and what responsibility would there be of the City to
assure that multiple property owners/developers cooperate?
4. Specifically what is meant by "cash flow analysis" in Section 21.09 (d) (2)?
5. What is meant in Section 21.09 (h) which requires the fiscal analysis or
"capital budget impacts" and analysis of impacts on school districts and
water agencies? It is not clear if the analysis of impact on schools and
water agencies is operating or capital, or both. An overall fiscally
balanced community should be the goal of growth management, not each
project being fiscally balanced,
This concludes our comments. Please call me if you have any questions
regarding this matter.
cc: Phil Carter. Willdan Associates
Bud Gray, Planning Department
jO -I:J~
STAFF RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION LETTERS
RECEIVEO AT THE FEBRUARY 13, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING
1. Resoonse to Letter from Kent Aden. EastLake Develooment Comoanv dated
Februarv 13. 1991
The recommended "interim phasing pol icy" would, with 1 imited exceptions,
restrict the approval of new tentative subdivision maps until a financing
plan for the construction of an interim hcil ity along State Route 125
(SR-125) is completed. This plan is expected to take from six months to
a year to complete. At that time we will have a much better idea of the
financing requirements for that hcil ity and what the relative share of
responsibility of new development would be for the interim facility.
Until the financing plan is completed it would be premature to approve
new tentative subdivision maps because we really wouldn't know what the
fi nanci ng imp 1 i cat ions woul d be for the project. After a ten tat i ve map
is approved, it would be more difficult to go back and apply new
conditions or requirements such as fair share financing conditions for
SR125.
The interim policy doesn't preclude processing General Development Plans,
Sect iona 1 Pl anni ng Area Pl ans or even prel imi nary revi ew of tentat i ve
maps, but it is recommended that actual approval of tentative subdivision
maps not be granted until the SR-125 financing plan is completed.
2. Resoonse to Letter from Kim Kilkennv. Baldwin Comoanv
Interim Phasina Policv Csee Daae 4-5 of Growth Manaaement Proaraml:
The recommendations by Mr. Kil kenny to delete the language to withhold
approval of new tentative subdivision maps until a financing plan for
SR-125 is completed is not consi stent wi th the Growth Management Pl an.
Studies have confirmed that the traffic threshold standard cannot
accommodate further subdi vi s ions beyond those already approved without
additional roadways such as SR-125. Postponing the financing plan for
SR-125 until the building permit stage would make it nearly impossible to
arrive at agreement on how to finance the construction of SR-125.
Growth Manaaement Ordinance:
Existina Deficiencies - Section 19.09.060CF1C21 - Staff concurs that the
City cannot require new development to pay for existing deficiencies in
public facility capacity. However, if a developer chooses to move ahead
in advance of the City's schedule for correcting past deficiencies,
he/she may pay more than his/her fair share initially and then be
reimbursed later. The payment of the impact fee by itself doesn't always
satisfy new development's obligation because the threshold standards must
be maintained for all new development. In some cases, new development
may pay more to move ahead earl ier than the City's schedule and then be
reimbursed at a later date.
.;10 -/023
Advance of or Consistent with CSection 19.09.0901:
The relevant section has been rewritten.
Air Oualitv and Economic Thresholds CSection 19.09.050CB11:
The inclusion of an air quality improvement plan is intended to take
whatever feasible steps are available to lessen air quality impacts from
new development. It is recognized that when the new regional air quality
strategy is adopted by the State Ai r Resources Board, 1 oca 1 air qual i ty
improvement plans will need to be consistent with applicable standards
adopted by the State.
The Economic Threshold was included in the original threshold standards
because the development community felt the City's economic health was a
val id threshold to monitor to make sure the City would have the fiscal
resources to provide public services to new development. There was also
a concern that development impact fees be spent in a timely manner to
provide the public facilities for which they were intended.
No Reduction of Public Facilitv Caoacitv CSection 19.09.060CF1C211:
The purpose of this section is to ensure that a new development project
is properly conditioned to provide all of its publ ic facil ity
requirements to meet the impacts created by the project. The actual
resolution of how the conditions are implemented is more a function of
the particular Master Facility Plan or requirements of a particular City
department if no Master Facility Plan exists. The City has demonstrated
flexibility in timing the provision of certain public facilities.
Maintenance and Ooeration Costs CSection 19.09.060CH11:
This language doesn't preclude the developer from using some form of
assessment district to distribute the cost for maintaining a public
facility. The language does place the burden for creating the financing
mechanism on the developer rather than on the City. This can be
addressed in the public facility financing plan for individual
developments.
WPC 9024P
-2-
~ () -I ;). l./-
ATTACHMENT 7
Attachment 7
RESOLUTION NO. PCA-91-3 AND PCM-91-5
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE
ADOPTION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND AN
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ADOPTION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista General Plan includes a
Growth Management Element wherein Action Program 5-2-1 calls for
the preparation of a Growth Management Program to guide the public
facility phasing and financing to accommodate planned growth; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Program and Implementation
Ordinance proposes to set forth a system consisting of public
facility master plans, threshold standards, development phasing and
financing policies to coordinate the city's growth management
program; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a
hearing, together with its purpose, and gave notice of the hearing
by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at
least 21 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as
advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., February 13, 1991, in the Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the commission found that the project would have no
significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-91-20.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
has determined that the Growth Management Program and
Implementation Ordinance is consistent with the Chula vista General
Plan and that public necessity, convenience, general welfare and
sound public facility planning and management support the adoption
of the Growth Management Program and Implementation Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be
transmitted to the city Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of February, 1991, by the following vote,
to-wit:
:2,0 -1;)5
AYES:
commissioners Carson, Casillas, Fuller, Grasser-Horton,
Martin, and Decker
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Tuqenberq
ATTEST:
~A</j{ f2f!~
Nancy iple, cretary
~O-I;J'
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MR. CRAIG FUKUYAMA,
RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP
Draft Growth Manaaement Proaram
1. Page 2-7 - Figure 4
Figure 4 on page 2-7 depicts the status of development as of
1/1/90. Mr. Fukuyama is correct that on 1/15/91 Rancho del
Rey SPA III did receive approval of its sectional Planning
Area Plan.
2. Page 3-15, Paragraph 5
The reference to the intersection of Telegraph Canyon
Road/Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue on page 3-15, paragraph 5, is
correct. It has been projected to fail to meet the adopted
threshold standard.
Mr. Fukuyama is also correct in that based upon the conditions
of approval of the Rancho del Rey SPA III to provide
mitigation, this intersection will meet the threshold
standard. The reference in the Growth Management Program
document does not need to be removed.
3. Page 4-5, Interim Phasing POlicy, Paragraph 1
The Growth Management Program document itself is clear as
written and does not need to be amended or changed. The
approval of Rancho del Rey SPA III and EIR-89-10 provides the
necessary analysis which will allow this project to proceed
under the Interim Phasing Policy contained in the Growth
Management Program.
4. Page 4-7, Figure 36
Figure 36 on page 4-7 does not need to be amended. It is
clear that this Forecast includes Rancho del Rey SPA III
provided the traffic analysis contained in the EIR for this
project resolved the forecasted failure at the intersection of
Telegraph canyon Road/Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue. The EIR
was certified and does provide the required mitigation and,
therefore, Rancho del Rey SPA III is included in the
Preliminary Development Phasing Forecast.
Draft Growth Manaaement Ordinance
1. Section 21.03 is clear in defining the applications that are
subject to the ordinance. Paragraph (al specifies
applications for SPA Plans and tentative subdivision maps are
subject to approval of public facility finance plans.
Projects subject to a SPA Plan are covered by the ordinance.
~o -/~ r
2. section 21. 04 sets forth the exceptions to section 21. 03 . Any
SPA Plan/PFFP and subsequent discretionary permits approved
before July 11, 1989, are exempt from this ordinance. All
other permits are subject to the ordinance, including building
permits.
3. Yes, PFFP area may be larger than a specific SPA area. This
may happen if the facility impacts from the SPA area effect
other properties outside the boundaries of the SPA> The city
will assure that multiple property owners will be treated in
the same fashion. However, it is beyond the City's direct
control to assure that multiple property owners cooperate with
one another.
4. Providing a "cash flow analysis" means a projection of the
revenues generated to fund capital improvements needed to
serve the project consistent with the phasing schedule of
development for the project. The city will compare this cash
flow analysis projection with all other available funds to
determine whether or not sufficient funds will be available
when needed to construct new facilities.
5. This section requires each proj ect to identify its direct
impacts on the need for capital facilities. This includes the
one-time capital cost as well as projected maintenance and
operation costs which will occur as a result of the
construction of additional facilities. Yes, projections of
operating and maintenance costs for school and water
facilities, along with city facilities, must be included.
The General Plan requires that the City be fiscally balanced.
The goal of the Growth Management Program is not to mandate
that each specific project be completely fiscally balanced
before it is approved. The goal is to provide the fiscal
information on a project by project basis to guarantee that
the overall General Plan goal will be attained.
(RDRESPON)
01-0 -/OJI
...
March 21, 1991
Mr. Bob Leiter
Engineering Department
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
ORDINANCE/TENTATIVE MAP MORATORIUM
Dear Bob,
EastLake Development company is pleased to support
the purpose and methodology of the referenced plan
and implementation ordinance. We concur that the
proposed Tentative Map Moratorium is an effective
means of insuring that approved development
projects will not create an overburdened eastern
territory roadway network. We are fully supportive
of the proposed SR 125 financing
plan/implementation study, to be completed in the
next year, as a way to ensure that growth in the
eastern territories not only funds a workable
transportation network but constructs the needed
facilities in a timely manner.
Pursuant to our conversation yesterday, we ask that
you include the actions necessary during the
ordinance approval process which would allow
EastLake Development Company a greater degree of
internal development phasing flexibility. We
understand that you will continue to allow our SPA
plans and tentative maps to be processed during the
moratorium. In addition, we would also propose
that EastLake Development Company have the
flexibility to phase our development such that a
project currently under the moratorium could be
substituted for one which is not, as long as there
is no net increase in "approved project" peak
traffic volumes. For example, if we would prefer
to proceed with an unapproved project such as
EastLake Business Center Phase II, we could offer
to place approved projects such as EastLake Village
Center and/or EastLake Greens dwelling units, under
the moratorium. It would be our responsibility to
provide and secure the necessary means of achieving
no net increase in peak traffic volumes as a part
of the tentative map approval process.
.;JO-/~'
RECEIVED
WD 2 2 19;1
PLANN!NG
J
I_~
L.-
~:?:i ;:
EASTLAKE
DMLOPMENT
COMPANY
900 Lane Avenue
SUite 100
Chuto Vista, CA 92013
(619) 421-0127
FAX (619) 421-1830
Mr. Bob Leiter
March 21, 1991
Page 2
Your support in providing the capability we have outlined above
during the ordinance approval process would be appreciated. If
you have any questions or need further information please do not
hesitate to call me or Kent Aden at 421-0127.
sincerely,
EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
~/l2/v--
Bruce N. Sloan
Project Manager
BNS/cll
;).O-IB()
MINUTES FROM RCC AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday, January 21, 1991
Conference Room 1
Public Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDERlROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order with a quorum at 6: 12 p.m.
by Commissioner Kracha. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Barbara Reid called roll. Present:
Commissioners Stevens, Johnson, Hall, Kracha. Absent: Fox, Ray and Ghougassian.
The Communications section of the agenda was taken out of order. Mary Ann Miller, Staff from
Environmental Review, gave a status report for Debra Fisher of Rohr Industries regarding the EIR 90-10.
Questions were clarified by the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUP (StevenslHall) to approve the minutes of January 7,1991.
BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Phil Carter, WilIdan & Associates gave an overview of the Growth Management Plan. The whole
presentation will be given to the Planning Commission on February 13. Bud Gray of Gray &
Associates presented a synopsis of the ordinance and how to enforce it into law. It was MSUP
(JohnsonIHall) for RCC commissioners to submit questions on the Plan and Ordinance to Barbara
Reid before Feb. 4, and for the consultants to return to the next meeting with written responses.
B. The RCC Budget item will be continued to the next meeting with a presentation by Doug Reid.
C. It was MSUP (Hall/Stevens) to continue the item on the Environmental Agenda for the 90's until
the next meeting.
D. Items for the Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting ofJanuary 23,1991 were reviewed with
no action taken.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Kracha commented that the Growth Management Plan was presented well, however the Ordinance
was inadequate with too many discrepancies.
ADJOURNMENT:
It was MSUP (Stevens/Hall) to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned by Commissioner Kracha at
7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES
~~
ao-/3/
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday, February 11, 1991
Conference Room I
Public Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDERlROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order with a quorum at 6:20 p.m.
by Chairman Fox. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Present:
Commissioners Ray, Johnson, Hall, and Kracha. Absent: Stevens and Ghougassian.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUP to approve the minutes of January 21, 1991 with one
correction: Paragraph 2, should be corrected to '.. .report for Debra Frisher of the City of Chula Vista... .
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Bud Gray and Phil Carter clarified answers to questions put forth by Commissioners on the Growth
Management Plan and Ordinance. Notes and comments will be implemented into the presentation
to City Council. Discussion and recommendations were made on the Plan and Ordinance.
A motion was made by Kracha to forward and recommend the Growth Management Program for
approval with the following exceptions: Reword the threshold standards to be more specific in areas
of schools, water, sewer and air quality and to defer the inclusion of economics, Civic Center and
Corporation yard until it is recommended for incorporation by the Growth Management Oversight
Committee, and that our members with specific comments and responses are attached; with
amendment to adopt threshold standards for water; motion seconded by Fox.
(Commissioner Johnson left the meeting at 7: 15 p.m.)
In discussion, Fox amended the motion to include: A recommendation be made to our
Assemblyman and State Senator to alter state law so that we may adopt threshold standards as they
pertain to schools; Kracha agreed to the amendment.
Further discussion included measurable performance standards to be established within (six months)
as it relates to school, water, air quality. It was explained that the economics has a standard but it
should be more quantifiable. Question was asked whether to quantify all of these with more
measur.able standards; answered by Mr. Gray.
Mr. Carter gave explanations on the inclusion of the plan; the economic, civic center and
corporation yard's six month time period; an economic standards is already in existence, so a
recommendation should be made that it be updated and more quantifiable. Fox amended his motion
to include it be quantifiable for economics only.
dO -/3d.
Page 2
After further discussion, the motion was restated by Kracha as follows: Forward, recommending
approval of the Growth Management Plan and Ordinance with the following exceptions: City should
adopt measurable threshold standards for water, schools and air quality; letters be sent to our
Assemblyman and State Senator so that applicable state laws may be altered so that the city can
adopt threshold standards for schools; in the areas of economics, civic center and corporation yard,
that measurable performance standards be established within six months; as it pertains to economics,
that they be more quantifiable; and specific comments and responses be attached; Fox affirmed his
second on the motion; motion carried unanimously.
B. RCC Budget for Fiscal Year 1991/1992 was explained by Doug Reid. It was MSUP (RaylFox) to
approve the. proposed RCC budget with an amendment to reallocate dues to the San Diego Historical
Society to the Travel, Conference and Meeting budget and increase office supplies by a minimum
of 10%; motion carried.
C. Items left for action on the "Environmental Agenda for the 90's" include #2,24,25,33,44 and 52.
The secretary will include in next meeting's agenda all action previously taken by RCC.
2. NEW BUSINESS
A. Items for the Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting of February 13, 1991 were reviewed
and included the following:
(1) Public Hearing on Variance ZA V-91-1O was continued.
(2) Consideration of EIR 90-10, Rohr Office Complex was continued.
(3) Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit PCC-91-09: It was MSUP (RaylHall) that RCC
recommend that the CUP should be periodically reviewed and that a time limit be set prior to review
to ensure the use of recycled water.
(4) PCM-91-5/PCA-91-3, Growth Management Program previously discussed; no further action
by Commission.
(5) Amendment #1 to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area; Staff recommendation is
approval; no action by Commission.
B. Review of the following Negative Declarations:
(1) It was MSUP (Kracha/Ray) to recommend for adoption IS-91-12, 1-5 Billboard Initial Study,
with one correction on Page 3, under Item E, paragraph 6, line 3: "...the billboard at this location
are not deemed significant..."
(2) It was MSUP (RaylFox) to recommend for adoption IS-91-13, General Plan & Zoning
Consistency Study, with a correction under D.4. ParklRecreation: "The Threshold/Standards Policy
requires 3 acres of park and recreation land for every 1,000 people. It is not relevant to the
proposed Zoning/General Plan Consistency Study because it is not a violation to threshold
standards. "
~o -133-
Page 3
(3) It was MSUP (KrachaIFox) to recommend for adoption IS-91-17, Zoning Text Amendment.
(4) It was MSUP (RaylFox) to recommend for adoption IS-91-19, Brunswick Family Recreation
Center, and RCC further recommends that the CUP be periodically reviewed. It is noted that the
"total proposed range of acres" has been detertnined to specifically be 1.5 acres per 1000 population.
(5) It was MSUP (Hall /Ray) to recommend for adoption IS-91-20, Growth Management Program
& Ordinance.
(6) It was MSUP (RaylKracha) to recommend for adoption IS-91-23, Cal Stores Warehouse
Addition.
(7) It was moved by Ray to recommend adoption of the mitigated monitoring program, however,
also recommend the project itselfbe denied due to an unnecessary change. Both parts of the motion
were tabled and Ray withdrew his motion. The Planning Commission is waiting for approval or
denial and also waiting to hear from Community Development. This item tabled to the next
meeting.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Ray requests that the City develop and include mitigation monitoring on all Conditional Use Permits.
Fox requests an item for next agenda include how council can establish monitoring programs. Also
for next agenda, add the "Environmental Agenda for the 90's..
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Fox at 9:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
EXPRESS SECRETARiAL SERVICES
~JJJ ~
Barbara Taylor
Jo -/3'1
EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 2/13/91
ITEM 4:
PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-91-5/PCA-91-3: CONSIDERATION OF THE
CITY I S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND IMPLEMENTATION
ORDINANCE
Planning Director Leiter made some initial comments regarding the
background of the Growth Management Program and Ordinance. He
noted that the Growth Management Plan was designed to provide a
comprehensive approach to various stages of development and
thresholds, and specifically recommend changes in the way public
facility finance plans are prepared; development phasing policies
which recommend a means by which the cumulative impact of
development projects could be monitored and facilities provided
when needed; and compliance monitoring and implementation programs
to make sure the policies and development conditions the city
Council and Planning Commission require are in fact being met and
the City'S threshold standards are being complied with. The
Ordinance would put into legal effect the various policies and
programs that are recommended.
Mr. Leiter noted that Phil Carter of Willdan & Associates would
present the Growth Management Program, and also that David
Ferguson, an attorney with the firm of Higgs, Fletcher, & Mack, who
prepared the ordinance was present to answer any questions
regarding the ordinance.
Phil Carter informed the commission that the Growth Management
Program was the element which implemented the City's Growth
Management Element, and the policies and goals of the General Plan
recently adopted by the City Council. He discussed the
implementation procedures which included the quality of life
threshold standards, facility master plans, project processing
requirements, development phasing policies, and the Growth
Management Oversight Committee's review responsibilities.
Mr. Carter noted that the annual report of the Growth Management
Oversight Committee had previously looked back at what had
happened; the emphasis now was to project into the future and show
how the compliance could be maintained over time as opposed to
looking backward. This program will identify potential problems
and allow city staff, the developers, and the special districts the
time necessary to provide solutions to those projected problems.
The Growth Management Ordinance provides the legal requirements of
how the growth management program will function within the
Municipal Code in the city of Chula vista.
;)0 -/3.5
Minutes
-9-
Februarv 13. 1991
Mr. Carter specifically discussed the section on schools. He noted
the first paragraph on page 3-39 needed to be revised based on
additional information which was not available at the time of
preparing the document. This information added specific enrollment
figures.
Planning Director Leiter added that the City Attorney had suggested
some minor word changes to the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration to clarify the relationship of the Growth Management
Program with the currently adopted threshold standards. The
revised Negative Declaration report was prepared to reflect that
and would be distributed to the Commission. He noted the basic
content of the two documents was the same.
Chair Grasser Horton then called for questions of staff.
Commissioner Carson asked if computer simulations would be used.
Planning Director Leiter said staff would be using computer phasing
forecasts, and have already computerized the 12- to 18-month and
the 5- to 7-year forecasts, so reports could be provided to the
commission and Council on a regular basis, showing the status of
every project.
commissioner Carson, referring to page 7 in the Negative
Declaration, regarding water, wanted to ensure that water
facilities were provided in new development (like a Mello-Roos).
She wanted to make certain there was adequate water supply.
Planning Director Leiter referred the Commissioners to page 3-69 of
the Growth Management Program which recommended that a water
conservation plan be required of all major new development projects
which would address both the water needs of the project and then
various conservation measures and supply measures that could be
included within the project.
Commissioner Fuller, as a member of the Growth Management Oversight
Committee, suggested that a schedule of future meetings and
threshold topics of the Growth Management oversight Committee might
be provided to the Commission for their information. She noted
some of the concerns the Growth Management oversight Committee had
discussed. She stated that she felt this was a program that other
cities would adopt. Referencing a letter received from Kate Shurson
of the Chula vista Elementary School District, Commissioner Fuller
asked staff if the treatment of schools and the need for schools in
the older areas of Chula vista differs from the way it is being
addressed in the Growth Management Program.
Planning Director Leiter answered that the Growth Management
Program and Ordinance as they are currently developed are primarily
focused on the area east of I-80S. The Growth Management Program
dO -/310
Minutes
-10-
Februarv 13. 1991
was geared toward transportation and the other threshold standards.
Staff would recommend that we move forward through the Growth
Management Oversight Committee's review this year, and ultimately
through adoption of additional ordinances or other requirements to
deal with the specific problems west of I-80S, since the needs are
very different. For example, the financing of the school
facilities west of I-80S deals with small, individual in-fill
projects. The methods of financing are different, and they present
different problems. This program and ordinance focused on the area
to the east, but staff recognized the need to come back to the
Commission and Council at a later date with a program dealing
specifically with the issues west of I-80S.
Chair Grasser Horton referred to page 3-62 and 3-63 regarding the
allocation program involving the Otay Water District. She asked
how this would affect smaller developers. Would they still be
guaranteed a certain number of units?
Planning Director Leiter answered that the Otay Municipal Water
District allocation program affects only new project east of I-80S,
geared primarily toward the large-scale master planned communities.
He noted the Sweetwater Authority would need to develop some type
of program to respond to the stage 3 water alert which will affect
the issuance of new permits or new water connections.
Chair Grasser Horton asked if construction would stop if there was
a mandatory cut-back of 31% and possibly 50% by summer.
Mr. Leiter answered that one of the considerations the Otay Water
District was making as they move through the various stages of
water alert was that at stage 5 they would prohibit the use of
water for grading. The use of potable water from the District for
grading operations would cease at stage 5. At that point, there
would be a choice of reclaimed water or well water. There would be
an effect on new development, although there were other projects
already graded which would continue to move forward.
commissioner Decker commended the writers of the Growth Management
Program on a well written document. Referring to page 6 of the
Ordinance, he asked that a provision for life cycle analysis be
added. Mr. Decker had previously given the commission a copy of a
memo concerning this which he read into the record and which is
attached. He recommended the following be added to paragraph
21.09, the contents of the Public Facilities Finance Plan:
~o - /31-
Minutes
-ll-
Februarv 13. 1991
"d. The plan shall include life cycle cost (LCC)
projections for each element in 21.09(c) as they
pertain to the city fiscal responsibility. The LCC
projections shall be for 25 years from submission
of the PFFP. The model used shall be able to
identify an estimate of initial and recurring life
cycle cost for the above elements."
Mr. Decker pointed out that subsequent paragraphs may need to be
amended to accommodate the concept of a life cycle projection. He
asked if anything like this was considered?
Consultant Phil Carter answered it had been anticipated that these
types of costs would be included, but recommended that the
commission add the above paragraph to the ordinance, since it was
better written and clarified what was meant by looking at the total
cost of facilities. He suggested the number of years be left open.
commissioner Decker concurred.
commissioner Decker, referring again to the draft Ordinance, asked
about the exclusion of government agencies from the growth
management oversight, such as the Social Security Administration.
Planning Director Leiter answered that the primary reason for that
exclusion was that the facilities that would typically be built in
the eastern territory by governmental agencies are facilities that
would be constructed to meet the requirements of the threshold
standards. Those facilities would have to meet all of the city's
development standards and other requirements; however, it exempts
them from some of the specific study and plan requirements of the
Growth Management Program.
commissioner Decker used a new university as an example of a
government facility, and the exclusion of their having to present
a plan. Mr. Leiter agreed that the exclusion may need to be
narrowed down to relate to facilities that are needed that are
related to new development, and larger scale facilities that would
have a direct impact on growth possibly should be looked at along
wi th others. Staff I s focus was on the types of facilities .that
government normally builds to serve new development.
Referring to page 4, paragraph 21.03(a), commissioner Decker asked
if the generic term "SPA" should be defined in the definitions.
Planning Director Leiter concurred. He noted this section would
become a part of the Municipal Code, which already contained a
definition of the term "SPA."
dO -/38
Minutes
-12-
Februarv 13. 1991
On page 6, paragraph 21.07(e), Commissioner Decker noted it was not
stated who would receive the application first, the Planning
Commission or the Council. planning Director Leiter answered that
"upon recommendation of the Planning Commission" could be added.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was
opened.
Kent Aden, representing EastLake Development Company, 900 Lane
Avenue, Chula vista, complimented staff on the excellent job on a
very complex task. He concurred with commissioner Fuller that this
was a model that he thought other cities would adopt. EastLake
Development company concurred with many of the city's goals and
supported the document in that regard. EastLake Development
Company strongly believes in managed growth, improved air quality,
water conservation and traffic management. Over five years ago
they had pioneered the City's first public facilities financing
plan with EastLake I. They also have a voluntary water
conservation plan and support staff's efforts in that area.
Mr. Aden requested that EastLake Business Center Phase II be
included in the list of approved projects or projects that would be
allowed to obtain a tentative map. He listed several reasons
including traffic management (contra-flow traffic in that people
are coming the opposite way out Telegraph Canyon Road to work at
the EastLake Business center), consistency with the city's air
quality goals (to promote balance of jobs and housing, reducing the
commuter miles traveled by providing those jobs adjacent to the
housing), and provision of an additional tax revenue base for the
City. He also noted the business center was consistent with the
city of Chula vista General Plan, had an approved General
Development Plan, and a Development Agreement.
Kim Kilkenny, Baldwin Company, 11975 EI Camino Real, San Diego,
distributed an outline summary of comments particular sections of
the program and the ordinance. He also complimented staff and the
consultants on the preparation of a series of excellent documents
that would serve as a model of a modern land use policy.
Regarding the Growth Management Program, page 4-5, the draft
document suggests that no additional tentative maps would be
approved until a financing plan for SR-125 was adopted. Baldwin
suggests that tentative maps be allowed to continue to be approved,
that the issuance of the building permits connected with those
tentative maps be conditioned such that they would have to comply
with the threshold standards and the financing plan ultimately
adopted.
~O-13'
Minutes
-13-
Februarv 13. 1991
Mr. Kilkenny said it would be desirable to state the intent of the
document, that "new development is responsible for solving its
proportionate share of facility problems and is not responsible to
remedy existing deficiencies." He asked that this statement be
added to the ordinance.
Mr. Kilkenny also asked that a statement to the effect that the
payment of in lieu fees satisfies new development's obligation to
provide their proportionate share of facilities. There would be
some instances, for example, libraries, where the facilities would
lag development because the policy in the city of Chula vista is to
develop large libraries. Fees would be paid for the construction
of libraries, but the library itself, for some period of time,
would not exactly meet the standard of 500 sq. ft. per thousand
residents. The payment of the fee and the accruing of the revenues
should satisfy the standard until such time that the library could
actually be constructed. He said that kind of language about
payment of fees satisfying the standard would be helpful to avoid
conflict later on.
Referring to page 5 of the ordinance, Section 21.07, Mr. Kilkenny
noted that "facilities must be provided in advance of the phasing
schedule." He said the tenor of the whole document was to provide
them on time, and they didn't need to be provided in advance of the
phasing schedule.
Page 10 in the ordinance referred to language concerning the
preparation of an air quality plan and water conservation plan.
Mr. Kilkenny felt they were of little value until such time as the
region had regulations on air quality.
Mr. Kilkenny asked that on page 7, clarification was needed to the
language that "development in an area will not reduce the existing
facilities or improvements capabilities." There would be some
instances where development would reduce a facility's capabilities,
possibly not beyond a threshold standard, but would reduce it. He
thought that adding the phrase tying it to a threshold standard
would make that sentence clearer.
Lastly, on page 9, Mr. Kilkenny noted that a developer was
responsible for maintenance and operation when they advance the
facility. He suggested using "developer or benefitting party"
because in some instances there would be an assessment district and
it need not be the developer who advanced the maintenance and
operation money, but rather an assessment district.
Chair Grasser Horton asked if Planning Director Leiter would like
to respond to the first item on page 4-5, referred to by Mr.
Kilkenny.
;H) -I-',Il)
Minutes
-14-
Februarv 13. 1991
Planning Director Leiter emphasized it was an interim policy and
related to the need to do a financing plan for an interim 125
facility. That would be expected to take between six months to a
year to complete, and at that time staff would have a much better
idea of what the financing requirements for that facility would be
and what the relative share of responsibility of new development
would be for that project. until that's completed it would be
premature to approve tentative maps because it would be uncertain
as to what the financing implications or the financial impacts of
that facility would be on each tentative map. After a tentative
map is approved, the ability to place certain types of conditions
or requirements on that project is restricted. It doesn't preclude
processing of SPA plans or preliminary review of tentative maps,
but staff would recommend that actually approving additional
tentative maps not be done until the financing plan is completed.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
commissioner Martin stated he had not had time to review all of the
documents regarding this issue, so he was abstaining from voting.
Commissioner Carson asked staff to comment on the comments from
Baldwin regarding the recommendations they had made.
Phil Carter, Willdan Associates, said he would start with the
ordinance and follow the same order that Mr. Kilkenny presented.
Mr. Carter concurred in the recommendation that new development was
responsible for satisfying its proportionate share of the facility
deficiency and should not be compelled to remedy deficiencies not
caused by the proposed development. The City of Chula vista cannot
require a new developer to pay for a past deficiency of a facility.
There are a number of items within the plan that specify if a
developer chooses to move ahead of the city's schedule and pays
more than their fair share, or their proportionate share, how they
will be reimbursed over time. Mr. Carter noted there were a number
of issues through the ordinance and also through the finance
policies .that ensure that no developer will pay more than their
proportionate share.
Regarding the payment of fees satisfying the development's
obligation to provide its proportionate share of the facility
deficiency, it needs to be pointed out that the collection of
development impact fees happens at a slower pace than the demand
for facilities. On a truly fee-based program, the collection of
fees does not assure compliance with the threshold standards. The
goal of the program is to assure compliance with the threshold
standards. This would not allow that to happen.
~()-/~/
Minutes
-15-
Februarv 13. 1991
On page 5, Mr. Carter clarified that if the development is not
consistent with the phasing policy of a master plan, then the
developer is required to show how those facilities will be provided
in advance. It is not saying that they have to be provided before
the master plan would have required them. It is saying if the
project projects a need for a facility that wasn't included in the
master plan on that same schedule, then the developer is required
to provide that facility. It is not intended that a developer
would provide facilities ahead of need. It basically says that if
they are not consistent with the phasing of the master plan, then
they have to do something.
On page 10, Mr. Carter reiterated that Chula vista is a leader in
growth management. In order to be a leader, additional challenges
like air quality plans need to be taken on. Although the city
can't tell today exactly what that plan is going to look like or
consist of, it is important to keep that on the forefront of the
planning and to provide the best air quality planning as the
projects go forward. Mr. Carter didn't recommend taking that out
of the program, because it allows the City to be ready so that when
those regional policies and guidelines are put in place, the
mechanism is already here.
Regarding page 7, "development in an area will not reduce the
existing facilities or improvements capabilities," the purpose of
this section was to ensure there is no timing issue, to ensure that
as each project is approved, it is conditioned to provide all of
its facilities needed to meet its impacts. The timing issue of
when those will be needed will be determined through the SPA
process.
Page 9, maintenance and operation costs, the program recommends
that if property owners/developers wish to move ahead of the City's
schedule; for example, a park facility, if the city had planned to
build a park in 1995 but the developer needed that park to meet the
threshold standard in 1993, it should not be the city's obligation
to pay for the operating cost of two additional years. It should
be the responsibility of the property owner who is creating that
need. All the benefitting property owners who would be serviced by
the facility financing plans should pay their fair share. That
would mean if the Baldwin company provided additional park capacity
which would allow other developers to move forward, they should
also share in the burden of those operating costs. Mr. Carter
stated the intent of this was to ensure that the city's resources
and finances weren't stretched when the City was not ready to bring
those items on line. The goal was to ensure that those who create
the need for the facility actually pay their full costs.
Chair Grasser Horton asked Mr. Leiter to respond to Mr. Aden's
concerns.
d()-I'Y~
Minutes
-16-
Februarv 13. 1991
Mr. Leiter said that, with regard to the issue of the interim
phasing policy and a specific set of projects were analyzed which
already had the level of approval of a SPA plan and a General
Development Plan. Staff was able to determine that set of projects
could be accommodated without the construction of 125. To add
additional projects would go back to the earlier point of not
really having an implementation program for 125. While there are
merits to be considered for any additional projects outside of the
ones listed, Mr. Leiter believed staff's preference would be to
recommend that the policy be carried forward as written, but with
the assurance that the city and the development community could
work together over the next several months to analyze the financing
issues for 125 and try to come up with that program in a timely
manner and then allow the approval of additional maps to go forward
at that point.
commissioner casillas asked what could be done prior to development
of the regional air quality plan?
Planning Director Leiter explained that staff had been working with
the McMillin company specifically on an air quality improvement
plan for Rancho del Rey I s SPA III. As to what could be done
without regional standards being adopted, the air quality impacts
of a particular project could be analyzed and quantified, and
measures could be identified and considered which would reduce air
quality impacts. A particular set of measures could be recommended
to be included in a project and the improvements made in air
quality quantified. The only thing lacking was a specific final
numerical standard for how low we want to get. That would be
coming out of the regional plan. By doing certain things, the air
quality impact would be improved, which would be a valid plan at
this point.
commissioner Casillas asked for clarification of the recommendation
to include it at the Sectional Planning Area stage?
Mr. Leiter stated it was being recommended that an air quality
improvement plan be prepared for a master planned community as part
of the SPA plan and to be approved by the Planning Commission and
the Council.
Commissioner Fuller asked if over the next few months staff would
be working with the developer and others on the SR 125 financing
and if this might then come before the Planning Commission again?
Mr. Leiter answered that the RFP for the financing plan studies for
125 would be issued within the next several weeks, and then a
consultant would work with city staff and the development community
to do that financing plan. Once that is completed and adopted by
dO-I'I~
Minutes
-17-
Februarv 13. 1991
the City Council, this interim phasing policy would be met. At
that point the applicants could move forward with their tentative
maps.
commissioner Fuller asked what would happen to the EastLake
Business Center in the interim?
Mr. Leiter replied that Phase I had already been approved and they
were already moving forward on that. They could also move forward
on the SPA Plan work and the tentative map design work for Phase
II. The restriction is recommended to apply at the approval of a
tentative map. Staff does not foresee that taking any more than a
year, and is not aware that it would significantly delay any of the
projects that are currently underway.
MSUC (Decker/Carson) 5-0-1 (Commissioner Martin abstained;
Commissioner Tugenberg absent) that based on the Initial Study and
comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that
this project will have no significant environmental impacts and
adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-20.
MSUC (Decker/Fuller) 5-0-1 (Commissioner Martin abstained;
commissioner Tugenberg absent) to adopt the proposed Growth
Management Program and Implementation Ordinance, as amended.
~o -1'1-'1-
d-tJ
ERRATA SHEET
FOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ANO IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE
(',
The attached typographic corrections are to be included in the Growth
Management Program, pages 3-4 and 3-5, and the Implementation Ordinance,
page 8.
020 -IllS
TRAFFIC
(
3.2 Ira1lk
3.2.1
.
Gal
To provide and maintain a safe and efficient street system within the City of ChuIa
Vista.
Objective
1. Ensure timely provision of adequate local circulation system capacity in
response to planned growth, maintaining ~table levels of service (LOS).
2. Plan new roadway segments and $igr.1I1;7M intersections to maintain
acceptable standards at buildout of the General Plan - Circulation Element.
:Jbreshold Standard
1. City-wide: Maintain LOC "C" or better at all intersections, with the
exception that LOS "D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period
not to exceed a total of two hours per day. City-wide no intersection shall
ODerate at LOS "E" or "F" as measured for the averalle weekdqy lJeak
lHlHL..
2. West of Interstate 805: Those sig1\1I1h,,1 intersections which do Dot meet
Standard #1 above may continue to operate at their current (1987) LOS, but
shall not worsen.
/5.1 / / / KlitfJlWldt;/ NriJ4t.fe/dititlriJ<A ~ ,:(1.05 !'B"/ tJffFf/iJi irI~ iI/Jl /
W/~/WeeV.U'l.peaw)lI/Jlil /
Notes to Standards:
1. LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hour, excluding
seasonal and special circumstance variations.
2. The measurement of LOS shall be by the lCU (Intersection Capacity Utiliza-
tion) calculation utilizing the City's published designs standards (see page 20
of the Design StandardS)I.
1 011 A11Ju1130, 1990, ... CII)' Cauaou diIoctod ..Il'....-we. _ iI dapdl..J)'Iis or.... - -..sa. JCU UllI ACId.
wbich .... ho IIIICI to ........ ............ capacb7'
3-4
c;.O-/4/tp
City of OuIJa Vista
Growth Management Program
(
3.2.2
3.2.3
'l'RAr !'! \,;
3. The measurement of LOS at illlersectio71S of City arterials and freeway
ramps shall be a growth management consideration in situations where
proposed developments have a significant impact at interchanges.
4. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to anticipated
deterioration of LOS below established standards.
Imolementatlon M"JIla're
Shbuld the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then
the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC's report, lChedule and hold a
public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new
tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria:
1. That the moratorium is limited to an" area wherein a causal relationship to
the problem has been established; and,
2. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically
identified impact.
Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare
specific mitigation measures for adoption which are intended to bring the condition
into conformance.
. .
The Circulation Element of the General Plan serves as the overall facility master
plan. Additionally, the City prepared an "East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing
Plan" last year which provides additional information relevant" to the phasing of
development and n~sSllry improvements required in the area east of Interstate 80S.
This detailed Transportation Phasing Plan is currently being updated and provides
additional information to determine compliance with the threshold standard.
Applicants shall meet the following requirements at each stage in the development
process.
General Develonment Plan
1. Identify total traffic demand by land use.
2. Test traffic demand on buildout circulation network.
3. Provide project traffic distribution splits.
4. Determine compliance with General Plan.
City of CIulla VISta
Growth MlUIIlgemelll Program
3-5
~() -II./t
(A) Amount of current capacity now used or
committed.
(B) Ability of affected facilities to
absorb forecast growth.
(C) Evaluation of funding and site
availability for projected new facilities.
(D) Other relevant information.
The growth forecast and Authority response letters
shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review.
B. Drainaae.
1. storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed
city Engineering Standards as set forth in the Subdivision Manual
adopted by City Council Resolution Number 11175 on 2/23/83 as may
be amended from time to time.
2. The SHOC shall annually review the
performance of the City's storm drain system to determine its
ability to meet the goals and objectives above.
x. Traffic.
"
1. City-wide: The Level of Service ("LOS")
at all intersections, City-wide, shall be "C" or better, with the
exception that LOS "D" may occur at signalized intersections for )
a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. City-wide
no intersection shall operate at LOS "E" or "F" as measured for
the average weekday peak hour.
2. West of Interstate 805: Those signalized
intersections which do not meet Standard #1 above may continue to
operate at their 1987 Level of Service, but shall not worsen.
~f//////}i*~1r~*~P!-/
3.44 Notes to Traffic Standards:
(A)
average weekday peak hour,
circumstance variations.
LOS measurements shall be for the
excluding seasonal and special
(B) The measurement of LOS shall be by
the xeu (intersection Capacity Utilization) calculation utilizing
the City's published designs standards Policy adopted by city
Council Resolution Number 15349 on 10/17/89 as may be amended
from time to time.
gm04(l).wp
April 18, 1991
Growth Management Ordinance
Page 8
~9~ .
~o-I'I1
db
1),\'1010 [)[L REY
\~-)"~.\ '<;
I,,~ \-'."
"j~ 'J '\,
\;)' J
#10
'2727 1100VEQ AVE.
P,O, BOX 9016
NATIONAL CITY
CA 92050-6625
(6191 417-4117
RECEIVED
'91 ABR 18 Pl2:O 1
April 18, 1991
CITY 0,.. r" II ' ,,",.
\ f \,...rt:..'Lh '1\,) I Ji'\
L>ITY "LcD""- "'>="'I~'"
Moor~ v l,!,"'>.n J ..j, r Lt
The Honorable Mayor Leonard
and City Council Members
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Growth Manaqement Ordinance
(City Council Aqenda of April 23. 1991)
Dear Mayor Moore and City Council Members:
The Rancho Del Rey Partnership supports the City staff
in their recommendations concerning the purposed Growth
Management Program and the ensuing Growth Management
Ordinance. We do so with the understanding that the
Public Facilities Finance Plans, which have previously
been approved by the City Council, are in compliance
and will not be affected by the proposed Ordinance.
In addition, the tentative maps for SPA III comply with
the proposed Ordinance and were submitted in compliance
with the Growth Management Program. The City staff, in
comments to us and the City Council on April 9, 1991,
have supported this position.
We thank the City Council for continuing this item to
allow additional time for review. The implementation of
Growth Management is a complex process. We appreciate
the chance to actively participate in the preparation
and review of the Growth Management Program. Your staff
is to be complimented on the outstanding job during
this long and important process.
We will be present at your hearing of April 23, to
answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely yours,
Y PARTNERSHIP
CF/nl
cc: Bob Leiter, Planning Director
J
~o -1'1-'
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REPORTS AND STUDIES
ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Submitted To:
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
Submitted By:
WILLIAM C. TUCHSCHER
GRUBB & ELLIS COMPANY
8880 Rio San Diego Drive
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 297-5500
April, 1991
do-ISO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Economic Development Task Force
Report; April, 1981
2) Nuffer/Smith
Carey Report; January, 1982
3) Chula Vista Business & Industrial Development Commission
Report; September, 1983
4) Economic Development Program Report
Community Development & City Managers Depts.
Report; May, 1986
5) Chula Vista General Plan Economic Analysis
January, 1987
6) Chula Vista 2000
Report; December, 1989
League of California Cities
Economic Development Handbook
~o -/S-/
';)0 -IS-~
Entity:
Economic Development Task Force
Report Date:
April, 1981
Submitted By:
Alfredo Arpiza
Gretta Arnold
Bob Crane
Paul Oberhaus
Chuck Peter
Jerry Prior
Michael Raya
Comments Regarding Hospitality/Resort Properties:
"This report is intended to stress the weakness and strengths of our City. Our
findings and recommendations are the culmination of extensive research and
testimony.
Although Chula Vista has always welcomed business, it appears that limited effort
has been made to get the "Welcome" message across to the people who need to
hear it. Our findings indicate a lack of serious effort to promote the City and to
attract additional business and/or industry.
The City should work with tourist related businesses and organizations in the
city or the county to promote our city. Our location between downtown San
Diego and Mexico gives Chura Vista a real advantage. The tourist industry
Is an excellent method of bringing dollars into the city.
The City needs to develop an educational program for its citizens to show that
Chula Vista needs to increase its tax base and it can no longer afford to be just a
"Bedroom Community".
~O-/53
--
.:20 -/5"
Entity:
The Carey Company
Report Date:
January, 1982
Submitted By:
Nuffer/Smith Associates retained by the City Council sitting as
the Redevelopment Agency to prepare a plan for economic
development for the city of Chula Vista.
Comments Regarding Hospitality/Resort Properties:
"Surveys conducted among the leadership and residents found that tourism is not
highly regarded as a development opportunity. The prevailing feeling seemed to
be: What does Chula Vista have to offer tourists?
A conclusion can be made, however, that makes it possible to put tourism in a
more favorable light: Tourism need not be confined to the narrow sense of Chula
Vista itself. When Chula Vista is thought of as a home base equally accessible
to the attractions of San Diego and Baja California, the perspective is broadened.
Following is a summary of the look at tourism development.
A. Chula Vista has good potential as a tourist area when it is thought of as a
home base accessible to the attractions of San Diego and Baja California.
B. The community already offers tourists a good climate, proximity to the
combined San Diego-Baja California region and a number of reasonably
priced hotels and motels.
C. Two major product improvements are needed for tourism
development:
Additional reasonably priced hotels and motels
Additional good, reasonably priced restaurants
D. Southern California logically can be considered the primary tourism target
for Chula Vista.
E. A fairly major advertising effort will be necessary to launch Chula Vista into
the tourism marketplace. However, such an effort would be wasteful until
the major product improvements listed above are addressed.
F. When these product improvements have been addressed, Chula Vista may
consider establishment of a tourism entity that would package and sell
attractions and activities throughout the combined region, with buyers
staying in Chula Vista hotels and motels and eating some of their meals in
Chula Vista restaurants."
~ 0 - J55
~()-I Sf-
.
I
Entity:
Chula Vista Business & Industrial Development Commission
Report Date:
September, 1983
Submitted By:
Bob Santos
Jeff Phair
Art Sellgren
Comments Regarding Hospitality/Resort Properties:
Listed behind only housing in a list of community facilities important in the selection
of new high and low tech industrial facilities are:
1) Travel & Meeting Facilities
A. Hotels & Motels
B. Convention & Meeting Facilities
C. Auditorium Exhibit Hall Capabilities
D. Restaurants
E. Banquet & Meeting Facilities
These community facilities were listed ahead of shopping facilities, building
contractor materials and labor, banks, legal firms, communications media, mail and
express service, civic fraternal and business associations, political and social
attitudes, and prestige factors.
dO -/5r
~() -158
.
I
Entity:
Paul Desrocher, Community Development Director
Jim Thompson, Director of Management Services
Report Date:
May, 1986
Subject:
Economic Development Program Report
Comments Pertinent To Hospitality/Resort Properties:
"Chula Vista has been perceived negatively as part of the un prestigious "South
Bay". "Getting the word out" on Chula Vista was identified as a priority to attract
desired economic growth in all categories.
Chula Vista was judged to be lacking In the type of attractions which would
draw tourists to the area. The successful attraction of motels and
restaurants are positive steps toward enhanced tourism.
Liaison with San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau (CONVIS) Participation will
provide Chula Vista with a higher profile and greater recognition in national and
international tourism outreach efforts.
The attraction of tourists from the region and beyond to vacation in Chula Vista is
extremely important in that the businesses they support are extremely labor
intensive thus generating new jobs or preserving existing ones and they are
generators of sales tax and transient occupancy tax."
~() -/5'7
~() -/"0
.
I
Entity:
PRC Engineering, Inc.
Economics Division
Report Due:
January, 1987
Submitted For:
Economic Analysis for Chula Vista's revised General
Plan
Comments Regarding Hospitality/Resort Properties:
"HOTEL/MOTEL POTENTIAL
During recent years, both the demand for and the supply of hotel/motel rooms
within the Chula Vista GPA has been increasing. Moreover, the existing new hotels
are enjoying high occupancies.
In the future, the industrial developments currently underway and proposed in East
Lake and Otay Mesa, as well as the proposed redevelopment in the City's Bay
Front area, should help generate additional demand for hotel accommodations,
especially from the business and convention sectors. By 1990, room night
demand In the Chula Vista GPA Is expected to reach 611,300 room-nights
and by the year 2000, 1 ,250,000 nights. This equals to a demand of 600
additional rooms by 1990, and 875 more by 1995, and 875 more by 2000 (see
Table XII-5)."
;J 0 - I f:J/
.
r
I
~
TABLE XII-5
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR HOTEL/MOTEL
ROOMS IN THE CHULA VISTA GPA
1986-2000
Year
Room-Night Demand
1986
337,584
611,300
93,700
1990
1995
2000
1,250,000
Number of I
Year Additional Rooms j
1990 600
1995 875
2000 875
Source: PRC Engineering, Economics Division.
~tJ -/~~
XII-8
~() -/~3
Entity:
Chula Vista 2000
Report Date:
December, 1989
Submitted By:
Christine Anderson
Lillian Bernabe
Normajean Camacho
Kent Carson
Joe Casillas
Norma Dale
John Dorso
James Goodwin
Carl Harry
Susan Herney
Will Hyde
Irene Maxwell
Wilma McLeod
Ken Niewald
Alan O'Riley
Charles Peter
Don Read
Jerry Rindone
Edward Snyder
Elena Torres
Harry Whitcher
Carlos Batara
Tim Brictson
Glenda Cantrell
Armando Casillas
Frank Collins
Lita David
Albert Gerber
Dale Hanson
David Hemus
Philip Hoffman
Robert Mathias
Robert Maxwell
Bobbie Morris
Gary O'Neill
William Perkins
John Ray
Richard Reyes
Ricardo Ruybalid
Raul Tellez
Ignacio Vazquez
Comments Regarding Hospitality/Resort Properties:
Presently Chula Vista lacks a drawing card for tourists to Southern California.
Without a tourist attraction, golf and tennis resort or meeting facilities, there
is little Incentive for people to choose Chula Vista as a destination.
In order to attract new high tech, clean industry we must designate land
areas for retail and resort uses (e.g. restaurants, retail promenades, other
commercial recreation facilities) with specific design criteria that will
encourage development attractive to employers and employees of the types
of companies Chula Vista wants to attract."
~o -1''1
"While a bedroom community might seem to be desirable, it cannot provide
enough of a tax base to provide even minimal services - let alone be a vibrant and
exciting place.
We should include facilities such as hotels, commercial and recreational facilities
in our planning.
The City of Chula Vista is undergoing a period of tremendous growth and
changing from a bedroom community to a city with a more varied tax base. In
order to encourage hotel, motel and restaurant development the city needs to
demonstrate its willingness to aggressively promote itself.
~o-/~S
Entity:
League of California Cities
Report Date:
May, 1990
Source:
Economic Development Handbook submitted to the
Community Development Department
Comments Regarding Hospitality/Resort Properties:
"A key strategy cities may consider for economic development is the
construction of hotels or motels. In encouraging hotel-motel development
you may also:
Increase Revenues - Sales and transient occupancy taxes will go up.
Provide More Jobs - Hotels offer a number of jobs, especially those at the entry
level.
Increase Tourism - The California Office of Tourism estimates that for every dollar
spent directly or indirectly on travel, another fifty cents to $1.50 is generated.
Develop Other Businesses - Ancillary development such as restaurants and retail
shops will begin to surface.
Tourism and travel comprise one of the largest segments of the service industry
and the service industry is the fastest growing sector of the U.S. economy. The
diversity of the service industry, including lodging, transportation, recreation and
food preparation, makes tourism an economic development tool for cities. For
communities with few industries, tourism presents an opportunity to diversify their
economic base.
Like other economic development activities, tourism provides jobs, increases
the local tax base, and brings income into a community."
,)O-IILJ~
AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION,
April 23, 1991
Chula Vista City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
Re: Chula Vista's Bonita Road R.F.P.
Honorable City Council:
We are very interested in working with Joelen Enterprises
and the city of Chula Vista to master plan the entire 7+
acre South Bay Golf Club area. We look forward to
participating in the development of a golf resort on this
site.
Further, we believe this project will
enhancement of golf related services and an
the golf course itself.
allow an
upgrade of
We are anxious to work with the City, Joelen Enterprises
and the community to develOp a high quality project that
will enhance the whole area and become an asset to the
community and its citizens.
Sincerely,
AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION
(;~j !?~
Craig Price
Executive Vice President
Acquisitions
CP/pd
~o -,(,,?-
.
I
,~;'
, ".
. ;,~-;}
. f. ,
'-L'~"
. .:.~
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
b)
Public Hearing: Proposed increase in Park Acquisition and
Development (PAD) fees
Reso 1 ut i on 1(,,1 tH, Amendi ng the Master Fee Schedul e
related to Parkl and Acqui sit i on Fees and Parkland Development
Fees for Neighborhood Park and ~mmunity Park Requirements
Director of Parks and Recreatio~
City Manage~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~)
ITEM TITLE: a)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The Subdivision Map Act, which is part of the Government Code Section 66477,
allows cities, by ordinance, to require dedication of land or payment of fees
in lieu of dedication or require a combination of the two, for local/
neighborhood and/or community park purposes, as a condition of approval of a
tentative subdivision or parcel map for just residential development. The
in-lieu fees, known as Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees, were last
increased by the City Council in December 1987. Since that time, costs for
acquiring and developing parks have risen substantially.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
a. Conduct the public hearing.
b. Adopt the resol ut i on amendi ng the Master Fee Schedul e related to park
fees, as shown in Attachment A, to take effect 60 days after adoption.
c. Direct staff to prepare changes to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance with
regard to private park PAD fee credit and a senior housing component for
park area to be dedicated.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission, at
its January 17, 1991 meeting, approved fee increases as recommended by staff.
DISCUSSION:
PAD fees are based on the park dedi cat i on standard of 3 acres/l,OOO people,
density per dwelling unit type, the land dedication requirements, park
development standards and the per acre cost of acquiring land and developing a
park. Attachment A is a copy of the City's Parkl and Dedi cat ion Ordi nance
(Chapter 17,10 of the City Code) which outlines the park standards and
requi red improvements, that form the basi s for the fee assessment. It is
expected that PAD fees will refl ect current costs for park acqui sit i on and
development and that sufficient fees will be collected annually to pay for
needed park improvements or development. However, four issues have been
identified regarding assessment and use of these funds.
2.1-1
Page 2, Item 2L
Meeting Date 4/23/91
The first issue concerns the actual fees charged to developers. As stated
previ ously, the fees were 1 ast increased three years ago. Si nce that time,
land values and park development costs have increased. This issue can be
addressed by adjusting the fees accordingly to reflect current costs.
Attachment B 1 i sts the current PAD fees and proposed new PAD fees. As shown
in this attachment, PAD fees are comprised of a park acquisition portion and a
park development port i on, whi ch is further di vi ded into a nei ghborhood park
component and a community park component.
For the park development portion of the fee, staff is recommending an increase
of approximately $1,000 per dwelling unit for single family residences from
$1,290/du to $2, 260/du, and proport i onately small er doll ar amounts for other
types of dwelling units. These development fees are based on actual costs of
installing park improvements, as outlined in the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance. Attachment C gives a cost breakdown on a per acre basis of these
various park improvements, such as irrigation, landscaping and play equipment,
for a basic local/neighborhood park. The cost for a basic local/neighborhood
park has increased from $82,500/acre to $155,gOO/acre. Attachment D shows the
costs and proposed fees for the community park improvements, as defined in the
dedication ordinance. These basic park amenities and community facilities are
ones typically required by this department.
The current land acquisition portion of the fee is based on a raw land value
of $40, OOO/acre. Pl anni ng Department staff estimated the average per acre
cost of land to be $200,000/acre. The Parks and Recreation Commission
approved park acquisition fees based on this cost. However, since the
Commission meeting, staff has investigated further and reviewed recent
apprai sa 1 reports throughout the Ci ty. It appears that the average cost of
land in areas where parks could conceivably be located, is $5/sq. ft. or
$217,800/acre. Staff, therefore, recommends using the $217,800/acre figure in
calculating the acquisition fees. Per Attachment A, then, acquisition costs
for single family residences will increase from $390 per dwell ing unit to
$2,115 per dwelling unit, and proportionately lesser dollar amounts for other
dwelling unit types.
In the future, it wi 11 be the Parks and Recreation Department's goal to look
at these fees on an annual basis and adjust them accordingly. Attachment E is
a 1 i st of park fees charged by other ci ties in the County. These fees range
from SO to S3,258/du for single family dwellings.
The second issue regardi ng PAD fees has to do with how these PAD fees are
spent. In an earl ier rel ated Council report regarding the recommendations of
the Growth Management Overs i ght Committee (GMOC), the GMOC rai sed concerns
regarding use of PAD fees for making improvements to existing local/
neighborhood and community parks rather than for acquiring and developing new
parks. This committee was especially concerned about the lack of parkland in
western Chula Vista.
ZI..2..
Page 3, Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
As stated in this earlier GMOC Council report, staff recommends that PAD fees
continue to be used for park improvements as well as for new park
development. Unfortunately, not enough PAD fees are collected annually to
make major land purchases for new park development, since these fees are
restricted to residential development as part of a subdivision or parcel map.
In addition, PAD fees are generally waived for major developments such as
Rancho Del Rey and EastLake in return for dedication and construction of City
local/neighborhood and community parks. At the same time, upgrades and
improvements to existing parks are continually needed to keep the facilities
safe and desirable to use. Attachment F is a 1 ist of park projects funded
with PAD fees, for the last five years.
Staff is therefore looking at the feasibil ity of implementing a "park benefit
fee" which could be assessed for non-PAD fee-required developments, such as
commercial and industrial projects. These fees potentially could be used for
improving and developing parks in western Chula Vista, including the
Montgomery area.
Staff is also considering implementation of a Park Development Impact Fee
(Park DIF) to fund major facilities, such as a Cultural Arts Center and
Greenbelt improvements. Recommendations regarding establishment of these fees
will be sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council for
consideration within the next six months.
The GMOC al so identified concerns with the types of 1 and accepted for parks
and recommended making changes to the ordinance to include definitions of net
usable acres.
The third issue concerns where PAD fees are currently spent. As discussed in
the GMOC Council report, staff is concerned about fi ndi ng the nexus between
co 11 ect i on of PAD fees and use of these fees to benefit the areas from where
these fees are co 11 ected, as defi ned inSect ion 17.10. OBO of the City Code.
At one time, the City was divided into park districts for the purposes of
determining adequacy of parkland within a certain radius and to collect and
spend PAD fees according to these district boundaries. Staff will be studying
this park district concept further to determine the feasibility and need to
reinstitute this concept, for the distribution of PAD fees and, possibly "park
benefit fees", and wi 11 return with a report to Council.
The fourth issue concerns the impact of the proposed fees on the development
community. The Parks and Recreat i on Department conducted a workshop for the
developers on April 15, 1991 to review the proposed increases and note any
concerns. In general, the developers felt the proposed fees accurately
refl ected the current costs of devel opi ng parks. The major developers are
generally providi ng turnkey parks and havi ng PAD fees waived, and thus will
not be impacted by the fee increase at this time. By providing the land and
building these turnkey parks, developers are actually paying the proposed park
acqui sit i on and development costs. Staff's percept i on, then, is that these
costs are already being accounted for in the housing prices. Staff is
concerned, however, about the overall amount of fees charged per dwelling unit
and will provide an analysis of this potential impact during the next year.
2/..,3
Page 4, Item ~.l
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Three concerns were raised by developers, which will be addressed by staff in
the near future. The first concern dealt with fees to be assessed on
special ized housing types, such as a senior retirement community. Currently,
this type of project would be assessed fees or dedicate land based on the
"attached unit" density type which is 2.8 persons per unit. Since a
retirement community is for seniors only, each unit would have only one or two
persons. Therefore, the density would probably be less than 2.8 and closer to
a figure below 2. It is therefore recommended that staff determine densities
of senior housing projects in the City and those of other retirement
communities in the County and bring back for Council consideration an
amendment to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance to add a senior housing
component, with appropriate densities and corresponding park area to be
dedicated.
The second concern had to do with provision of private park amenities in
developments and the amount of park dedication credit to be given. Currently,
the ordinance states that planned developments are eligible to receive credit
for private recreational facilities and that credit will be given on a
case-by-case basis. The developers expressed a desire to have more specific
guidel ines for giving credit stated in the ordinance. There is a feel ing
that, at present, the giving of credit for private park amenities is somewhat
subjective, since no clear-cut standards exist for provision of full or
partial park credit. It is recommended that staff consider adding standards
to the ordinance to identify what is acceptable for credit consideration in
private parks and bring back recommendations for Council review.
The third concern dealt with the density per dwelling unit type listed in the
ordinance, with reference to park area to be dedicated or fees to be paid.
The density figures provided by the State Department of Finance, as of January
1, 1990, are very close to the figures listed in the ordinance. The City has
not yet recei ved the new fi gures for 1991, whi ch wi 11 be based on the 1990
census. It is recommended that no adjustments be made at this time until the
new dens ity fi gures are avail abl e. Staff wi 11 then determi ne if any changes
will be necessary, and will bring any proposed changes to Council for
cons iderat i on. Any changes coul d affect the amount of 1 and to be dedi cated
per dwelling unit and the in-lieu fee per unit.
Therefore, within the next six months, the Department will be bringing forward
to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council recommendations
regarding park benefit fees, Park DIF, park districts, and recommended changes
to the Dedi cat i on Ordi nance rel ated to cri teri a for accepting 1 and for parks
and specific standards for various park improvements, a senior housing
component, private park standards, and possibly new density figures.
FISCAL IMPACT: If the PAD fees are increased as proposed, additional
revenues to the City will be realized. If 100 dwelling units were constructed
next year and subject to payment of PAD fees, as estimated, the amount
collected in park fees would increase from approximately $120,000 to
approximately $330,000.
WPC 1625R
2/-V
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
RELATED TO PARKLAND ACQUISITION FEES AND
PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK AND COMMUNITY PARK REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Map Act, which is part of the
Government Code Section 66477, allows cities, by ordinance, to
require dedication of land or payment of fees in lieu of
dedication or require a combination of the two, for neighborhood
and/or community park purposes, as a condition of approval of a
tentative subdivision or parcel map for just residential
development; and
WHEREAS, the in-lieu fees, known as Park Acquisition and
Development (PAD) fees, were last increased by the City Council
in December 1987 and since that time, costs for acquiring and
developing parks have risen substantially.
WHEREAS,
January 17,1991
by staff; and
the Parks and Recreation Commission, at its
meeting, approved fee increases as recommended
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing to
consider the proposed increase in PAD fees at its April 2, 1991
meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the Master Fee Schedule
related to Parkland Acquisition Fees and Parkland Development
Fees for Neighborhood Park and Community Park Requirements to
adopt the following:
Park Acquisition Fees
single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi-family
Mobilehome
Residential hotel
$2,115/du
$1,830/du
!1,625/dU
1,440/du
1,070/du
$ 980/du
~I ,S-
-1-
Park Development Fees
Neighborhood
Park
Community
Park
TOTAL
Single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi-family
Mobilehome
Residential & transient
motel/hotel
Il,SlO/dU
l,3l0/du
l,l60/du
l,030/du
$770/du
$700/du
7S0/du
670/du
580/du
520/du
390/du
350/du
2,260/du
l,980/du
l,740/du
l,550/du
l,l60/du
l,050/du
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said fees will take effect
(sixty) 60 days after the adoption of this resolution.
Presented by
iO f<m :1
Bruce M. Boogaard ity Attorney
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
8692a
J/,,(P
-2-
Minutes of a
Regular Meeting of the
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Thursday 6:00 p.m.
January 17, 1991
**REVlSED**
Parks and Recreation
Conference Room
*******************
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBER LATE:
MEMBER ABSENT:
Commissioners Lind, Roland, Willett
Chair Sandoval-Fernandez (6:15)
Commissioner Hall
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 13, 1990 as
distributed.
MSC LIND/ROLAND 3-0 (Sandoval-Fernandez out)
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS OR REMARKS
NONE
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Criteria for Membershio in EastLake Golf Course
Item continued until February meeting.
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. Golf Course Fee Increase
Director Valenzuela gave a brief overview of American Gol~'s proposal
for a fee increase. He stated that staff's reV1ew of the
request revealed that the proposed fees were below one third of all golf
courses in San Diego County. This proposal has also been endorsed by
the Men's Club. Johnny Gonzales and Bert Geisendorf were present to
represent American Golf.
The Commissioners discussed the potential stage IV water alert and the
impact that this would have on the Golf Course. Mr. Geisendorf stated
that if necessary the golf course could go back to using well water for
irrigation, even though it is not considered desirable due to high
,.
2/.1
salinity.
Mr. Bill Anderson, a resident of Chula Vista, spoke in opposition to the
proposed fee increase. Mr. Anderson is not pleased with the current
physical condition of the golf course and he feels that he has been
treated in a rude manner by some American Golf employees, because of
this, he opposes the currently proposed rate increase.
Mr. George Laury, a resident of Chula Vista, spoke in opposition to the
fee increase. Mr. Laury stated that while he has always been treated
with respect at the golf course, he has found some things in disrepair
such as the drinking fountain in the pro shop and some of the greens and
doesn't feel that there should be an increase in fees until these items
are handled.
Mr. Douglas HaWkins, a resident of Bonita, compared the rates of other
golf courses in the area: Balboa and Torrey Pines. He would like to see
a special rate for Chula Vista residents a monthly rate, and a rate for
seniors. He feels that a one year span is too short for another rate
increase. Mr. Hawkins stated that he could play EastLake cheaper than
he could play his own city-owned golf course.
Mr. Tom O'Connor, a resident of Chula Vista, finds the American Golf
employees to be extremely courteous and helpful. In addition, he feels
that American Golf has done a very good job in maintaining the golf
course. He has compared the green fees with other golf courses in the
area and finds them to be lower even though conditions at the Chula
Vista golf course are better maintained than the other courses.
Park Superintendent Foncerrada stated that the proposed fee increase is
in line with rates at other comparable courses in the area. He further
stated that American Golf has complied with all of the terms and
conditions of their contract. He has not received any complaints from
citizens or golf course patrons about conditions at the golf course.
It is his opinion that the golf course is in the best condition it has
ever been in. Mr. Foncerrada pointed out to the Commission that
American Golf has completed a number of capital improvement projects
that are above and beyond what the initial contract called for.
Chair Sandoval-Fernandez stated that, based on the input received, she
feels that is too soon for the Commission to make a decision. She would
like to see an example of a tiered fee schedule, with one fee for Chula
Vista residents and a different fee for non-residents, and also a
specification on timelines as to when some of the improvement items are
to be done.
Commissioner Willett requested that staff verify some of the rates that
have been quoted by some of the members of the pUblic. He also noted
that some clubs are trying to hold the amount of their rate increases
to the CPI this year, and stated that the rate increase currently
proposed by American Golf exceeds the CPl.
Motion to table this issue until February, have American Golf come back
with a two-tiered proposal or three-tiered proposal, have staff analyze
~/,i
this proposal and have staff check on current rate structures at
comparable facilities in San Diego County and clarify the timelines on
issues related to the contract.
MSC SANDOVAL-FERNANDEZ/ /LIND 4-0
b. CV2000 ReDorts
At the request of the Chair, Director Valenzuela briefed the Commission
on the report highlighting those recommendations which he considered
most significant, and gave a status report on those CV2000
recommendations which were currently being acted upon.
Commissioner Roland doesn't think it is a good idea for the City to buy
land in the immediate vicinity of a school because if the school needs
to expand with the growth of the City, the land will be needed by the
school.
Commissioner Willett feels that the City should acquire the property
under redevelopment so if you do need to increase the school or the park
the land will already be in the public domain.
Chair Sandoval-Fernandez referred to Page 6 and the statement about
multi-cultural and ethnic changes taking place in the community, and
cautioned staff not to frame that in a negative context. She feels that
the statement, while phrased very delicately, could be interpreted in
a manner that is derogatory to the Hispanic population.
Motion to approve in content the recommendations that are set forth in
the CV2000 report.
MSC WILLETT/LIND 4-0
c. GMOC ReDort - Park Issues
Director Valenzuela recapped the concerns expressed by the GMOC, and
staff's response to these concerns.
One of the main concerns of the GMOC is that PAD fees be used
appropriately. Director Valenzuela stated that no PAD fees would be
used for park upgrades unless a nexus could be drawn.
Motion to approve the recommendations.
MSC ROLAND/WILLETT 4-0
d. PAD Fee Increase
Director Valenzuela introduced Principal Management Assistant stokes who
gave the Commission a recap of the process and criteria used to arrive
at the proposed PAD fee increase.
Commissioner Willett stated that based on recent research he has done
,-,..q
in this area, it is his opinion that the figures proposed by staff are
appropriate.
Motion to accept the report and send it forward to Council with the
Commission's recommendation.
MSC WILLETT/SANDOVAL-FERNANDEZ 4-0
e. EastLake Park Tour
Director Valenzuela stated Commissioner Hall had called him requesting
that the Commission accept Mr. Bob Santos invitation to go on a tour of
the EastLake Park site, and discuss the existing condition and future
plans for the area.
Commissioner Willett recommended that the Commission have an updated map
before the tour.
Chair Sandoval-Fernandez suggested that Commissioner Hall should be
consulted before setting a date for the tour as he had specifically
expressed an interest in attending. She further suggested that if
Commissioner Hall's schedule could accommodate it, a lunch time tour
would be appropriate.
Commissioner Willett will be out of town through January 31, 1991.
f. 4th and Oranae Avenue Park Site
Director Valenzuela stated that based on actions taken at the joint
meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Library Board,
the concept park plan has been tabled. It is hoped that deferring this
plan to the library will facilitate their acquisition of an $8 million
grant to build a library on the site.
Per the Commission's request at that meeting, a letter has been drafted
to Council, reminding them that there still is a park plan for, and
interest in having a park at, that site. Director Valenzuela drew the
Commission's attention to the draft of that letter which was included
in their packets and asked for comments.
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the letter, with minor
revision by Chair Sandoval-Fernandez, be signed and sent to Council.
g. Tennis Center Aareement
Acting Recreation Superintendent Gates gave an overview of Council's
recommendation on the Tennis Center agreement, in particular, the GPA
requirement.
Commissioner Willett has done a detailed study of the situation, and
found that there has never been a student dismissed from the program
because of the scholastic requirement. He sees it as an incentive for
the students to keep their grades up.
~I-I()
Director Valenzuela pointed out that the California Interscholastic
Federation's standard is 2.0, and he felt that Council was trying to
make this program consistent with this standard.
commissioner Lind stated that in his opinion, the scholastic requirement
was not a big issue either way, because the type of youth involved in
the program would be getting good grades anyway.
Motion to support Council's recommendation and send the agreement back
to Council.
MSUC WILLETT/LIND 3-1 (Sandoval-Fernandez opposed)
h. Goals
Director Valenzuela presented the Commission with the Department's goals
for the upcoming year.
Commissioner willett commended the Director on the goals statement.
Motion to accept the departmental goals.
MSC WILLETT/ROLAND 4-0
** Motion to add Terra Nova Park Improvement plan revisions to the agenda
as an emergency item.
MSC WILLETT/ROLAND 4-0
i. Terra Nova Park ImDrovement Plan Revisions
Director Valenzuela introduced Nick DeLorenzo of Gillespie/ DeLorenzo
who presented the revisions and refinements to the Terra Nova Park
Improvement Plan. He did a comparison of the former and current plan
and discussed the reasons why the changes were made.
In response to Commissioner willett's questions Mr. DeLorenzo assured
the Commission that the soccer field still meets AYSO standards.
Motion to accept the revised concept plan.
MSC WILLETT/ROLAND 4-0
5. COMMUNICATIONS
a. Written CorresDondence
NONE
b. Commissioner's Comments
WILLETT
Commended Director Valenzuela on his presentation of
21-11
Department goals, and stated that he is going to present them to the
Chula vista 21 Committee as a guideline.
Commissioner Willett would like the Commission to be notified of all
public hearings involving parks.
LIND - Requested that the Youth sports Council be advised when playing
fields are going to be taken out of service.
Asked if the water restrictions will have an effect on ballfields.
The Director confirmed that all parks, open space and ballfields will
be affected by the water restrictions.
ROLAND - Expressed his concerns about placing parks under power lines.
6. MONTHLY REPORT OF DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY AND COUNCIL ACTION
Director Valenzuela announced the appointment of Sunny Shy to the
position of Recreation Director for the Department.
ADJOURNMENT to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 21, 1991.
Respectively submitted,
Ca~/1f#,
1.1,11..
()
(
l
"
At tachment A
Chapter 17.10
PARKLANDS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
Sections:
17.10.010
17.10.020
17.10.030
17.10.040
17.10.050
17 .10.060
17 .10.070
17.10.080
17.10.090
17.10.100
17.10.110
Dedication of land and development of improvements for park
and recreational purposes.
Determination of park and recreational requirements benefiting
regulated subdivisions.
Application
Area to be dedicated-Required when-Amounts for certain uses.
Park development improvements-Specifications.
Criteria for area to be dedicated.
In lieu fees for land dedication and/or park development
improvements.
Limitations on use of land and/or fees.
Commencement of park development.
Collection and distribution of fees.
Periodic review and amendment authorized.
17.10.010 Dedication of land and development of improvements for park and
recreational purposes.
Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 66477 of the Government Code
of the state, every subdivider shall, for the purpose of providing
neighborhood and community park and recreational facilities directly
benefiting and serving the residents of the regulated subdivision, dedicate a
porti on of the 1 and and develop improvements thereon or in 1 ieu thereof pay
fees for each dwelling unit in the subdivision or do a combination thereof, as
required by the City in accordance with this chapter. The dedication,
improvement, or payment of fees in lieu thereof or combination thereof shall
be applicable to all residential subdivisions of any type allowed under the
various and several residential zones of the city and shall be in addition to
any residential construction tax required to be paid pursuant to Chapter 3.32
of this code. lOrd. 2243 ~ 1 (part) 1987: Ord. 1806 ~ 1 (part), 1978: Ord.
1668 ~ 1 (part), 1976.)
17.10.020 Determination of park and recreational requirements benefiting
regulated subdivisions.
The park and recreational facilities for which dedication of land and
improvements thereon and/or payment of a fee is required by this chapter shall
be those facilities as generally set forth in the park and recreational
.e1ement of the general plan of the city adopted by Resolution No. 3519 on the
22nd day of September, 1964, and as thereafter amended. (Ord. 2243 ~ 1 (part)
1987: Ord. 1668 ~ 1 (part), 1976.)
. .
627
(R 3/88)
~/..13
I.
()
17.10.030 Application.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all subdivisions and
divisions created by parcel maps excepting therefrom industrial and completely
commercial subdivisions and those subdivisions or divisions of land for which
tentative subdivision 'or 'parcel maps have been filed within thirty days after
the effective date of this chapter. (Ord. 1858 ~ 1, 1979: Ord. 1806 ~ 1
(part), 1978: Ord. 1668 S 1 (part), 1976.)
(
17.10.040 Area to be dedicated-Required when-Amounts for certain uses.
The amount of parkland dedication required, in accordance with Sections
17.10.010 through 17.10.130, is based on a standard of 3 acres per 1000 people
and shall be offered at the time of filing of the final map. The area to be
dedicated shall be as follows:
A. Single-family dwelling units, 3.22 persons per dwelling unit, four hundred
twenty-three square feet per unit, or one acre per one hundred three units;
B. Attached, cluster housing or planned unit developments under either
condominium or subdivided ownership, 2.80 persons per dwelling unit, three
hundred si xty-si x square feet per uni t, or one acre per one hundred
ni neteen uni ts;
C. Duplexes, 2.48 persons per dwelling unit, three hundred twentY-five square
feet per unit, or one acre per one hundred thirty-four units;
O. Multiple family dwelling units, 2.21 persons per dwelling unit, two
hundred eighty-eight square feet per unit, or one acre per one hunrlred
fi fty- one uni ts;
E. Mobile homes, 1.64 persons per dwelling unit, two hundred fifteen square
feet per unit, or one acre per two hundred three units.
F. Residenti al and transi ent motel s/hotel s, 1. 50 persons per dwell i ng unit,
one hundred ninety-six square feet per unit, or one acre per two hundred
twenty-two units.
(Ord. 2243 S 1 (part) 1987: Ord. 1806 S 1 (part), 1978: Ord. 1668 S 1 (part),
1976. )
,
17.10.050 Park development improvements-Specifications.
In addition to the dedication of land as required in Section 17.10.040, it
shall be the responsibility of the subdivider to develop all or a portion of
such land for neighborhood or community park purposes to the satisfactions of
the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Parks and Recreation Commission
in accordance with the following criteria"
A. Parklands are to be graded in accordance with a plan which shall be
subject to the approval of the director of parks and recreation.
B. All street improvements shall be installed.
C. All utilities shall be extended to the property line.
D. An automatic irrigation system shall be installed.
E. Turf shall be installed.
F. Landscaping, including trees, shrubs and other plant material, shall be
planted in accordance with the City's Landscape Manual.
L
'-
628
(R 3/88)
tl,IY
()
(
l
.
( .
G. A concrete walkway system shall be installed.
H.. Park fixtures, such as signage, tables, benches, trash receptacles,
drinking fountains and bike racks, shall be installed.
I. .Adrainage system shall be installed, if necessary.
J. Play areas, with play equipment for pre-schoolers and primary school-age
. Children shall be installed.
K.. Security lighting fixtures shall be provided.
l;. One picnic shelter shall be provided for every 1,000 people.
M. One tennis court shall be provided for eve~ 2,000 people.
N. One baseball/softball field shall be installed for every 5,000 people.
O. One mUlti-purpose court for basketball, volleyball, and badminton shall be
installed for eve~ 5,000 people.
P. One Soccer field shall be constructed for every 10,000 people.
In addition to those items listed above, the following facilities shall be
required in a community park:
Q. One 50 meter swimming pool with related facilities, such as dressing
rooms, will be constructed for every 20,000 people.
R. One community center and gymnasium will be constructed for eve~ 24,000
people.
S. One lighted softball field shall be developed for every 5,000 people.
T. A restroom facility shall be constructed in eve~ community park and may.
be constructed in neighborhood parks. (Ord. 2243 ~ 1 (part) 1987: Ord.
1668 ~ (part) 1976)
17.10.060 Criteria for area to be dedicated.
Acceptance of land for parkland is at the City Council's discretion and in
exerci si ng its di screti on, Counci 1 may consider the foll owi ng cri teri a, in
addition to any other the Council considers relevant:
A. Topography, soils, soil stability, drainage location of land in
subdivision available for dedication.
B. Size and shape of the subdivision and land available for dedication.
C. Physical relationship of the site to the surrounding neighborhood.
O. Location of the site with regard to accessibility to the residents of the
neighborhood and its contribution to neighborhood security.
E. The amount, usability, and location of publicly oW'led property available
for combination with dedicated lands in the formation of public park and
recreation facilities.
F. Recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission. An offer of
dedication may be accepted or rejected by the City Council (Ord. 2243 ~ 1
(part) 1987: Ord. 1961 ~ 1 (part), 1982: Ord. 1668 ~ 1 (part), 1976.)
17.10.070 In lieu fees for land dedication and/or park development
improvements.
A. In lieu fees for land dedication: If, in the Judgment of the city,
suitable land does not exist within the subdivision, or for subdivisions
containing 50 lots or less, the .payment of fees in lieu of land shall be
required. In such cases, the amount of the fee shall be the amount
established by the city council in the master fee schedule by resolution
and based on the area to be dedi cated as set forth in Secti on 17.10.040.
'-
~I }2J.s
(R 3/88)
.,' .
()
However, when a condominium project, stock cooperative or community
apartment .project exceeds 50 dwelling units, dedication of land may be
required notwithstanding that the number of parcels may be less than 50.
Where the city deems that a combination of declication and payment, as
provided in this chapter, would better serve the public and the park and
recreation needs of the .future residents of a particular subdivision, it
may require such combination. Provided, however, the city council may, by
resolution waive all' or any portion of said dedication or in lieu fee
requirements in the interests of stimUlating the construction of hOUSing
for low and moderate income families.
Residential motel s and hotels and transient motel s and hotel s shall be
required to deposit fees in lieu of dedication of land required in Section
17.10.050 pursuant to the fees in the master fee schedule.
B.
In lieu fees for park development improvements: If, in the jUdgment of
the city, suitable land does not exist within the subdivision, or for
subdivisions containing 50 lots or less, the payment of fees in lieu of
developing improvements shall be required. In such cases, the amount of
the fee shall be the amount established by the city council in the master
fee schedule by. resolution and based on the improvements required in
Section 17.10.050. However, when a condominium project, stock cooperative
or community apartment project exceeds 50 dwelling units, improvements may
be required notwithstanding that the number of parcels may be less than 50.
Where the city deems that a combination of improvements and payment, as
provided in this chapter, would better serve the pUblic and the park and
recreation needs of the future residents of a particular subdivision, it
may require such combination; provided, however, the city council may, by
resolution waive all or any portion of said improvements or in lieu fee
requirements in the interests of stimul ati ng the constructi on of housi nq
for low and moderate income families.
(
In the event the city determines that the improvement of the parkl and
shall be delayed for a substantial period of time after the parkland 'has been
dedicated, the subdivider shall not be required to install such improvements,
but instead shall pay the fee as set forth in the master fee schedule for the
value of improvements required in Section 17.10.050.
Residential motels and hotels and transient motels and hotels shall be
required to deposit fees in lieu of park development improvements required in
Section 17.10.050 pursuant to the fees in the master fee schedule. (Ord. 2243
51 (part) 1987: Ord. 1668 51 (part) 1976).
<-
17.10.080 limitation on use of land and/or fees.
The amount of 1 and, improvements or in 1 i eu fees or combination thereof
received under this chapter shall be used for the purpose of providing
neighborhood and community park and recreational facilities to serve the
subdivision for which received. The amount and location of the land or in
lieu fees or combination thereof shall bear a reasonable relationship to the
use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the
subdivision. (Ord. 2243 ~ 1 (part) 1987: Ord. 1668 ~ 1 (part), 1976.)
, -
629-1
(R 3/88)
:L1,lb
()
(
c...
I. '
17.10.090 Commencement of park development.
The' city will acquire land for park purposes within as soon as sufficient
funds'areavailable. Any fees collected under this chapter shall be committed
within five years after the payment of such fees or the issuance of building
permits on one-half of the lots created by this subdivision, whichever Occurs
later~(Ord. 2243 S 1 (part) 1987: Ord. 1668 S 1 (part), 1976.)
17.10.100 Collection and distribution of fees.
A. Prior to the acceptance of a final subdivision map or approval of a parcel
map, any required fees shall have been paid to the city. Any land to be
contributed for the purposes outlined in this chapter shall be dedicated
to the city and shown on the final subdivision or parcel map. The
director of finance shall be responsible for the collection and
distribution of fees as set forth in this chapter. Fees collected for
neighborhood and community parks shall be kept in separate funds.
However, the City shall have the ability to shift fee amounts between the
neighborhood and community park funds when necessary.
B. Planned developments shall be eligible to receive a credit as determined
by the City Council, against the amount of land required to be dedicated,
or the amount of the fee impose, for the value of private open space
within the development which is usable for active recreational uses. Such
credit, if given, shall be determined on a case by case basis. (Ord. 2243
S 1 (part) 1987: Ord. 1668 S 1 (part), 1976.)
17.10.110 Periodic review and amendment authorized.
Costs, population density, and local conditions change over the years, and
the specified formula for the payment of fees for acquisition of park sites as
stated in this chapter is SUbject to periodic review and amendment by the city
counc i 1. (0 rd. 1 668 S 1 ( pa rt ), 1976.)
Sections:
17.11.010
17.11.020
17 .11.030
17 .11.040
17 .11.050
17 . 11.060
17.11.070
17.11.080
17.11.090
17.11.100
'-
Chapter 17.11
SCHOOL FACILITIES LAND DEDICATION AND FEES
Purpose and intent.
Dedication of land and payment of fees for school facilities.
Findings and declarations.
Definitions.
General plan.
Notification to school districts.
Overcrowded attendance areas-School district findings.
Requirements of notice of findings.
Approval of residential developments-City Council findings.
Requirement of fees and/or dedications.
630
(R 3/88)
"'../7
Attachment B
PARK ACOUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEES
CURRENT
Park Acouisition Fees
Single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi -family
Mobilehome
Residential hotel
Single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi -family
Mobilehome
Residential and transient
motel/hotel
Park Deyelooment Fees
Neighborhood
Park
$ 800/du
$1,155/du
$1,025/du
$910/du
$680/du
$620/du
PROPOSED
Park Acouisition Fees
Single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi-family
Mobilehome
Residential hotel
Single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi-family
Mobilehome
Residential and transient
motel/hotel
WPC 1628R
Park Deyelooment Fees
Neighborhood
Park
$1,510/du
$1,310/du
$1,160/du
$1,030/du
$770/du
$700/du
~/..rr
$390/du
$335/du
$300/du
$265/du
$200/du
$180/du
Community Park
$490/du
$430/du
$370/du
$340/du
$250/du
$230/du
$2, 115/du
$1,830/du
$1,625/du
$1,440/du
$1,070/du
$ 980/du
Community Park
$750/du
$670/du
$580/du
$520/du
$390/du
$350/du
TOTAL
$1,290/du
$1,125/du
$ 985/du
$ 885/du
$ 655/du
$ 600/du
TOTAL
$2,260/du
$1,980/ du
$1,740/du
$1 , 550/ du
$1,160/du
$1,050/du
Attachment C
Cost of Basic Neiahborhood Park Imorovements Per Acre
Estimated Cost Per Acre
Item
1. Fine grade, site prep, clearing and grubbing
2. Utilities
3. Drainage (allowance)
4. Concrete - paving, mowstrip, play curb,
picnic table and bench pads
5. Play areas - sand, equipment
6. Site furnishings - trash receptacles, drinking
fountains, tables and benches, bicycle
racks, signage, trash enclosures
7. Irrigation
8. Landscape - lawn, trees, shrubs, 1 yr. maintenance
9. Picnic shelter
10. Lighted tennis court
11. Softball field with soccer field overlay
12. Multi-purpose court
13. Security lighting
14. Design cost (approx. 10% of construction)
TOTAL
WPC 1597R
:tJ -14
$4,300
2,200
5,500
10,000
10,000
6,000
25,000
48,500
3,000
4,400
10,000
4,500
9,500
13.000
$155,900
Attachment D
COMMUNITY PARK FACILITIES
PORTION OF FACILITY NEEDED PER DWELLING UNIT
PROPOSED PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT
Type of d.u. S.F. ATTACHED DUPLEX MULTI-FAM. MOBILE HOTEL
Persons per
dwell ing unit 3.22 2.80 2.48 2.21 1.64 1.50
Comm. Center .00013 .00012 .00010 .00009 .00007 .00006
(1/24,000 people)
$1,500,000 $195 $180 $150 $135 $105 $90
50 M pool .00016 .00014 .00012 .000 II .00008 .000075
(1/20,000)
$2,250,000 $360 $315 $270 $248 $180 $169
Restroom .0004 .00037 .00032 .00029 .00021 .0002
(1/7500)
$125,000 $50 $46 $40 $36 $26 $25
Lighted softball .00064 .00056 .00050 .00044 .00033 .0003
(1/5,000)
$230,000 $147 $129 $1l5 $101 $76 $69
Total Park $752 $670 $575 $520 $387 $353
Development Fee
Per D.U. for
Community
Facil ities
Rounded to $750 $670 $580 $520 $390 $350
Nearest Ten
The standards for the number of facil ities per various populations were
developed by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA).
WPC 1597R
!tl'~(.)
Area
San Diego County
Coronado
San Marcos
Carlsbad
Nat i ona 1 City
Imperi a 1 Beach
La Mesa
Poway
Lemon Grove
Santee
El Cajon
Escondido
Oceanside
Del Mar
Vista
San Diego
Attachment E
Park Dedication Fees for SinQle Family
DwellinQ Units in San DieQo County
Fees Per Du
$400, $800, $1,000
o
o
$786, $9B3
$75
$800/du + $100/bedroom
$420 - 1 bedroom
$550 - 2 bedroom +
$2,500
$200
$3,258
o
$2,289
$956
o
$1,253
$100. A variable special
park fee is assessed in lieu
of $100 in 6 areas.
Solana Beach $600
Encinitas
WPC 1627R
$1,526; $1,840; $2,321;
$1 ,686, $2,000
7-1..tl
Comments
County divided into 3
areas.
Park fees included in
public facilities
development fee.
City divided into four
quadrants
Construction license tax
(includes parks)
$2,200 is proposed
Plus payment of urban
impact fees - park
portion ranges from
$200-$2,427
Depending on community
ATTACHMENT F
PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUNDED WITH PARK
ACQUISITIDN AND DEVELOPMENT FEES (FOR LAST 5 YEARS)
1985-86 Replacement of Park Security Lighting - Various Parks
Parkway Gym Re-roofing
Lorna Verde Pool Deck Renovation
Ballfield Renovation - Eucalyptus Park
Sunridge Park - Design and Construction
1987-88 Renovation - Rohr Manor
Master Plan - Rohr Manor
1988-89 Park Construction - Harborside School
Park Improvements - Rohr Park
Floor and Bleacher Repairs - Parkway Gym
Refinish Tennis Courts - 3 locations
Interior Improvements - Lauderbach Center
Park Renovations - 3 locations (Halecrest, Palomar, Connolley)
Park Parking Lot Asphalt Overlays - 4 locations
Replaster Pool Surface - Parkway Pool
Relighting Tennis Courts - Two High Schools
1990-91 Repainting - Parkway Gym, Center & Pool
Renovation - Norman Park Senior Center
Path Improvements - El Rancho del Rey Park
Proposed
1991-92 Refinish Tennis Courts - Two Parks
Memorial Bowl Seating Improvements
Replaster Pool Surface - Lorna Verde Center
WPC 1646R
~~
~
~
~o/
orS4,v0!EG.
"-:;J ~
~;
ASSOCIATED BUILDING INDUSTRY ENGINEERI~jG AND
GENERAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS
OF AMERICA SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSOCIATION
OOI'STRUOTIOI' II'DUSTRY rEDERATION
6336 GREENWICH DRIVE, SUITE F, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 (619) 587-0292 FAX (619)455-1113
April 23, 1991
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Proposed Increases to Park Acquisition and Development Fees
Dear Mayor Moore and Councilmembers:
The Construction Industry Federation appreciates this opportunity to comment on the
proposed increases to the PAD fees. CIF also thanks City Staff for hosting a workshop
last week on the proposed increases.
The Federation supports the use of land dedications and impact fees to provide public
facilities needed to serve new development. In this regard, CIF generally supports
much of the analysis contained in the staff report.
The PAD fees were last increased in December, 1987. This evening, staff proposes a
160% increase from $1,680 to $4,375 per single-family home. With this increase,
Chula Vista will have the highest park fee in San Diego County. Parks Fees in San
Marcos and Santee are $3,414 and $3,258 respectively - $961 and $1,117 lower than
Chula Vista's fees.
CIF supports annual review and adjustment of impact fees to avert unforeseen huge
increases as is being proposed tonight.
While the Federation can support a sizable park fee increase, we have concerns.
Estimated Costs
Although the estimated costs of basic and community park improvements are provided
in the report, little to no verification / justification on the actual costs of these
improvements are provided for public review. There appears to be insufficient data to
substantiate these very significant proposed increases.
CIF would have preferred the opportunity to give serious examination of actual data of
park improvement costs justifying the sizable increases prior to the public hearing.
Expenditure of PAD Fees
The GMOC has expressed concerns regarding the use of PAD fees for making
improvements to existing local/neighborhood and community parks rather than for
acquiring and developing new parks. The GMOC is also concerned about the amount
of parkland in western Chula Vista.
~/-~3
CIF has some of the same concerns. Neighborhood and community parks in the
eastern areas are well within City and State standards. However, neighborhood and
community parks in the western areas are below today's standards.
State law clearly permits expenditures of park fees for the purpose of developing new
or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to
serve the subdivision from which the fees were collected.
Concern has been expressed that PAD fees being collected in the eastern areas are
being spent in western areas. In some cases, this may be a legitimate use of those
funds -- in others cases, it may not. To address this issue, CIF would ask that specific
data be made part of the public record for review demonstrating where PAD fees are
spent and demonstrating the required legal nexus of those expenditures.
Proposed "Park Benefit Fees" and "Park Development Impact Fees"
CIF is concerned with Staff's statement that not enough PAD fees are collected
annually to make major land purchases for new park development, since these fees
are restricted to residential development. The question is not whether enough impact
fees are being collected to make major land purchases for new park development, but
rather the question is -- are existing residents in the western communities committed to
funding the acquisition and construction of new parks?
Developers in the eastern areas are dedicating land to the City and building all
necessary park improvements to serve the newly developing communities. PAD fees
normally account for a small portion of Park & Recreation Department expenditures.
Even if PAD fees were increased and new fees were applied to non-residential
development, major land purchases for new park development in the western areas
would still be unrealistic. New public monies or increased public revenues would have
to be enhanced significantly in order to develop new parks.
Fees Assessed on Specialized Housing Types
CIF supports staff's recommendation to review densities of senior housing projects and
other housing types to add a senior housing component to the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance
Park DedIcation Credit
CIF supports staff's recommendation to consider adding standards to identify what is
acceptable park credit for private recreational facilities and parks.
Density Per Dwelling Unit Type
CIF supports staff's recommendation to review and make possible adjustments based
on updated State Department of Finance figures.
CIF appreciates your consideration of these comments.
qt.-
;)I-~'I
Chula Vista Park Improvement Costs
Neighborhood Parks
1987 1991 jump % jump
Site Prep $1,500 $4,300 $2,800 187%
Utilities $1,500 $2,200 $700 47%
Drainage $3,500 $5,500 $2,000 57%
Concrete $4,000 $10,000 $6,000 150%
Sand/equip $7,500 $10,000 $2,500 33%
Furnishiings $4,000 $6,000 $2,000 50%
Irrigation $20,000 $25,000 $5,000 25%
Landscape $18,000 $48,500 $30,500 169%
Picnic Shelter $2,000 $3,000 $1,000 50%
Tennis Court $2,750 $4,400 $1,650 60%
Softball Field $6,500 $10,000 $3,500 54%
Multi-purp. crt. $750 $4,500 $3,750 500%
Security Lights $6,000 $9,500 $3,500 58%
Design Cost $4,500 $13,000 $8,500 189%
TOTAL $82,500 $155,900 $73,400 89%
Community Parks
Corom. Cntr. $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $500,000 50%
Pool $1,500,000 $2,250,000 $750,000 50%
Restroom $55,000 $125,000 $70,000 127%
Softball $150,000 $230,000 $80,000 53%
TOTAL $2,705,000 $4,105,000 $1,400,000 52%
fife: CV PARKcosts.exl printed: 4/23/91 @ 5:27 PM
~ 1- ~.s
<I> <I> <I> <I>
'" OJ ....
0 0 0 0
<I> 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Chula Vista prop.
Enclnltas
Escondldo
Imperial Beach
~
- National City
I
\oJ Oceanside
~
Poway
San Diego County
San Marcos
Santee
Solana Beach
Vista
COUNrnMDEAVERAGE
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AN
INVESTMENT IN
THE FUTURE
April 23, 1991
j'"'f', B'ddie
Mayor Pro Tern Len Moore and
City Council Members
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula VIsta, CA 91910
BOARD OF OIRECTORS
Pr esident
President Elect
Mike Green
Dear Mayor,
Vice Presidents:
lruman Broof-,.s
Pat Cavanau~:'l
Naiiette Myer::
Chuc\( Peter
The Chula VIsta Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee reviewed
the request for proposals (RFP) for the development of the city's 3-acre site adjacent to
the Chula Vista Municipal Gllf Course in the 4400 block of Bonita Road.
The four proposals reviewed are:
Members:
Russ Bullen
Hod DaVIS
Sara!"', Even
1) Mr. Richard Pena, park development
2) Joelen Enterprises, 200 - room hotel
3) Odmark and Tbelan, 96 senior apartments
4) ADMA Company, 80 for-lease condominiums_
DICine Flint
The committee asked the city staff to review each project with them and then decided to
hear only the proposals which they thought had economic benefit to the city_
Mif\e Masiak
Scott McMiilil
--"::1 ~...1'cheili
[.-:E:';; nichard~ 1
~"C:';-;i Richins
SCinZGne
HC.i5 'Speiljin'
~v:.Jry /\nne St' )
Srlaron Terri!!
,.IC:h;1 Vugnn
The committee, after reviewing the facts of each proposal, recommended to the
Chamber Board of Directors to endorse the Joelen hotel concept, if it were part of a
package to link with the Chula Vista Municipal Gllf Course as proposed by the current
operator_
The committee wanted the project to provide for the Bonita Historical exhibit and have
space available for hiking/jogging, as feasible.
Past President
_..a.rry Cunningilam
The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors at our April 10, 1991
meeting supported the committee recommendation and would encourage the Chula
Vista City Council to also support the Hotel and Gllf proposal.
C:hief Exec:Jtlve
Officer
Dnnala R. ReEd
We believe the time has arrived for a Hotel/Gllf resort for our community.
Thank you for your time and talents given to our city_
Sincerely,
HULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
~/-~r
~. j :1 r OJ R T H A V I: N U E . CHI! L A V I S 1 A, C A L I f- 0 R N I A 9 1 9 1 0 . TEl
(619) 420-660]
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
22
4/2391
ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE 2.I/S1 Adding Chapter 2.31 and
amending Chapter 9.50 of the Municipal Code
relating to Mobile Home Parks and creation of
the Mobile Home Rent Review Commission
L..
SUBMITTED BY: Community Dev~~~pment DirectorG-~'
City Attorney \IF'
REVIEWED BY:
City Manage~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-K-)
At the present time, the City has a rent arbitration
ordinance which provides a mechanism for park residents to
appeal a rent increase when the increase exceeds the
percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for
any twelve month period. The appeal is to the American
Arbitration Association who after reviewing the rent
increase would be authorized to make a binding decision upon
the park residents and the park owner.
Since the adoption of the ordinance, only one park has gone
through the process. In this case, the arbitrator ruled
partially in favor of the park residents. The residents
then must petition to the San Diego County Superior Court
for the judge to affirm or deny the award. When the park
residents petitioned the court, the judge ruled that the
City's ordinance was unconstitutional and therefore did not
confirm the petitioners award. The basis for his ruling was
that the City had unlawfully delegated its police power
authority to the American Arbitration Association, a
private entity, by making it the final decision making power
of the city. The recommended Municipal Code changes address
this issue and other issues relating to the efficacy of the
ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the
Ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 9.50 relating to
Mobile Home Park Space Rent and adding Chapter 2.31 to the
Municipal Code relating to Creation of the Mobile Home Rent
Review commission.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Mobile Home Issues
Committee at their meeting on March 26, 1991 voted
unanimously to recommend approval of all of the proposed
amendments as contained herein. On April 2, 1991, the
Committee convened to further discuss the "safe harbor"
2fl-1
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
2Z-
4/23/91
provision. At that meeting, the three park owners indicated
that they prefer a 67% (or two-thirds) as opposed to a 90%
provision. Two residents said they are satisfied with 90%
and two were opposed to any "safe harbor" provision. The
Committee contemplated a "safe harbor" provision, however,
staff has reviewed this item further and recommends that
such a provision not be approved, and the proposed ordinance
does not contain it.
DISCUSSION:
Due to a variety of reasons, including especially an
unsuccessful experience with the arbitration process, and a
jUdge's determination that the ordinance in its present form
is unconstitutional, staff is proposing the following
amendments:
1. section 9.50.010 APPLICABILITY
Staff proposes a time limit be imposed in which the rent
dispute be resolved. The proposed 120-day limitation should
be an adequate amount of time for the dispute resolution
process to be completed. The intent is to avoid the
recurrence of a long term dispute process as in the case of
Bayscene Mobile Home Park which has taken more than 2 years.
2. section 9.50.030 DEFINITIONS
Staff recommends that a park owner have the opportunity to
"pass-through" certain fees which are presently considered a
part of space rent. The allowable pass-throughs would be
for increases in rates for owner-provided utilities and
government assessments. These pass-throughs do not increase
a park owners profit; but, reimburse for direct expenditure
for these specific items. The park owner would be required
to demonstrate the actuality of these expenses to any park
resident who requested such proof. The pass-throughs would
not affect the maximum rent increase permitted by the CPI
limitation.
3. section 9.50.070 INITIATION OF SPACE RENT REVIEW
Adding Items F and G 1 imi ts the arbitrator 's authority by
making his/her decision advisory to the Mobile Home Rent
Commission. This new Commission would be empowered to
affirm, modify, or revoke the arbitrator's decision. This
process would put the city more in control, and cure the
alleged misuse of the police power by making the commission
a City authority for the purpose of Mobile Home rent
disputes. It is recommended that the Commission be
12.2.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date
2Z-
4/23/91
comprised of 7 voting members, one Mobile Home park resident
ex-officio and one mobile home park owner ex-officio.
4. Ordinance Section I Addition of Chapter 2.31
In order to bring the process more under City control, and
to address the constitutionality issue of the Rent
Arbitration Ordinance, it is recommended that a Mobile Home
Rent Review Commission be established. In order to create
this commission, Chapter 2.31 needs to be added to the
Municipal Code. In addition to resolving rent disputes, the
Commission will become the city's "official" advisory body
for Mobile Home park issues. We understand that both owners
and tenants desire to keep the Mobile Home Issues Committee
operation, to provide Council their views in addition to
these of the new Commission, on non-rent dispute mobile home
park issues. The City Manager will assign Community
Development staff to provide staff support to the new
Commission.
The Commission's purpose is to be the official City body to
review rent disputes in Mobile Home parks within the City.
The commission would have the authority to affirm, modify,
or revoke the arbitrator's decision. The commission's
decision is final, reviewable only by the courts, which
satisfies the requirements of "due process".
5. Housekeepinq Chanqes
In addi tion to the above mentioned changes, a few
"housekeeping" changes are recommended basically relating to
the format of the ordinance.
Conclusion
The intent of the ordinance is to provide a process in which
park residents may appeal rent increases. The recommended
changes allow this to be accomplished in an equitable manner
for both the residents and park owners. The changes also
will bring the dispute resolution process more under the
authority of the city than the current process, which
alleviates the concern that a misuse of police power may
exist in the present ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
(mobile)
t~...3 pI. "'1
ORDINANCE NO. 2451
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADDING
CHAPTER 2.31 AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF
CHAPTER 9.50 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO MOBILEHOME PARKS AND CREATION OF
THE MOBILEHOME RENT REVIEW COMMISSION
The city Council of the City of Chula vista does ordain as
follows:
SECTION I. That Chapter 2.31 is added to the Chula vista
Municipal Code to read as follows:
Chapter 2.31 MOBILEHOME RENT REVIEW COMMISSION
Section 2.31.010 Creation.
There is hereby created a Mobilehome Rent Review Commission.
section 2.31.020 Purpose and Intent
It is the purpose and intent of the City Council in
establishing the Commission is to create an advisory body to
provide an independent review of the disputes over rent increases
in mobilehome parks within the City of Chula vista under Chapter
9.50.
section 2.31.030 Functions and Duties
The functions and duties of the Commission shall be as
follows:
A. Pursuant to Chapter 9. 50, act as the "due process" unbiased
decisionmaker regarding mobilehome park rent disputes.
B. Adopt rules and regulations to procedurally administer hearings
under Chapter 9.50 to determine whether the park owner's rent
increase in excess of the applicable cost of living increase is a
fair return on the park owner's property.
C. Consult with and provide advice to the City Council and City
Manager on matters relating to mobilehome parks.
section 2.31.040 Membership.
A. Number of Members.
The Commission shall consist of seven (7) Voting Members, a
Staff Ex-officio Member and up to three (3) General Ex-officio
Members.
J:l..5
THIS PAGE BLANK
21..Lt
B. Designation of Members.
1. Voting Members.
The voting Members shall be appointed by the city council from
the qualified electors of the City in accordance with section 600
et seq. of the Charter. No member shall own or be a tenant in a
mobilehome park.
2. Staff Ex-officio Member.
The City Manager or his/her designate representative shall be
an ex-officio member of the commission, who shall not be required
to be a qualified elector of the City, but who shall have no vote
("Staff Ex-officio Member").
3. General Ex-Officio Members.
The City council, or its designee, may appoint not greater
than three (3) additional ex-officio members of the Commission, who
shall not be required to be qualified elector(s) of the City, but
any such appointed ex-officio members shall have no vote ("General
Ex-Officio Member"). The Council shall appoint one ex-officio
member who shall be a tenant in a mobilehome park within the city
at the time of appointment and throughout the member's term. The
Council shall also appoint one ex-officio member who shall be an
owner of a mobilehome park at the time of appointment and
throughout the member's term.
section 2.31.050 Term of Office.
A. Term of Office--All Classes of Members.
1. Post-Initial Terms.
Except as otherwise provided in this Subsection A, the term of
office of all members, and all classes of members, of said
Commission shall be for a nominal period of four (4) years, and
shall terminate on June 30th of the fourth year of their term,
unless they shall otherwise sooner resign, die, become disqualified
or incompetent to hold Office.
2. Initial Terms of Voting Members.
Notwithstanding subsection A.I., the Initial Terms shall
commence upon appointment and shall conclude, for one (1) Voting
Member on June 30, 1992; for two (2) Voting Members on June 30,
1993; for two (2) Voting Member members on June 30, 1994; and for
two (2) voting Members on June 30, 1995, unless they shall
otherwise sooner resign, die, become disqualified or incompetent to
hold Office.
2
12,,(,
1993; for two (2) voting Member members on June 30, 1994; and for
two (2) Voting Members on June 3D, 1995, unless they shall
otherwise sooner resign, die, become disqualified or incompetent to
hold Office.
a. Assignment to Initial Terms by Lot.
voting Members shall be assigned to Initial Terms by lot
at the first regular meeting at which all Voting Members are
present, but in any event not later than the third month after
initial appointment of the 7th Voting Member.
3. General Ex-officio Member.
The term of General Ex-officio members shall be for a period
of four years from the time of appointment.
4. Staff Ex-officio Member.
The term of the Staff Ex-officio Member shall be indefinite.
5. Holdover Office.
Notwithstanding the end of any Member's Initial Term or Post-
initial Term as herein provided, a Member, other than the Staff Ex-
off icio Member, shall be permitted to continue to exercise the
privileges of the former Office after the end of the term until the
Office to which he or she was assigned is filled by re-appointment
or by the appointment of a qualified successor to Office.
6 . Vacancies.
Notwithstanding the term of Office to which a Member is
assigned, said Office shall be deemed vacant upon any of the
following events ("Event of Vacancy"):
a. The death or disability of said Member that renders
said Member incapable of performing the duties of Office.
b. The termination of status as Member of the Commission
or the classification which was assigned to be represented on the
commission.
c. The member's conviction of a felony or crime
involving moral turpitude.
d. The member's absence from three (3)
consecutive meetings of the Commission, unless excused by
vote of such board or commission expressed in its official
regular,
majority
minutes.
3
1.%-1
e. The member has submitted a resignation which
resignation has been accepted by the City Council.
f. The membership has been terminated by a majority vote
of the City Council.
Upon the occurrence of an Event of Vacancy as hereinabove listed,
the City Council shall so declare the Office to be vacant, and
shall expeditiously take such steps as are necessary to fill said
vacancy.
B. Number of Terms.
1. Voting Members.
a. No Voting Member shall be appointed to more than two
(2) terms except as herein provided.
b. A Voting Member assigned to an Initial Term of less
than two (2) years may be appointed at the natural expiration of
their Initial Term to two (2) terms in addition to their Initial
Term. A voting Member who currently occupies an Office under an
Initial Term may not be appointed to fill the Unexpired Term of
another Office which has become vacant.
c. A Voting Member appointed to the Commission to fill
the unexpired term of an Office of a Voting Member which has become
vacant ("Unexpired Term") which has less than two (2) years
remaining on said Unexpired Term, may be appointed to two (2) terms
in addition to their Unexpired Term. A Voting Member who currently
occupies an Office may not be re-appointed to fill the Unexpired
Term of another Office which has become vacant.
successive
Membership
officio.
d. Any member may be re-appointed after two (2)
years of not serving on the Commission in any Office or
capacity--Voting, General Ex-officio or staff Ex-
2. General Ex-officio Members.
General Ex-officio member may be reappointed without
limitation as to number of terms.
3. Staff Ex-officio Member.
The Staff Ex-officio member shall serve at the pleasure of the
city council.
section 2.31.060 Operation of Commission.
A. Time of Meetings.
4
It .. Y
1. "Organizational Meeting". Among such other meetings as
the Commission may desire to have, the Commission shall meet not
later than in the first week of July each year ("organizational
Meeting"), and thereupon shall do the following:
a. Select a Chairperson and a Vice chairperson from
among its voting Members to serve for a period of one (1) year.
b. Assign such duties to its members as it determines
may be necessary.
c. Deliberate upon agenda issues for further
deliberation and discussion by the Commission.
2. Other Meetings. The Commission shall meet at such other
times as it shall establish by majority vote, or at such time as
the Chairperson thereof may call, or at such times as a majority of
the members thereof may call a meeting.
B. Place of Meetings.
Unless the Commission shall otherwise establish another
regular place for its meetings and advise the City Clerk
accordingly, the Commission shall meet in the Council Conference
Room in the Administrative Building at the City Hall Complex
located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula vista, or at such other place
as may be posted upon the door of said Conference Room at least
thirty (30) minutes in advance of the Meeting.
C. Conduct of Meetings.
The meetings of the Commission, and notice thereof, shall be
governed by the same rules and regulations by which the City
Council is bound in the conduct of public meetings.
D. Quorum.
Four Voting Members shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business.
E. Resolutions.
The affirmative vote of
shall be required for the
Commission.
a majority of the entire membership
passage of any resolution of the
F. Reports and Recommendations.
All reports and recommendations shall be made in writing.
G. Staff Support.
5
1.2..'1
All officers and department heads shall cooperate with and
render reasonable assistance to the commission. The city Manager
may make available staff and clerical support to the Commission to
fulfill its functions and duties, provided such staff and clerical
support is available.
H. Rules and Regulations.
The Commission may make such rules and regulations not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Chapter.
SECTION II: The title of Chapter 9.50 is amended to read
MOBILEHOME PARK SPACE-RENT REVIEW AnBIT~~TION.
SECTION III: section 9.50.010 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code is amend to read:
section 9.50.010 Applicability.
This chapter shall apply to a mobilehome that requires a permit
to be moved on a street or highway.
The procedures contained in this chapter are intended to provide
a mechanism for the resolution of disputed increases in rents by
making it advantageous for mobilehomes owners and mobilehome park
owners to establish a better understanding for each other's
positions which will result in agreement on the amount of rent to
be charged. A binding arbitration provision is provided for. The
procedures of the ordinance are established with the intent that
they be accomplished in a timely fashion. The participating
parties shall commit to the goal of completing the arbitration
process within sixty (60) days of the serving of the notice of rent
increase. and that the entire dispute resolution process be
completed within one hundred-twentv (120) davs followinq receipt of
the notice of space rent increase. This chapter shall not applY to
leases exempted bv civil Code section 798.17 ("Green Bill" leases).
SECTION IV: That section 9.50.030 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is amended to read:
9.50.030 Definitions.
Words used in this chapter shall have the meaning described to
them in this section:
A.h "Space rent" means the consideration, including any bonus,
benefits, or gratuity demanded or received in connection with the
use and occupancy of the mobilehome space in a mobilehome park, or
for the transfer of the lease for parkspace, services,
owner-provided utilities, and amenities, subletting and security
deposits, but exclusive of any amounts paid for the use of the
6
~1.-I/)
mobilehome dwelling or of major capital improvement or other
allowable pass-throughs as defined in this ordinance.
B7h- "Mobilehome" means a mobilehome as defined in the California
Mobilehome Home Residency Law.
C3-.- "Mobilehome park owner" or "Owner" means the owner, lessor,
operator, manager of a mobilehome park within the purview of this
ordinance.
D40- "Mobilehome resident"~ or "resident" means any person
entitled to occupy a mobilehome dwelling unit by virtue of
ownership thereof.
E5-.- "Dispute" or "controversy" means a disagreement or difference
which is subject to the arbitration process.
F6-.- "Consumer price index" or "CPI" shall mean the all urban
consumers/all items component of the San Diego Metropolitan Area U
(broader base) consumer price index.
Gh "Major Capital Improvement Pass-Through" means a separately
identified monthly charge to residents which represents the
repayment of a cost for a major capital improvement with the
following characteristics:
1a-.-
$10,000.
Said improvement shall have a cost of more than
2-e. Said improvement shall be exclusive of maintenance or
replacement of existing facilities.
3~ Said improvement shall have been approved in concept by
more than fifty percent (50%) of the mobilehome spaces within the
mobilehome park after all spaces in the park have been informed of
the nature, general design, timing, and overall cost of said
improvement, and the amount and duration of the related
pass-through.
H. "Other Allowable Pass-Throuqhs" means separatelv billed utility
service fees and charqes excluded from rent in accordance with the
provisions of civil Code section 798.41: increases in rates of
owner-provided utilities: and qovernmental assessments such as
real property taxes. license fees. and assessments for municipal
services or improvements Copies of bills. invoices. or other
appropriate supportinq documentation shall be kept on file in the
park owner's on-site business office. and made available for review
bv affected residents upon reasonable request at anv time durinq
normal business hours.
7
1.2./1
SECTION V: That section 9.50.050 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code is amended to read:
section 9.50.050 Owner Meetings and possible Voluntary
Negotiations.
within five days, but not more than 10 days, after service of
a notice of increase as provided in Section 9.50.065, the park
owner must hold an informal meeting for the benefit of the affected
residents to discuss his or her increase. It is hoped that such a
meeting may lead to voluntary settlement of the dispute. The
meeting should be set for a time and date believed to be convenient
for residents and may be changed to a different date based on the
reasonable request of the residents.
The residents shall have the option to choose whether or not
to attend the meeting. Attendance at the meeting shall not affect
the residents' right to arbitrate under Section 9.50.070 of thio
Chapter.
SECTION VI: That Section 9.50.065 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is amended to read:
Sec. 9.50.065 Notice of rent increase.
& In any situation where a mobilehome park owner wishes to
increase the space rent above the applicable CPI, he or she must
first give notice to affected residents. at the same time the sixtv
(60) dav notice required bv civil Code Section 798.30 is qiven. as
follows:
NOTICE - RENT INCREASE IN EXCESS OF CPI
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO ARBITRATE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, THIS
INCREASE SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EFFECTIVE
This is a notice of space rent increase which exceeds the
percentaqe increase currcRt aRRHal ratc of the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for the most recent twelve (12) month period. as
reported bv the Bureau of Labor statistics. precedinq this notice
~ The CPI is % and this increase is % of your current rent.
Under the City'S Municipal Code, you are entitled to the following
rights:
1. '1'0 this cRa, I am required to hold a meeting with the
affected residents to discuss the reasons for the increase. The
meeting will be at (time and place). You are encouraged to attend
but are not required to do so. Under the city's ordinance, owners
and residents are encouraged to attempt to resolve differences
regarding this increase.
8
J~-12
2. You have the right to file for arbitration with the City's
community Development Department. You may file for arbitration
whether or not you attend the meeting to discuss the increase. To
file for arbitration, you must place a deposit of $ with the City's
Community Development Department within thirty days of the date
this notice is served on you. If you do not place the deposit, you
forfeit your right to arbitrate the rent increase.
If you or other affected residents are lower-income (below
$13,000-$15,000 per year), you may be eligible to receive
assistance with part of the cost of arbitration from the City's
community Development Department. If you have questions regarding
arbitration or need more information, you can call the city at
691-5047.
This increase is in addition to the followina allowable
pass-throuahs: r identifv type and amount of maior capitol
improvement or other allowable pass-throuahl
The following space numbers are subject to this increase: rinsert
numbers of affected spacesl
Bh If the residents within the affected mobilehome park have
established a representative body and notify the owner ln writing
of its existence, a copy of the rent increase notice must be sent
to the chairperson of that body.
Ci!-.- A copy of the rent increase notice must be given to the
Community Development Department of the city of Chula vista at the
same time as leaat 15 days ~rior to issuance of the notice to the
residents. E:taff \lill ~revide co~ieo to tHe r1eJsilcHolRe Iooueo
cSlI\il\ittee.
D~ The rent increase notice must contain the space numbers of all
residents who are subject to the increase which is above the amount
of the applicable CPl.
E4. The notice shall advise recipients that a deposit of 25% of the
estimated cost of arbitration shall be made within thirty (30) days
of the date of service of notice or the right to arbitration is
waived. The deposit shall be made with the Director of Community
Development.
SECTION VII: That section 9.50.070 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is amended to read:
section 9.50.070 Initiation of space rent review arlsitratieR.
~ In any situation where the space rent percentaae increases in
a twelve month period exceed cumulatively the percentaae increase
of the consumer price index ao defiRed HereiR for tHe year ,as
reported bv the Bureau of Labor statistics for the most recent
9
~~ -13
twelve (12) month period preceding the rent increase notice, the
following procedures shall apply unless the owner receives written
consent to the increase from more than 50% of the spaces affected
by the notice of increase. The owner must file the original of the
written consent with the Community Development Department and
notify the residents that this has been filed.
~t. Residents shall be required within thirty days of the date of
service of the notice of increase to deposit with the city
Community Development Department 25% of the estimated arbitration
cost for one day of arbitration. Arbitration shall begin in not
less than 20 days nor more than 30 days after the date of service
of the notice of increase, provided the residents' deposit has been
made.
~~ Upon receipt of the residents' deposit and notification to the
park owner, the park owner shall have 7 days to provide a deposit
which shall be equal to 75% of the estimated cost for one day of
arbitration. The park owner shall siqn an appropriate document
submittinq the dispute to arbitration when makinq the deposit.
J2...3-.- The cost of arbitration including costs incurred by the
American Arbitration Association in cases where a settlement is
reached prior to any hearing will be shared. The owner shall be
responsible for 75% and the residents responsible for 25% of the
first $750. Any costs of arbitration above $750 shall be shared
equally by both parties. Additional costs above the amount of
deposit shall be due and payable subject to the requirements of the
American Arbitration Association.
~4T The arbitration shall be conducted according to the applicable
rules of arbitration of the American Arbitration Association and
under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association.
~50 The decision of the arbitrator shall be BiRsiR~ advisorv to
the Mobilehome Rent Commission and shall be applicable to all
mobilehome residents subject to the rent increase being reviewed
arbitrates. Factors to be considered shall include but not be
limited to a just and reasonable return on the owner's property.
The burden of proof shall be on the park owner to demonstrate that
the rent increase is necessary to provide a just and reasonable
return on the property. The arbitrator's decision shall be
submitted to the Mobilehome Rent Commission within thirtv (30) davs
from the beqinninq of arbitration.
~~ The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted to the city's
Mobilehome Rent Commission CeuReil.. which shall affirm. modify. or
revoke the arbitrator's decision at a public hearinq held within
sixtY(60) days followinq such submission. The parties may stipulate
to merelY a review of the record at arbitration. or either side may
request a "de novo" hearinq bY the Commission. If a de novo
hearinq is requested. it shall be conducted in accordance with
10
~2.-11/
procedures adopted bv the Commission which satisfY the reauirements
of "due process" and will constitute a hearina at which evidence is
reauired bv law. so that the Commission's decision is reviewable bv
the courts bv a writ of administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of
civil Procedure section 1094.5.
~ writteR iRfsrmatisR submitted to the City CouRci1 BY the
arl3itrator shall be maiRtaiRed at city Hall.
~~ In the event that the owner reduces the rent increase to the
applicable CPI, or more than 50% of the affected residents agree in
writing to settle the dispute, the review arbitratioR process
automatically terminates.
I. ~ The review process Arl3itratisR shall also be applicable to
the situation where space rent is increased upon change of
ownership of the mobilehome or removal of the unit. Either the
incoming or outgoing owner-occupant shall have the right to
arbitrate.
If an outgoing mobilehome owner intends to sell his or her
mobilehome, he or she may request, and the owner shall be
obligated to provide within 15 days of the request, a written
statement as to the rental rate to be offered to the incoming
owner-occupant. If the rate of increase in rent to the new
owner-occupant is above the amount of the applicable CPI as
provided in subsSection 9.50.070 A, then either the current
resident or incoming resident shall have the right to review
arl3itrate the increase under the provisions of this subsSection
9.50.070. That ~ right to arbitrate is subject to the outgoing
or incoming resident placing a deposit pursuant to subsSection ~ B
above, within 30 days of either (a) service of the owner's written
statement to the outgoing resident or (b) the date of execution of
a purchase contract between the incoming and outgoing residents,
whichever is ~ la~ter.
The park owner's statement shall contain the following:
NOTICE - RENT INCREASE IN EXCESS OF CPI
IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION TO ARBITRATE IN A TIMELY MANNER, THIS
INCREASE SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EFFECTIVE UPON THE SALE OF YOUR
MOBILEHOME.
This is a statement of space rent increase which exceeds the
percentaae increase currcRt aRRual rate of the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) for the twelve (12) month period. as reported bv the Bureau
of Labor statistics. precedina this statement. The CPI is % and
this increase is % of your current rent. This increase is in
addition to the followina allowable pass-throuahs: r identifY type
and amount of maior capitol improvement or other allowable
pass-throuah 1
11
2%./r'
Under the City's Municipal Code, either the outgoing or the
incoming resident frEe is entitled to file for arbitration with the
city's community Development Department. In order to arbitrate,
you must place an arbitration deposit of $ with the City's
Community Development Department within thirty days of the date
this notice is served on you or the date of execution of a purchase
contract on the mobilehome. If you do not place the deposit, you
forfeit your right to arbitrate the rent increase.
If you are low income (below $13,000-15,000 per year), you may be
eligible to receive assistance for part of the cost of arbitration
from the City's Community Development Department. If you have
questions regarding arbitration or need more information, you can
call the City at 691-5047.
SECTION VIII: That section 9.50.090 of the Chula vista
Municipal Code is repealed:
9.50.898 Deferral of ReRt IRcreaaea.
11'1 aRY saae uhere a propoaed reRt iRcrease elweeaiR~ the CPI, as
provided hereiR, ia aubjeet te aiapute aaid Clweaa iRcreaae ahall
Rot become effective uRtil the arbitratioR proceae hac beeR
compliea .lith iR accoraaRce .lith the provieioRs sf Ohapter 9.58
previaea, hs..'e7er, aR increase in the amouRt of the cpr may ta]cc
effect illl!lleaiately aRa eRly the amouRt iR elcceoo thereef shall ae
deferrea ~ntil the eempletieR of the arbitration preeees.
SECTION IX: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full
force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Chris Salomone, Director of
Community Development
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
c:\mobilehome5
12
J.z. ..II,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 23
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Resolution tl,,1*7 Adopting a revised Council pol icy for
the installation of all-Way..~:~ signs
Director of Public work~~
City Manager &1~1b (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
f~ Council Referral #2089
At the August 14, 1990 meeting, during discussion of the Oleander Avenue and
East Oxford Street traffic problem, the City Council indicated a need to
modify the exi st i ng all-way stop pol icy to allow more emphas is on school age
pedestrian activity areas. In response to this concern, staff has prepared a
revi s i on of the City' s all-way stop pol icy that provides greater emphas is on
pedestrian activity areas.
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Council also raised quest ions on the 1 ega 1 authority of establ i shi ng all-way
stops. Additionally, staff has prepared the following commentary on the City
legal authority to install all-way stops and establish criteria for its
installation.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Counci 1 approve staff's report and adopt the
attached revised all-way stop policy by resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At the Safety Commission meeting of
November 8, 1990, the Safety Commission voted 7-0 to approve staff's report.
DISCUSSION:
Local agencies, such as the City of Chula Vista, do have the authority to
adopt their own warrant system for the installation of all-way stop controls.
There is no mandated point or warrant system for the placing of all-way
stops. California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21354 leaves the weighing of criteria to
the discretion of local authorities. The California Vehicle Code, Section
21350 thru 21355, gives the authority to local agencies to install all-way
stop traffic controls upon streets in their respective jurisdiction.
The City's current policy for the installation of an all-way stop control is
based on a 50 point system. Points are assigned to traffic factors based on
the severity of traffic conditions. A minimum of 30 points are required.
Factors measured are:
1. accident records
2. unusual conditions
3~ pedestrian volumes
4. traffic volumes
5. traffic volume differentials
It is recognized that the existing all-way stop policy does not provide
speci a 1 provi si ons for an all-way stop where unusual traffi c condit ions at
residential intersections adjacent to school age pedestrian activity
facilities exist.
~~.\
Page 2, Item ~jf
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Accordingly, staff has revised the all-way stop policy to incorporate concerns
addressed by the City Council.
The proposed all-way stop pol icy wi 11 provide greater emphas is in assess i ng
the need for all-way stops in residential neighborhoods. Additional changes
are recommended to refl ect current pract ices in the San Di ego area and to
incorporate CalTrans all-way stop warrants.
Primary changes have been made in the following areas:
1. Through Street Warrant - Thi s warrant has been dropped because it is
covered by Volume Warrants.
2. Accident Warrant - no change.
3. Unusual Conditions Warrant changed to allow the City Traffic
Engineer to apply greater emphasis in qualifying intersections in
residential neighborhoods for an all-way stop control where there is a
high concentration of school-age pedestrian activities adjacent to
collector streets coupled with unusual topography or roadway geometries.
4. A separate Pedestrian Volume Warrant has been added.
5. Vol ume Warrant has been changed to refl ect current practices in the
San Diego area.
6. Traffic Count Information - a place for traffic count data has been
provided for in the all-way stop evaluation form. Keeping traffic volume
data wi th the all-way stop eva 1 uat i on allows for all pert i nent volume
data to be in one place, and allows future reviews of stop installations
to be conducted more easily.
7. Total Points Possible has increased from 50 to 54. A minimum of 30
points is still required to justify the installation of an all-way stop.
8. The 30 point requirement is exempted if the CalTrans all-way stop
criteria or on local residential streets where there are unusual
traffic and school activity conditions.
In summary, the revised policy retains the features of the existing policy and
its 30 point qualifying requirement but allows for an an exception for
1 ocat ions where there are high con cent rat ions of school age activit i es, and
CalTrans criteria is met.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
FR/mad
WPC 5547E:CY-016/KY-119/KY-158 (2089)
Attachments: CVC 21350 thru 21355
All-way stop policy (Existing)
All-way stop policy (Proposed)
Informational item dated 11/20/90
Safety Commission minutes 11/8/90 (excerpt)
2.J .:z.
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUl.A VISTA
All-Way stop Policy
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PKE
SUBJECf
1 of 2
ADOPTED BY:
DATED:
BACKGROUND
The CalTrans Traffic Manual and the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices list criteria in determining the need for an all-
way stop. Actual need for an all-way is determined by an
engineering study which examines the special characteristics of
the site.
All-way stop signs are very restrictive controls since they
require all motorists entering the intersection to stop at all
times. When stop signs are installed for speed control and/or
there is no apparent traffic reason for the stop (little or no
cross traffic), motorists regard the stop sign as an unnecesary
impediment and oftentimes do not make a complete stop. When this
occurs the expectations of other drivers and pedestrians are
altered, thereby jeopardizing the safety performance of the
intersection. Although speeds will be lower in the vicinity of
the stop, speeds will be higher midblock as motorists try to
makeup for the time lost at the unwarranted stop sign. Another
negative aspect of unwarranted stop signs is the increase in noise
and pollution as vehicles apply their brakes to slow down and
accelerate out of the intersection.
It is impractical and impossible to install an all-way stop (or
other traffic control device such as a traffic signal) whenever
and where ever a request is made; otherwise during peak periods,
extended delays to motorists may result, thus forcing motorists to
seek alternate routes through parallel streets, often a
residential area. A Traffic Engineer's primary goal is to
maintain safety and reduce vehicle delay.
PURPOSE
The purpose of a fully justified, properly installed all-way stop
is to effectively assign right-of-way, maintain safety and reduce
vehicle delay. Generally, all-way stops are installed where
traffic signals are warranted and/or an accident history has been
indicated by reported accidents of a type susceptible to
correction by an all-way stop.
~..3
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
All-Way stop Policy
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PPGE
SUBJEcr
2 of 2
ADOPTED BY:
DATED:
POLICY
It shall be the policy of the City of Chula Vista, through the
Department of Public Works/Engineering Division, to warrant the
installation of All-Way stops in accordance with the following
policy statements:
The California Vehicle Code, Section 21350 thru 21355, gives the
authority to local agencies to install all-way stop traffic
controls upon streets in their respective jurisdiction.
According to Federal and state traffic control guidelines, all-way
stop installations should be reserved for the control of vehicular
traffic conflicts at intersections and should not to be used as
devices to control speed.
The City'S policy for the installation of an all-way stop control
is based on a point system. Points are assigned to traffic factors
based on the severity of traffic conditions. Factors measured are:
1. accident records
2. unusual conditions
3. pedestrian volumes
4. traffic volumes
5. traffic volume differentials
See Attached Allway stop Control Warrants:
I
2~.4 J;'j~/8
,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL WARRANTS
Date:
Major Street/Minor Street
Total Points
( -00)
INTERSECTION
GENERAL:
A fully justified, properly installed all-way stop can effectively assign
right of way, reduce vehicle delay, and decrease accidents. Generally, an
all-way stop is reserved for the use at the intersection of two through
highways, and only as an interim traffic control measure prior to
signalization. Stop signs are not to be used for speed control.
The posting of an intersection for all-way stop control should be based on
factual data. Warrants to be considered include:
1. Accident records
2. Unusual conditions
3. Traffic volumes
4. Traffic volume difference
5. Pedestrian volume
Points are assigned to each of these warrants. The total points possible are
54. The installation of an all-way stop control is justified with a minimum
of 30 points, unless anyone of the CalTrans criteria is met.
ALL-WAY STOP POINT SYSTEM CRITERIA:
1. ACCIDENT WARRANT:
Two points are assigned for each accident susceptible to correction by an
all-way stop control during one full year prior to the investigation date.
Total number of accidents correctible by all-way stop:
Maximum 14 points
SCORE:
Points
2. UNUSUAL CONDITION WARRANT:
Where unusual conditions exist, such as a school, fire station,
pl ayground, horizontal or vertical curves, etc., points are assigned on
the bas is of engi neeri ng judgment. Unusual condi t ions shall be
considered only if within 500 feet of the subject intersection. In
residential neighborhoods where there is a concentration of school age
children activities separated from the residential neighborhood by a
23-6
collector street and coupled with other conditions, the City Traffic
EnQineer may apply traffic engineering judgment and waive the 30-point
minimum point requirement to qualify the intersection for an all-way stop
control.
The 30-point minimum requirement may be waived and an all-way stop may be
installed only if less restrictive controls have not corrected a
documented problem.
All-way stops mav be justified based on projected volumes and accident
frequency when traffic signals are warranted and will be installed within
a specified period of time.
Maximum 10 points
SCORE:
Points
3. PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES
Consideration is given to large numbers of pedestrians crossing the major
street during the four busiest hours of an average day.
Pedestrian CrossinQ Maior Street. Total durinQ 4 busiest traffic hours
Volumes: 1-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-0VER
Points: 1 2 3 4 5
Maximum 5 points
SCORE:
Points
4. TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Points are dependent upon the magnitude of vehicular volumes entering the
intersection during the four busiest hours of an average day.
Traffic Counts (circle four highest hour volumes):
Hour Ending At:
Dir 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
NB
SB
EB
WB
T
iJ"~
-2-
Traffic Volumes Warrant
Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following tables:
Total of Total of
Major Approach Legs Minor Approach Legs
4-hour Volume Points 4-hour Volume Points
o - 1000 0 o - 400 0
1001 - 1300 1 401 - 600 1
1301 - 1600 2 601 - 800 2
1601 - 1900 3 801 - 1000 3
1901 - 2200 4 1001 - 1200 4
2201 - 2600 5 1201 - 1400 5
2601 - 2900 4 1401 - 1600 6
2901 - 3200 3 1601 - 1800 7
3201 - 3500 2 1801 - 2000 8
3501 - 3800 1 2001 - 2200 9
3801 - over 0 2201 - over 10
SCORE: Points SCORE: Points
Maximum 5 Minimum 10
5. TRAFFIC VOLUME DIFFERENCE
All-way stops operate best when the
traffic volumes are nearly equal.
accordance with the following table:
24-Hour Minor St. Aocroach Volumes
24-Hour Maior St. Accroach Volumes X 100% =
major and mi nor street approach
Points shall be assigned in
Points
95 - 100
85 - 94
75 - 84
65 - 74
55 - 64
45 - 54
35 - 44
25 - 34
15 - 24
5 - 14
o - 4
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
o
SCORE:
Points
Maximum 10 Points
~a-l -3-
CALTRANS CRITERIA (Chaoter 4 CalTrans Traffic Manual)
Any of the following conditions may warrant a multi-way STOP sign installation:
1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multiway stop
may be an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic
while arrangements are being made for the signal installation.
2. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents
within a 12 month period of a type susceptible to correction by a multiway
stop installation. Such accidents include right- and left-turn collisions
as well as right-angle collisions.
3. Minimum traffic volumes
(a)
The total vehicular volume entering the intersection
approaches must average at 1 east 500 vehi cl es per hour
hours of an average day, and
from a 11
for any 8
(b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or
highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8
hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at
least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but
(c) When the 8S-percent il e approach speed of the major street traffi c
exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70
percent of the above requirements.
Ja-I -4-
ALL-WAY STOP SUMMARY
INTERSECTION:
(
-00)
DATE INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETED:
TOTAL SCORE: points out of a possible 54. The minimum
required to justify an all-way stop control is 30 points.
INTERSECTION DIAGRAM:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
REMARKS:
WPC 5546E
t3..'1 -5-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ALL-WAY STOP EVALUATION WORKSHEET
(Major)
(Minor)
File
Date
Investigator
Intersection
Qualifies for All-Way Stop based on 30 or more points:
Yes No Points
Qualifies for All-Way Stop based on other criteria:
If yes, explain:
Yes
No
Sketch of intersection with visibility data
On back Attached
I. Accident History Points Possible
From / / to / /
Accidents/year correctable by Stops x 2 pOints/accident
14
2. Unusual Conditions
10
3. Pedestrian Volume
Pedestrians
crossing the major street during 4 hour count
5
4. Traffic Volumes (Peak 4 Hours)
Major approaches
Minor approaches
5
10
5. Traffic Volume Difference
10
TOTAL
Minimum Points Required
54
30
WPC 5546E
ZJ-ID -6-
CHAPTER 2. TRAFFIC SIGNS, SIGNALS, AND MARKINGS
Article 1. Erection and Maintenance
Trolfie and Pedestrian Regulation on SIal. Highways
21352. The Department of Transportation may erect stop signs at any
entrance to any state highway and whenever the department determines
that it is necessary for the public safety and the orderly and efficient use
of the highways by the public, the department may erect and maintain,
or cause to be erected and maintained, on any state highway any traffic
control signal or any official traffic control device regulating or
prohibiting the turning of vehicles upon the highway, allocating or
restricting the use of specified lanes or portions of the highway by
moving vehicular traffic, establishing crosswalks at or betwe~n
intersections, or restricting use of the right~of-way by the public for other
than highway purposes.
Amended Ch. 545, Stats. 1974. Effective January 1, 1975.
Amended Ch. 413, Stats. 1981. Effective January 1, 1982.
loeal Regulalion Affecling Slale Highway Traffic
21353. No local authority, except by permission of the Department of
Transportation, shall erect or maintain any stop sign or traffic control
signal in such manner as to require the traffic on any state highway to
stop before entering or crossing any intersecting highway or any railroad
grade crossing.
Amended Ch. .545, Stats. 1974. Errective January 1, 1975.
Amended Ch. 413, Stats. 1981. Effective January I, 1982.
Slale Aulhorily
21350. The Department of Transportation shall place and maintain, or
cause to be placed and maintained, with respect to highways under it's
jurisdiction, appropriate signs, signals and other traffic control devices as
required hereunder, and may place and maintain, or cause to be placed
and maintained, such appropriate signs, signals or other traffic control
devices as may be authorized hereunder, or as may be necessary
properly to indicate and to carry out the provisions of this code, or to
warn or guide traffic upon the highways. The Deparhnent of
Transportation may, with the consent of the local authorities, also place
and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, in or along city
streets and county roads, appropriate signs, signals and other traffic
control devices, or may perform, or cause to be performed, such other
work on city streets and county roads, as may be necessary or desirable
to control, or direct traffic, or to facilitate traffic flow, to or from or on
slate highways.
Amended Ch. 483, Stats. 1965. Effective September 17, 1965.
Amended Ch. 754, Stats. 1968. Effective November 13, 1968.
Amended Ch. 968, Stats. J970. Effective September 14, 1970, by terms of an urgency clause.
Amended Ch. 648. Stats. 1974. Effective January 1, 1975. Supersedes Ch. 545.
~
W
,
......
-
local Aulhorily
21351. Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place
and maintain or cause to be placed and maintained such traffic signs,
signals and other traffic control devices upon streets and highways as
required hereunder, and may place and maintain or cause to be placed
and maintained, such appropriate signs, signals or other traffic control
devices as may be authorized hereunder or as may be necessary properly
to indicate and to carry out the provisions of this code or local traffic
ordinances or to warn or guide traffic.
Use 01 Melric Sy,'em Oe.ignalion.
21351.3. Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may place
and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, speed limit, speed
advisory, and mileage signs, or suitable plates affixed to or near existing
signs, which indicate. speeds and distances both in common standards of
measures, as specified in Section 12302 of the Business and Professions
Code, and in measures of the metric system authorized by Congress.
Added Ch. 462, Stats. 1974. Efrcctive January 1, 1975.
Slop Sign. 01 Railroad Crossing.
21351.5. The Department of Transportation or local authorities, with
respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may erect stop
signs to require the traffic on a highway to stop before crossing any
railroad grade crossing designated by the agency having jurisdiction of
the highway as a major crossing with a demonstrated need for stop signs,
except a railroad grade crossing which is controlled by automatic signals,
gates, or other train.actuated control devices,
Added Ch. 58, Stats. 1974. Erfcctive March 8, 1974 by terms of an urgency clause.
Deal Child Warning Signs
21351.7. Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may place
and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, appropriate signs
along city streets or county roads which indicate that a deaf child is near.
Added Ch. 719, Stats. 1983. Erfective January 1, 1984.
Stop SIgn. on locol Hlghwtly.
21354. Subject to the provisions of Section 21353, a local authority may
designate any highway under its jurisdiction as a through highway and
may erect stop signs at entrances thereto or may designate any
intersection under its exclusive jurisdiction as a stop intersection and
erect stop signs at one or more entrances thereto,
Slop Sign.
21355. (a) Stop signs erected under Section 21350, 21351, 21352, or
21354 may be erected either at or near the entrance to an intersection.
The Department of Transportation and local authorities in their
respective jurisdictions may erect stop signs at any location so as to
control traffic within an intersection.
When a required stop is to apply. at the entrance to an intersection
from a one-way street with a roadway of 30 feet or more in width, stop
signs shall be erecled both on the left and the right sides of the one-way
street at or near the entrance to the intersection.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, stop signs shall not
be erected at any entrance to an intersection controlled by official traffic
control signals, nor at any railroad grade crossing which is controlled by
automatic signals. gates, or other train-actuated control devices except
where a stop sign may be necessary to control traffic on intersecting
highways adjacent to the grade crossing or when a local authority
determines, wilh the approval of the Public Utilities Commission
pursuant to Section 21110, that a railroad grade crossing under its
jurisdiction presents a danger warranting a stop sign in addition to a
train.activated control device.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), local authorities, with respect to
streets under their jurisdiction, are not required to conform lawfully
established intersection configurations existing on January I, 1985, to
meet the requirements of subdivision (a) unlil January 1, 1990.
Amended Ch. 840, Stats. 1969. Effective November 10, 1969.
Amended Ch. 606. Stats. 1973. Effective january I, 1974.
Amended Ch. 700. Stats. 1984. Effective anuary 1. 1985.
f3,<I_STlNc. pOI-lei
CITY OF CHULA VISTA POLICY
ALL-WAY ~IUP ~UNIRUL
Date:
INTERSECTION
Tota 1 Poi nts
PURPOSE:
A fully justified, properly installed four-way stop can effectively assign right of way,
reduce vehicle delay and decrease accidents. Generally, a four-way stop is reserved for
use at the intersection of two through highways, and only as an interim traffic control
measure prior to signalization.
GENERAL:
The posting of an intersection for four-way stop control should be based on factual
data. Warrants to be considered include:
1. Through street conditions.
2. Accident records.
3. Traffic and pedestrian volumes.
4. Volume splits.
5. Unusual conditions such as proximity of schools, fire stations, vision obscurement,
etc.
Poi nts are assi gned to each of these warrants. The total possi b1 e poi nts is 50. The
installation of four-way stop control is justified with a total of 30 points.
THROUGH STREET WARRANT:
One of the approaching streets to the intersection must be a through highway before the
intersection can be considered for four-way stopCOiitrol. A through highway shall
extend at least one mile in both directions from the intersection under consideration
and shall meet conditions set forth on Page 8, Section 2f of the Highway Capacity
Manual, 1965.
A. If only one of the intersecting streets is a through highway
B. If both streets are through highways
1-3 Poi nts
3-5 Points
Maximum 5 Points
SCORE:
Points
ACCIDENT WARRANT:
Two poi nts are assi gned for each acci dent suscepti bl e to correcti on by four-way stop
control during one full year prior to the investigation.
Total number of accidents correctible by four-way stop:
Maximum 14 Points
SCORE:
Points
UNUSUAL CONDITION WARRANT:
Where unusual conditions exist at the intersection such as a school, fire station,
playground, vision obscurement, etc., points are assigned on the basis of engineering
jUdgment. Unusual conditions shall be considered only if within 500 feet of the
i ntersecti on:
Maximum 10 Points
U-I'L
SCORE:
Poi nt s
!3xIST/Ii)L"... pOL-Ie y
-2-
VOLUME WARRANT:
A. Total entering vehicle volume must equal 2,000 vehicles for four highest hours
in average day.
B. Minimum side street vehicular and pedestrian volume must equal 600 vehicles
during same four hour period.
Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following tables:
ALL APPROACHES
MINOR STREET PEDESTRIAN &
VEHICLE VOLUME (BOTH APPROACHES)
o - 1400
1401 - 1700
1701 - 2000
2001 - 2300
2301 - 2600
2601 - 2900
2901 - 3200
3201 - 3500
3501 - 3800
3801 - 4100
4101 - 4400
4401 - 4700
4701 - 5000
5001 - 5300
5301 - 5600
5601 - 5900
Over 5900
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
o
Highest Four Hour Volume Points
600 - 800 1
801 - 1200 2
1201 - 1400 3
1401 - 1600 4
1601 - Over 5
Highest Four Hour Volume
Points
Maximum 13 Points
SCORE
Points
VOLUME SPLIT WARRANT:
Four-way stops operate best where the minor approach volume and the major approach
volume are nearly equal. Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following
table:
24-Hour Minor St. Volumes
24-Hour Major St. Volumes %
95+
85 - 94
75 - 84
65 - 74
55 - 64
45 - 54
35 - 44
25 - 34
o - 24
Points
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
o
~'axi mum 8 Po; nts
SCORE:
Points
23../3
ex's-rt/V~ pOL-lei
-3-
ALL-WAY STOP SUMMARY
INTERSECTION:
DATE INVESTIGATION Cot~PLETED:
TOTAL SCORE: points out of a possible total 50. Minimum score for four-way
stop control is 3U pOlnts.
REMARKS:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
WPC 3287E
Pw-E-23
J.5../~
/
Safety Commission Meeting
(
Minutes
November 8,1990
Recreation staff and do as directed in your motion.
Commissioner Chidester asked the Chair if it would be feasible for the Traffic
Engineer to explore the possibility of Parks and Recreation transferring those
activities out of there to nearby schools--exploring the possibility of doing that.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that was outside his purview. All I can do is refer to them the
concerns of the Safety Commission and request that they respond to what you have
asked us to do.
Commissioner Chidester repeated his statement--to explore the avenues of
transferring these activities to schools playgrounds, even if it is a Saturday and they
have to open the school lots.
MOTION
That the Safety Commission accept staffs proposal.
MSDC, [ThomaslBraden] 7-0, approved.
(
(3B) Report on revised all.wav stop policv
L
Mr. Rosenberg gave staffs report. This is an item that is of concern to the City
Council. It deals with the policy for the installation of all-way stops that I am sure
you recognize as a problem that we have to wrestle with from time to time. Our
Council policy, actually it is not a Council policy, it is a department policy--it has not
been adopted by the City Council by resolution; although we do call it a policy. It
uses a point system for the installation of stop signs, all-way stops. When we get a
request for an all-way stop installation, we look at numerous factors that are shown
in this report--accidem data, traffic volumes, the difference in traffic volumes.
pedestrian activities, unusual conditions such as the curvature of the roadway hillside,
and using what we call empirical Engineering Traffic judgment, we apply a point
system. When you reach 30 points you qualify the location for an all-way stop. The
City Council felt that, often times when we make our presentation, that while it
appears to be a very technical and sound way of evaluating the need for all-way stops,
it doesn't take into consideration the exceptional cases in residential neighborhoods.
For example. . he one that we recently installed on Oleander Street. Therefore. they
asked us to ',rch and maybe even change state legislation. Actually we don't have
to change st egislation because enabling laws allow us to develop our own criteria
for deterlllinli'g when an all-way stop is needed. So therefore, Traffic Engineering
staff reviewed the policy and made some adjustments. In particular, we made an
adjustment in the area where an unusual eondition(s) which would allow staff to use
a little bit more judgment in determining whether or not an :dl-way stop would applv.
The point system here would not necessarily apply if in the judgment of the Tr:ltfic
13
J,J-Ir-
Safety Commission Meeting
(
Minutes
November 8,1990
Engineer, me, determined that there was extraordinary situations in that particular
location that would warrant an all-way stop. For example, a playground separated
by a street on one side where there were high density developments, lots of children,
a combination of schools, church, parks and recreation center, and the like; and, it
is basically the gist of the report. Additionally, the warrant system that uses the
number of cars that enter the intersection would also change slightly, to also provide
a little more flexibility in the justification for an all-way stop. Rather than get into
the real details and the specifics of the numbers, which are again, very empirical, the
basis of the all-way stop warrants is to ensure that we aren't forced into putting all-
way stops at every intersection. Otherwise, traffic wouldn't move at all and motorists
would just learn to disrespect the stop sign because it would be more of a nuisance
and there wouldn't be an apparent need why they have to stop at an intersection.
That is the end of my report on this subject. I welcome any questions you might
have on what I just said.
Chair Braden called a recess at 7:55 p.m.
The Chair called the meeting back into session at 8:05 p.m.
(
Commissioner Koester noted that one paragraph on this item mentions the (Chapter
2, Traffic Signs, Signals, and Markings) use of metric system designations. We aren't
going to put anything like that on signs are we.
Mr. Rosenberg responded, stating that was a section out of the Vehicle Code. No,
we are not required to do that, nor are we contemplating doing that.
~
Mr. Rosenberg stated that what he would like to do on this item--this is an action
itern--what I would like is the Safety Commission to approve the report. If you have
any concerns about it, about the technical data in it, you can at least give me a
motion to approve it in content.
MOTION
That the Safety Commission approve the content of staffs report.
MSUC, [BradenlKoester] 7-0, approved.
Commissioner Matacia asked if the all-wny stop policy was designed to slow traffic
down, because I find so many intersections--particularly in the new area, where
Bonita Long Canyon area--wherc thcre is so little cross traffic that it scems
unnecessary for everybody to stop 24 hours a day at a street, unless it is really
designed to slow traffic down.
L
:vIr. Rosenberg rcsponded no, to answer your qucstion, it is an cmphatic no.
However, often times we are directed to put stop signs in for that purpose. Bec:llIsc
of the motions and thc perccption of thc public that feci that thc stop signs. in bct.
I-r
ta .,I/'
Safety Commission Meeting
(
Minutes
November 8, 1990
do control speed, we reported numerous times to other members of the Safety
Commission, and I know you are new so you aren't familiar with some of the
previous reports that we have made, but for your benefit, there have been studies to
show that, yes, stop signs do slow traffic down because they require motorists to stop.
But as soon as they leave the stop sign, they are frustrated and they speed up and we
find that speeds between stop signs actually is higher than they were before the stop
signs were installed. Stop signs are generally used, Commissioner Arnold just
mentioned (stop signs as precursor to installation of a traffic signal device), but
generally speaking, we wouldn't recommend a traffic signal unless there were a
demand or a recognized need--in other words, there was cross traffic. So, what we
try to do is put an all-way stop in where the traffic is generally balanced, so that there
is a recognized need for the right of way through the intersection. All-way stops are
really only intended to designate right of way, so people can alternate their time as
they go through the intersection.
4. TRIAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS:
(
(4A) Parkin!! prohibited for vehicles over 6 feet in hei!!ht on East Flower Street
Mr. Rosenberg gave staffs report. The trial traffic regulation is an item that we
found to be necessary to prevent large vehicles from parking in an area where there
is a visibility problem. We had a fatality accident at this location and when the
accident occurred, there were a number of campers (vehicles) parked adjacent to the
drivewaJi. We felt that the installation of a new provision of the Vehicle Code was
appropriate here, which would prohibit vehicles in excess of 6 feet in height from
parking. Generally speaking, you can see through automobile windows if they are
parked adjacent to a driveway. The sight visibility at this particular driveway location
is adequate if you don't have these large vehicles parked in that area. Using our
powers vested in us through ordinance for trial tratlic regulations, I ordered the
installation and prepared a report to the City Council telling them why I was doing
this. The signs are now up. We wiII return to the City Council in six months and
give them a report and ask them to pass a resolution making them final.
Commissioner Militscher (looking at a view graph of the area) asked just what did
staff do at that point there.
l
:VIr. Rosenberg responded, noting that staff added a sign that says "no parking,
vehicles over 6 feet in height". It begins at one location (pointing to a location on the
view graph) and emling the other side of the driveway. I3etween those two driveways
you cannot park the large vehicles. Staff will apply this elsewhere too; wherever we
find that there is a preponderance of large vehicles. I3ecause what Iwppens here,
SO!l1e people who own these large vehicles. they don't realize the sight proble!l1 they
15
t!../7
INfQRMAIIQNAL IIEM
DATE:
TO:
November 20, 1990
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Goss, City Manager
FROM: John Lippitt, Director of Public Work~
SUBJECT: The revision of the City's All-Way Stop Policy, in response to Council
Referral #2089
At the August 14, 1990 City Council meeting, staff presented a report that recommended
denial of a request for an all-way stop at the intersection of Oleander Avenue and East
Oxford Street. Staff reported that the intersection did not meet the City's all-way
stop warrant criteri a. The eva 1 uat i on of the intersection was based on the Ci ty' s
existing all-way stop pol icy which assigns pOints according to the severity of various
traffi c conditions. The Council expressed concern wi th the City's 1 ega 1 authority to
install all-way stops in intersections having a need for traffic control, but not
qualifying according to the City of Chula Vista existing all-way stop policy. At that
time, Council directed staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature to
appropri ate State offi ci a 1 s regardi ng des i red changes to the State Warrant System to
allow local agencies more flexibility in determining the need for all-way stop controls.
Staff has researched the issue and has concluded that local agencies, such as the City
of Chula Vista, do have the authority to adopt their own warrant system for the
i nsta 11 at i on of all-way stop controls. It is not necessary to change State 1 aw as the
California Vehicle Code coupled with the State Traffic Planning Manual provides latitude
to local agencies in determining when and where stop signs should be installed. Our
research has uncovered the following conclusions:
1. California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21100 provides authority for local agencies to
install traffic control devices including all-way stops.
2. CVC 21400 refers to the State traffic manual for uniform standards in implementing
the installation of traffic control devices.
3. The CalTrans traffic manual provides gUidelines and criteria for all-way stops (see
attachment), but CVC 21354 leaves the weighing of criteria to the discretion of
local authorities. There is not a mandated point or warrant system for the placing
of all-way stops.
4. The City of Chula Vista, as a legal authority, can develop it's own all-way stop
policy using its own point/warrant system provided that the legal requirements of
CVC 21400 are met, and that the basis for the all-way stops and the State traffic
standards are the basis for the installation.
In response to Council's interest and concerns, staff has prepared a draft revision of
the City's all-way stop policy that would provide more flexibility in the criteria for
installing all-way stops in residential neighborhoods. The draft revised all-way stop
pol icy was presented to the Safety Commission at their November 8, 1990 meeting. The
Safety Commi ss i on approved the draft all-way stop pol icy. Staff wi 11 present the fi na 1
revised all-way stop policy to the Council within the next two months.
WPC 5296E
7.3..18
RESOLUTION NO. 11.1+1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A REVISED COUNCIL POLICY
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ALL-WAY STOP SIGNS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, at the August 14, 1990 meeting, during
discussion of the Oleander Avenue and East Oxford Street traffic
problem, the City Council indicated a need to modify the existing
all-way stop policy to allow more emphasis on school age
pedestrian activity areas; and
WHEREAS, Council also raised questions on the legal
authority of establishing all-way stops; and
WHEREAS, local agencies, such as the City of Chula
Vista, do have the authority to adopt their own warrant system
for the installation of all-way stop controls since there is no
mandated point or warrant system for the placing of all-way
stops; and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21354 leaves the
weighing of criteria to the discretion of local authorities and
California Vehicle Code, Section 21350 thru 21355, gives the
authority to local agencies to install all-way stop traffic
controls upon streets in their respective jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, staff has prepared a revision of the City's
all-way stop policy that provides greater emphasis on pedestrian
activity areas; and
WHEREAS, at the Safety Commission meeting of November 8,
1990, the Safety Commission voted 7-0 to approve staff's report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt a revised Council
policy for the installation of all-way stop signs as set forth in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
as if set forth in full.
Presented by
I
cd 11
orm by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
869la
ruce M. Booga d, City Attorney
'-
1.3"1'1
TIllS PAGE BlANK
J. 3 ' ).t>
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 2..4
Meeting Date 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE:
Report on traffic concerns for Oleander Avenue between E.
Palomar Street and E. Orange Avenue
Director of Public Works ~~
City Manager~I?/~ ", (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No...x.J
kcl)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Res i dents in the area of 01 eander Avenue between E. Palomar Street and E.
Orange Avenue have requested that measures be taken to reduce vehicular speeds
on Oleander Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve: 1) the installation of
additional 25 mph speed limit signs; and 2) the addition of "25 mph" pavement
markings adjacent to the speed limit signs on Oleander Avenue.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Safety Commi ss i on at the March 14,
1991 meeting, the Safety Commission voted 7-0 to approve staff's
recommendation to add additional speed limit signs and pavement markings. The
Safety Commission also voted 6-1 to approve an all-way stop at the
intersection of Azalea Street and Oleander Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
At the Safety Commission meeting of December 30, 1990, Commission directed
staff to compile more data on Oleander Avenue between E. Palomar Street and E.
Orange Avenue, and return with a report at the March 14, 1991 Safety
Commission meeting.
Oleander Avenue is a north/south, curvilinear Class III collector with a
curb-to-curb width of 40 feet south of East Oxford Street and a posted speed
limit of 25 miles per hour. The Average Daily Traffic is 5,110 vehicles per
day, approximately 50% in each direction.
A review of the accident history for Oleander Avenue shows that for the period
begi nni ng January 1, 1990 and endi ng December 31, 1990, there were three
reported accidents from E. Palomar Street to E. Orange Avenue. There has not
been a general pattern to these accidents.
Speed counts were taken on February 15-17, 1991 (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) for
northbound and southbound vehicles in front of 1332, 1400, and 1423 Oleander
Avenue.
~lJ .../
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date
2.4
4/23/91
The results are summarized below:
1332 Oleander Avenue:
(south of E. Palomar Street)
Average Speed (MPH)
Median Speed (MPH)
85th Percentile (MPH)
Mode Speed (MPH)
10 mph Pace
10 mph Pace %
11. 1400 Oleander Avenue:
(between Azalea Street and
Wisteria Street)
I.
Northbound
Southbound
37.86
39.71
45.93
45
35-45
67.47
31. 76
31. 99
38.37
23
23-33
64.76
Northbound
Southbound
Average Speed (MPH) 30.46 30.58
Median Speed (MPH) 30.26 30.14
85th Percentile (MPH) 35.83 35.99
Mode Speed (MPH) 23 25
10 mph Pace 23-33 23-33
10 mph Pace % 80.90 79.83
III. 1423 Oleander Avenue: Northbound Southbound
(south of Quince Street)
Average Speed (MPH) 32.13 28.14
Median Speed (MPH) 31.84 27.92
85th Percentile (MPH) 36.87 31. 69
Mode Speed (MPH) 30 23
10 mph Pace 27-37 23-33
10 mph Pace % 77 .86 95.21
All-way stop studies were completed for 11 intersections between Redwing Road
and Orange Avenue (see attachment). None of these intersections warranted the
installation of an all-way stop by meeting the 30-point minimum requirement.
Azalea Street and Hibiscus Court received the highest point totals with 17 out
of a possible 50.
Staff is not recommending the installation of any all-way stops. Traffic
Engineering studies show that unless they are installed at all of these
intersections, speeds would not be reduced. If one was to be requested by the
City Council, Azalea Street would be staff's first choice, due to its
proximity to Parkview Elementary School, the Boys and Girls Club, and because
it is used as an elementary school crossing. If an all-way stop were to be
installed at this intersection, the following changes would have to be
completed:
1. The school crossing symbol signs (see attachment) would have to be
replaced with stop signs.
~l/ ..2..
Page 3, Item ~'f
Meeting Date 4/23/91
2. "Slow School Xing" pavement markings would have to be removed and
replaced with "Stop" legends.
3. A 12-inch white limit line would have to be installed for the southbound
approach.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the addition of some 25 MPH
markings adjacent to the speed 1 imit signs.
additional stop signs at the present time.
speed 1 imit signs and pavement
Staff is not recommending any
WPC 5522E
Attachments: Area Plat
All-way stop summary sheet
Glossary for speed counts
Petition
1.1/--:3
. '~?, 11'1 ~
:-. '"". ,I'II!"
~ ..1;'. . .-1,,)' · :z.
~4 .~I!o,..,.r{;) J ==
, , ''''''Y'~.'I J . ,.
~ l.-- ,i;\~:~l iJ~'
~ .&~:~):!~~:rrl\:. = 2-
~ '- D '~~~~~~~- 3
. ';~.: ".~' .~
CT. .-l' · -=IVf.- ': It
~ ~. ."..,."tL" ISCHOOL .
'. ,,"i-i9~; ~ liNG
~~~~"';;. 5 . · .
,~~t" ~~ Co . lnl = ~
.......... .... . -- ~
. ~~. . .~ ,
.~~:: ~r~ ,~VT~'
./ ~ 'i<~~ ~ -i\\\(\)\?
-' L..\/'~ ~~""
~ - \...."\
, . (' 'f ' \. ,..--""'" \ r1
~ D ~~#l I..-~ ~
~~!i ~\ /' 'Y ?<J=. ~
~ __ __ ~I ~'::t ~ ...~\- :::
::: -:. ~,. ~91-~ '-'"
- r ~
T'\. ,
,,-\..J ..... V.J~ ~
~'~, \ ~ ~\8.
<. \ \ ~t1~~~
~
f1~ar loo.. "':"...
~\' . ~
. ~ ~ '..,., ~-,..}
. ~ ,,~ct' \ l~-
TIT L. E
- AREA PLAT EXISTING SIGNS
~ '\~\ .
.( ~ S /lE\j~
E. ?A\.OI'I!! -:fTitccr
\",.'\ --- r
, "' ,- --
,\ -.... \....
/\ ....... I
"...
X \ \
~ ~ \ \.
1.--'..... """;1
:::: =- =
r-- - ..-!
K~.- ~
....,.~
.....
\
(
....
~ ).0
~
-
-
,...-
-
/- ~
...... - ~
~. _!004'
-w ,.-' H .
~,=.CIl
X - g::.
\.l../ .
r!II .....r
...-
~.... ~(:;
-
\..-
"'"
(
)
"WH T
'J.B.
OAa 3/3/91
C"
t~..'1
Evaluated Intersections On Oleander Ave For All-Wav StODS
(
Through Unusual Volume
street Accident Condition Volume Split
Warrant Warrant Warrant Warrant Warrant TOTAL
Oak
Place 3 0 6 3 0 II
Red-
wing 3 0 7 3 0 II
Road
E. Pal-
omar 3 0 7 3 0 II
Street
Hibis-
cus 3 2 10 2 0 1.1
Court
Wiste-
ria 3 0 4 2 0 ~
Street
( Azalea =
street 3 0 6 6 2 1.1
Veron-
ica 3 0 2 2 0 1-
Court
Quince
Street 3 0 0 2 0 ~
Quail
Court 3 0 3 2 0 ~
Rienstra
Court 3 0 0 2 0 ~
Rivera
Court 3 0 0 2 0 ~
Points
Possible 5 14 10 13 B }Q
( A minimum of 30 is required to justify an all-way stop.
t.~"S'
(
(
GLOSSARY
ADT
Average Daily Traffic: Total volume of traffic over a 24
hour period.
Average Speed
Sum of all the recorded speeds divided by the total number
of vehicles recorded.
Median Speed
Speed which 50% of the vehicles were above and 50% were
below.
85th Percentile Often referred to as critical speed, this speed is the speed
85% of the drivers travel at or below. This is the speed
used by the State of California to determine what speed
limit should be posted.
Mode Speed
10 mph pace
The speed that was most often recorded during the survey.
The 10 mile increment of speed containing the largest number
of vehicles.
The percentage of vehicles within the 10 mph pace.
10 mph pace %
WPC 5519E
/I. II ..(,
4-3
...:-
,.../ / /;c /. ('_/_; /I /"..
;. \/t"'!) ",/.I,;~~
~/~ ! :/
. I /1
J.)'t'; /:'..
-d //
1 ~I
,~ r..;.:j_,'{,f-J':
'-'/;1/7/
On March 14th the Department of
will meet in the Council Chambers at
if you are in favor of a allway stop
& Oleander and or Azalea & Oleander.
,
Publ ic Works in Chula. Vista
1:00 P.M. Please ~ign below
sign intersection at Palomar
I
Date Write Name Here
Put Address Here
--..
1-? -
iFfl {
5h- CA
l
3 ~ -'1 -'7 !
4.3.-'7.
/9/711
/diU; flf/;
"u. 9 /11 /
~u. 9/91 !
In/(
10.
-'
12.
13.
\?~
15. M ~Heebt ,/
163- L-
17,3- "II I
18 .-1.111'
.~"
't-rJ 10
20. 18.1(
2. '1-- 7
\>\-+\
On March 14th the Department of Public Works in Chula Vista
will meet in the Council Chambers at 7:00 P.M. Please ~ign below
if you are in favor of a allway stop sign intersection at Palomar
& Oleander and or Azalea & Oleander.
---,.
Date
Write Name Here
Put Address Here
1 W' /()
:<...
, Uz.
.- r~
-'
'I
( til-t5~
7)-(,-71 '/
8.~-\"~\
1
I/tHA L f/'10
113-\"\\ 'leL 9/9/0
---: J
12!-~ 'if ('A '1lflO
13 ;3-"'-1/ -11'110
--, ~~;1/'l
14.
18.
'L2L1
I~OII
'v. :711,<1
J.'1'
--.
On March 14th the Department of
will meet in the Council Chambers at
if you are in favor of a allway stop
& Oleander and or Azalea & Oleander.
rl'~
Public Works in Chula Vista
7:00 P.M. Please sign: below
sign intersection at P~lomar
Date Write Name Here
Put Address Here
<,
(
S1-eve L'"Ld{(d<(}
, --.
11 hdu H 10 ~ tZ-D t".C-
\Vle,\"k..y"
~C6 " 1(,)
LJ)v
/?ussr:;cu, Mluu<-
V;rfo/l- /1.1 \ 612 'II/IN'
19;:>&, '7
--.
t'f.-
I.
/
'J
iL
L
L
7
,~
(2C/1/
"1101 ( I
~'"-,--f
....~
On March 14th the Department of Public Works in Chula Vista
will meet in the Council Chambers at 7:00 P.M. Please sign below
if you are in favor of a allway stop sign intersection at Palomar
& Oleander and or Azalea & Oleander.
Date
Write Name Here
Put Address here
L
/tid<-- L- '7;l~~f,d!L/.
// 'l';'~
/
//.
/
A-{~1itA
)) \ ILJ\
\/ /1-
,ll/.../()
"
\
On March 14th the Department of public Works in Chula Vista
will meet in the Council Chambers at 7:00 P,M, Please sign below
if you are in favor of a allway stop sign intersection at Palomar
& Oleander and or Azalea & Oleander,
Date
Write Name Here
Put Address Here
"-~
~.
:~
cS,.
.
U!J5-k fu-
V C"
CA-
<";).
_ dl./
'l::L
-I
113/ ()
1~~/~
18.
--.
On March 14th the Department of Public Works in Chula Vista
will meet in the Council Chambers at 7:00 P.M. Please sign below
if you are in favor of a allway stop sign intersection at Palomar
& Oleander and or Azalea & Oleander.
Date
Write Name Here
Put Address here
d.
/
5.
IT
I
~{/
~.r
J.L
~
,.1#,
L". LI "
17 IL
-.tl/" I :J...
On March 14th the Department of Public Works in Chula Vista
will meet in the Council Chambers at 7:00 P.M. Please sign below
if you are in favor of a allway stop sign intersection at Palomar
& Oleander and or Azalea & Oleander.
Date
Wr ite Name Here
Put Address here
...~
[.v
iNII
"
!!III
f//
( ,
1/1' 1/
19/1
71/
II
/1
I
/ I
L
'L
f
,/1{
21/ -I"
On March 14th the Department of Public Works in Chula Vista
will meet in the Council Chambers at 7:00 P.M. Please sign below
if you are in favor of a allway stop sign intersection at Palomar
& Oleander and or Azalea & Oleander.
Date Write Name Here
Put Address here
1 .~ /0 D; fr,.le
-,
2. /
'JJJ
1Lo
Y/2
/
/
WI
Ie; J/
iFf11
c7lQ II
qJCf11
~911
l2I1
VI
IF;//
4\\
~,
\. I '-
vu~!911
ZI/ ../"1
---n ~.Q '0 CNwV
<::Y IN ,
~_~~___I?n~~~:r(
J 10 . Il C41Zt/4J/)(
~
--"
.
I
I
I
t."./~ !
M
C-l VI
<
.---.
~7
i
, i
I
I
On March 14th the Department of Public Works in Chula Vista
will meet in the Council Chambers at .7:00 P.M. Please sign below
if you are in favor of a allway stop sign intersection at Palomar
& Oleander and or Azalea & Oleander. '
Date Write Name Here
Put Address Here
-~
I
7. ')~-q{
1
4...1~
B.
1SIA .
<
9/1
;,<1,.
~-J.., OJ" -.... 0.. l'
till
J1JJ
I!lJJ
~~c:CI/
.O~n\l
18.
~
t.'1- ~ ,
On March 14th the Department of Public Works in Chula Vista
will meet in the Council Chambers at 7:00 P.M. Please sign below
if you are in favor of a allway stop-sign intersection at Palomar
& Oleander and or Azalea & Oleander.
Date
Write Name Here
Put Address here
/:;Pt/J/f[i'> Ii? I/A! FNCtlt-
/'1 i/.
9/1
~
t..i.311
Ujll
L
(J1'!.@'IIlS
I
p'
~7
/
,
"\ ,\
14 ':;'tl'
'/
'9//
1/f/l
, .
lJ!0'1!
1/1/
'/
d((.9r'!!(
.71 1-'
~ eJ -tc) "'-..-
20.
.
'",
(
':.
,
,
\1
'Ji. "
21/.-/7
."........
, .,.,'....
On March 14th the Department of PubllC Works ln Chula Vlsta
will meet in the Council Chambers at 7:00 P.M. Please sign below
lf you are in favor of a allway stop sign intersection at Palomar
& Oleander and or Azalea & Oleander.
Date
Write Name Here
Put Address here
~ . tt '. ~: ~j/
~~I3-'I. .' (? ) /
. ~._ j!~,e.IL..ur -<-~/ -" .
0
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.-+_
16. I
1
1
17. i
i
------r-
18. i
19.
20.
"" -/1'
MINUTES OF THE SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Thursday, March 14, 1991
7:04 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
1. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Braden, Co-Chair Thomas, Commissioners
Arnold, Chidester, Koester, Matacia, Militscher
EXCUSED ABSENCES:
UNEXCUSED ABSENCES:
None.
None.
STAFF PRESENT:
Harold Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer
Frank Rivera, Assistant Engineer II
OTHERS PRESENT:
Sergeant Tom Schaefer
See attached attendance list.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION
Approve minutes of the February 14, 1991 Safety Commission.
MSUC [Militscher/Koester) 5-0-2 (Braden/Chidester abstained)
3. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE
1. Letter from Department of Transportation dated February 25, 1991 concerning
1-5 off-ramp at "L" Street.
2. Letter from Richard B. Walters, 536 Azalea Street, CV regarding vehicular
speeds in the area of Oleander Avenue between Redwing Road and East Orange
Avenue
4. Report on Oleander A venue South of Palomar Street
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Rivera presented staffs report. This covers the area between East Palomar Street
and East Orange A venue. Staff has had numerous requests from the residents that live
on Oleander A venue in this area to do something to reduce vehicular speeds on Oleander
Avenue. Staff conducted speed surveys over a 48-hour period. The results are attached
to the report. As a summary, the posted speed limit is 25 mph and we had, depending
where one is on Oleander Avenue, the 85 percentile speed is approximately 10 miles
over the posted speed limit. Staff has considered, and is recommending, that additional
speed limit signs be added, that the existing speed limit signs be relocated to a more
visible location, and that 25-mph pavement legends be added on the travel lanes. This
will help to make the motorist more aware of what the speed limit is on Oleander
1.1{.4'j
Safety Commission Meeting
March 14, 1991
Minutes
Avenue. An all-way stop study which was completed for all intersections on Oleander
Avenue from Oak Place to Rivera Court; this area is north of East Palomar Street, south
to just north of East Orange Avenue. None of the intersections met the City Council
approved criteria for installation of all-way stops. Based on that, we cannot recommend
the installation of an all-way stop at any of these intersections. The points possible total
is 50, this takes into account all warrants which are used to evaluate an intersection for
an all-way stop. Hibiscus Court and Azalea Street had the highest point totals, but were
well below the 30 points that the City Council has established as a minimum
requirement.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ray Sugel, 1429 Ocala Court, CV 91911
Everyday I go to school at Park View and I always see cars going through Oleander and
not stopping for stop signs. This past Friday my friend and I were almost hit while we
were in the crosswalk by a car going 45 mph, it ran through two stop signs--the school
patrol stop sign and a permanently placed stop sign. Today, there were so many cars
speeding through there we were almost killed.
Commissioner Chidester asked Ray if he came out of Ocala Court on Quince Street to
go to Oleander Avenue to go to school. He asked at which intersection the car almost
hit him and if he were crossing from west to east to follow Azalea Street to go up to the
school.
Ray responded yes, and the intersection was Azalea Street going into Oleander Avenue
and that he did follow that direction.
John Clanton, 1431 Ocala Court, CV 91911
I have a total of eight children and so far, five have attend Park View Elementary
School. On any given morning the speed is so extreme that the safety patrol kids cannot
stop traffic. I understand, that by the rules of CalTrans, they are not allowed to inhibit
the flow of traffic. They can only stop it once it slows down to a speed that they can
stop. The people just do not stop. So, children, in turn, are normally late for school.
The principal has called several times and asked why are my kids always late for school.
My kids leave 25 to 30 minutes to get to school. I have stood and watched with them
and they will stand anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes for the traffic to slow down enough-
-normally it takes a school bus to stop for the patrol kids to put their signs out so traffic
will stop for the kids to cross. The normal speed is, I would say, at Azalea Street,
which is the crosswalk for the school, they are doing at least 45 mph. They hit the down
grade to go up past the Boys Club and I know they are doing more than 45 mph. Traffic
is so fast that it makes it extremely difficult to come off Ocala Court. I will not travel
that road anymore. Wisteria Street onto Oleander Avenue is a blind comer. If there
were some kind of interruption of speed through this section so that the safety patrol kids
could do there job, they could perform their function if there were a stop sign at Azalea
Street.
-2-
~tI-2.iJ
Safety Commission Meeting
March 14, 1991
Minutes
David Fithian, 1402 Oleander Avenue, CV 91911
I agree with Mr. Clanton. I have a petition with 202 names of people who would like
to see a stop sign. We have given you to choices--one at the bottom of East Palomar
Street and Oleander Avenue and/or at Azalea Street and Oleander Avenue. The people
are on Oleander Avenue are excited at the prospect of having the traffic slowed. Staffs
study was done on Memorial weekend. We did not have the flow, "the killer flow" I
call it, that is there where school is in session. He handed out four pictures for the
members to look at while he read a commentary to explain the situation.
Commissioner Matacia suggested to Mr. Rosenberg that it might be well at this point for
him to explain to those present so that they understand what his opinion is as it relates
to slowing traffic down by the use of all-way stops.
Mr. Rosenberg was experiencing difficulty talking, therefore Mr. Rivera explained that
all-way stops are generally installed on streets where the amount of traffic entering from
each street is about equal. Stops are not generally installed on streets where there is
disproportionate traffic entering an intersection. The street with the higher amount of
traffic usually has the right of way, so stops are placed on the minor street. This is to
reduce delay and pollution. The all-way stop, if they are installed at intersections where
they are not warranted or not needed, they do slow down the traffic but only within
200 feet, or about three houses in each direction of the intersection. Most motorists will
travel at the speed they are accustomed to driving and usually within the 200 feet limit
before they reach the intersection they step on their brakes hard. After they have gone
through the intersection, gone about 200 feet, they are back up to their accustomed speed
and sometimes higher. For this reason, yes stop signs are effective, but only within
200 feet of the intersection. If we were to put a stop sign at every intersection along the
way from East Palomar Street to Orange Avenue, speeds would be reduced. If we were
to only put them in at Azalea Street or East Palomar Street, we would only see the
speeds reduced in that 200 foot area approaching each intersection. That is one of the
reasons that an all-way stop is not installed. They generally are not effective for
reducing the speed on the street, but only within the 200 foot limit.
Scott Mosher, Executive Director, Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista located at 1301
Oleander Avenue, I live at 829 LaSenda Way, CV 91911
I am extremely concerned about the rate of speed on Oleander Avenue. We service
about 260 kids each day at the club. The majority of our kids come from Greg Rogers
and Park View schools. They walk, many of them by themselves, to the club. We have
been extremely fortunate, to date, that no children have been seriously hurt. I truly
believe that speed is a real issue. He mentioned several accidents that occurred because
vehicles are traveling at excessive speeds. The police have increased patrolling which
is certainly helping to some extent. I think more visible signs, 25 mph speed, and
painting legends on the road are very good ideas. I do not think that is enough-- I think
that the plan to reduce speeds should extend to the top of the hill. I ask your
consideration to do a little bit more here.
-3-
~i/"J.'
Safety Commission Meeting
March 14, 1991
Minutes
Maria Williams, 458 Oak Place, CV 91911
She explained that her back yard abuts Palomar Street. It is difficult to sleep at night
because all you hear are screeching halts continuously in that area. There is also a blind
spot, the white line to stop on Palomar Street and make either a left or right turn to go
to Oleander, you cannot see anything. There are trees in the house that blocks the view.
You have to go past the white line in order to see, and three times I've been almost hit
because cars are also traveling very fast. I suggest either stop signs or something else
at this location.
Connie Sugel, 1429 Ocala Court, CV 91911
The signs are okay, but I think a stop sign is necessary at Azalea where the kids cross
the street to get to school. The safety patrols are only children, but they told my
children one time last year that they could not stop traffic, that they should go down to
Hibiscus and cross on your own. I have a friend that you are all probably very familiar
with--Jean Pendergraft. She lost her daughter last year to the same problem. I want to
keep my children alive. I do not think your criteria should be a dead child. That is
where I think it is headed right now. Somebody is going to get hurt and they are going
to get hurt bad, if not dead. That is all I can say. I think a stop sign is very important
right now.
Chair Braden asked staff when they took the survey.
Mr. Rivera responded, saying the radar speed survey was taken on February 15-17, 1991
(Friday [late afternoon], Saturday, and Sunday). We had been told that the problem was
more acute on the weekends. Of course, on weekends we do not take the children into
account as school is not in session. The school patrol is on Azalea Street and Oleander
Avenue. We have a painted yellow crosswalk and school series signing. The school
safety patrol, by law, do not stop traffic. What they are to do is look for gaps in the
traffic and when they judge there is an adequate gap, that is when they put their stop
paddles down. At this juncture, Mr. Rivera showed a number of slides of various areas
of Oleander Avenue to the Commission.
Chair Braden asked if staff considered rumble strips on this street.
Mr. Rivera stated, no.
Commissioner Matacia asked Sergeant Schaefer, since the motor patrols are out there on
a regular basis, if they found that the persons doing the speeding are locals, out of
towners, or out of area residents.
Sergeant Schaefer noted that, unfortunately, the majority of the tickets that are issued are
to residents of that immediate area or people who work in the area. Several Park View
Elementary school teachers have been cited. It is not a situation where a lot of transient
population going through there causing the problem. It is a lot of residents using that
-4-
~If"~
Safety Commission Meeting
March 14, 1991
Minutes
roadway that are speeding. It has been my experience from personally working radar
on that street, that from East Orange to the area of Azalea Street and Hibiscus Court, the
speeds are significantly lower in that stretch than they are once you get to Hibiscus Court
and start down the hill toward East Palomar Street and back up the hill past the Boys and
Girls Club up to Greg Rogers Park. We issue most of our citations between East Oxford
Street and East Palomar Street--going both northbound and southbound. I have worked
in the area of Quince Street and, while there are cars that do exceed the speed limit, but
they are not in violation of the basic speed law as outlined by the Vehicle Code to the
point where we can cite them for exceeding the speed limit.
MOTION
That a stop sign be installed on Oleander A venue at Azalea Street, stopping the traffic
at Oleander Avenue at that intersection, to permit the crossing guards to have stopped
vehicle and correctly use their signs.
MSC [Militscher/Koester] 6-1 (Braden opposed)
MOTION
Staff to check the sight distance at Oak Place and Oleander Avenue where it was stated
that foliage or trees inhibited the sight distance at that point and that correct methods be
suggested.
MSC [Militscher/Koester] 6-1 (Arnold opposed)
MOTION
That the Safety Commission accept staff's recommendation: 1) the installation of
additional 25 mph speed limit signs; and 2) the addition of "25 mph" pavement markings
adjacent to the speed limit signs on Oleander Avenue.
MSUC [Matacia/Militscher] 7-0
5. Status Report on Shell Oil Company
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Rivera presented the status report on the reconstruction of Bonita Glen Drive and
Bonita Road. I would like to mention that we have been in contact with Mr. Brooks
Herring and he has been very enthusiastically pursuing the completion of this project as
he had promised to the Safety Commission in October 1990. There are several issues
that will delay completion of the reconstruction. Unknown to Mr. Herring, the City has
undertaken a widening project along the south curb line of Bonita Road from East Flower
Street through Sandalwood Drive and Bonita Glen Drive. This will add a bike lane in
that area and widen the south side. Also, we have a widening project scheduled for the
north side of Bonita Road from Love's Restaurant west to East Flower Street. In
addition to that, we are pursuing the matter of having the west half of Bonita Glen Drive
constructed in concrete at the same time that the east half is constructed in concrete
which Shell Oil Company will be doing. The City's portion of this project needs to be
approved by the City Council. It is scheduled to go before Council sometime in the near
-5-
1.~";'3
THIS PAGE BlANK
2l/"2.~
council Agenda statement
Item: 25
Meeting Date: April 23, 1991
Item Title:
Submitted by:
Bruce M.
Public Release of the Confidential
Reports of the City Attorney regarding
legal risks associated W~'t the enactment
of a trench fee morator'
Boogaard, city Attorney
4/5ths Vote: ( ) Yes (X) No
Report:
Recommendation:
That the City Council defer release of confidential reports of
the city Attorney relating to a trench fee prohibition bearing
meeting dates of January 15, 1991 and March 21, 1991 for a period
of four months unless the city council reconsiders the issue prior
thereto, and in the meantime advise the public that in those
memoranda, the City Attorney has advised the city council that a
prohibition on the ability of a developer to impose fees for
occupancy of main utility trenches involved legal risks for which
the city should be adequately indemnified.
Boards and Commissions Recommendation:
None. None applicable.
Discussion
Backqround:
At the request of Chula vista Cable, on December 11, 1990, the
ci ty Council directed staff to evaluate the city I s ability to
regulate trench access fees that are paid to developers by cable
operators as a condition of gaining access to main utility trenches
in new developments.
The city Attorney prepared a confidential report ("First
Report") to the city council for the meeting of January 15, 1991
recommending that the city council not attempt to regulate such
trench access fees.
A motion was made to "refer the item back to the city
Attorney's office for review of the financial condition of Chula
trench1.wp
April 18, 1991
Al13 re Trench Fee Reports
Page 1
25...'
vista Cable, indemnities, and to review the legal firm that Chula
vista Cable was proposing to represent the city with a report back
to Council. The motion carried 4-0-1 with Mayor McCandliss
absent. 1
The city Attorney thereafter received and considered the
resume of the legal firm proposed by Chula vista Cable. Chula
vista Cable's attorneys proposed an indemnity which was not
acceptable to the City Attorney's office, and the city Attorney's
office proposed an indemnity which was not acceptable to Chula
vista Cable.
Thereafter, the city Attorney prepared another confidential
report to the City Council for the meeting of March 21, 1991
("Second Report") wherein he reported back with his consideration
of the proposed legal firm and the negotiating position on the two
different indemnities.
At the meeting of March 21, 1991, a motion to place a trench
access fee prohibitory ordinance ("Ordinance A") on first reading
failed on a 2:2 vote.
Thereafter, two of the councilmembers opposing the introduc-
tion of Ordinance A were publicly criticized in a rate increase
notification from Chula vista Cable for causing an increase in a
cable operator's cable rates.
Analysis of Request for Disclosure of Reports
One of the Councilmembers so criticized is requesting public
disclosure of the First and Second Reports prepared by the City
Attorney to offer an explanation of why he cast his vote in the
manner he did.
The primary problem with disclosure of the Reports is that if
this or some future Council enacts the Ordinance, the Reports will
give an opponent to the legislation a variety of legal theories
upon which to attack the ordinance, and will provide some evidence
as to the city's recognition of those litigation risks. Therefore
it is generally considered risky to permit disclosure of such
information if there is a chance that the Ordinance, or a similar
version thereof, will be adopted.
On the other hand, a Councilmember may be called upon to
justify his voting record, and should be permitted to do so on the
basis of the legal advice received from the City Attorney.
1. See Page 3 of Minutes of the city Clerk for the meeting of
January 15, 1991.
trenChl.wp
April 18, 1991
Al13 re Trench Fee Reports
Page 2
~s "2.
It order to satisfy both purposes, it is recommended that the
council release publicly the following statement:
"The City Attorney recommended against adoption of any
ordinance prohibiting the charging of trench access fees on
the grounds that it presented a legal risk of be overturned,
and that the City may be held liable for damages incurred by
the attempted enactment thereof, a risk for which adequate
indemnity was not offered."
Fiscal Impact:
Indefinable
trench1.wp
April 18, 1991
Al13 re Trench Fee Reports
Page 3
J..5"~
TIllS PAGE BlANK
25-,/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 2 ~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
ITEM TITLE: Report: Proposa 1 s for Development of City-owned Property at
4400 block of Bonita Road
S.
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development DirectorG-
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes__No-X-)
In June 1990, the City issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for development of
the City's 3-acre site adjacent to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course in
the 4400 block of Bonita Road. By the August 3, 1990 deadline for submission,
six proposals for development were received. Two of these proposals have been
withdrawn by proponents. The Counci 1 revi ewed the proposals for development
on November 29, 1990, and directed staff to prepare additional financial and
development analysis of the proposals.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council direct staff to bring
exclusive negotiation agreement with Joelen Enterprises for hotel
on the site. A list of initial negotiating points and
clarification are listed as Exhibit "A".
forward an
development
issues for
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSS ION:
Of the original six proposals received through the RFP process, two have
withdrawn voluntarily. The four remaining proposals are:
1. Mr. Richard Pena, park development
2. Joelen Enterprises, 200-room hotel
3. Odmark and Thelan, 96 senior apartments
4. ADMA Company, 80 for-lease condominiums
These proposals are attached as Exhibit B and the original Request For
Proposals is attached as Exhibit C. The proponents have been asked to provide
bri ef presentations to the City Counci 1 (approximately 10 mi nutes) and be
. avail abl e to answer quest ions or to provi de addi t i ona 1 i nformat i on to the
Counc il .
Also attached is Exhibit D, a matrix comparing significant details of the four
proposals. Attached as Exhibit E is a financial analysis estimating the
financial returns of each of the proposals to the City. An overview of this
analysis is provided under the fiscal impact section of this report.
~,(
Page 2, Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The property is an undeveloped 3-acre parcel in the 4400 block of Bonita
Road. It is bounded by the Chul a Vi sta Muni ci pa 1 Golf Course on the north,
Bonita Road on the south, the Bonita Vista condominiums on the west and the
South Bay Golf Cl ub restaurant on the east. The property is designated as
Visitor Commercial on the General Plan and is zoned C-V-P for visitor service
commercial uses with a precise plan requirement. The property is currently
used at certain times as a parkin9 area for joggers and wal kers using the
trail that traces the circumference of the golf course. A map of the site is
attached as Exhi bit F. A map of the golf course showi ng equestri an and
jogging trails and the golf course property is also attached as Exhibit G.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
1. Mr. Richard Pena, park proposal
Mr. Pena has descri bed hi s park proposal as follows: "The use of the
property should be a park for a park's sake. It would be a grassy area,
with a meandering sidewal k, and the space broken only by an occasional
tree or a park bench. There would be no picnic tables, no barbecue pits,
no children's playground, nothing of that nature. It would be a place
where one mi ght walk to, perhaps, eat a snack 1 unch, s it on a bench for
conversation with someone, instead of sitting in a stuffy office or
merely sit by oneself in a peaceful and pleasant surrounding."
Mr. Pena has also indicated that the use of the property as a park could
allow the future construction of a building to be used as a 1 ibrary,
museum or cultural center.
It shoul d be noted that Mr. Pena, in conjunct i on wi th Jeff Pha i r of the
Phair Development Company, requested that his proposal be amended to
allow the development of approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of office space,
with the balance of the property to be used for parkland. This amendment
was determined to be an additional proposal received after the August 3,
1990 deadline, and ha~ not been i~cluqed for analysis.in this reportlObvidOUSly,
it could be analyzed If the Councll wlshes to have thlS proposal eva uate .
Financial Benefits: Development of the site as a park will generate no
revenues for the Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta and wi 11 requi re a substant i a 1
outlay of funds for initial development, estimated by the City Parks
Department at $375,000, with continuing outlays for maintenance estimated
at approximately $15,900 a year. Financing could be accomplished through
Park Acquisition and Development Fees since this area would be of benefit
to the general community.
Pl anni nQ Comments: The General Pl an and zoni ng call for vi s itor- servi ce
commercial uses on the site.
}I".. 2..
Page 3, Item 2. ~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
2. Odmark and Thelan, 96 unit senior apartment complex
Odmark and Thelan proposes to build 96 senior apartment units in
two-story, 16-plex buildings. Ninety-six parking spaces would be
provided under carports. The project is not proposed for development
under the City's density bonus program. Instead Odmark and Thelan
propose that 20% of the units would be kept at low-income levels
(approximately $463 for a one-bedroom and $589 for a two-bedroom, based
on San Diego County median income for 1989) with the remaining units to
be priced according to the market, $550-600 for one-bedrooms and $675-725
for two-bedrooms. The unit sizes proposed are one-bedroom, 480 sq. ft.,
and two-bedroom, 625 sq. ft.
Odmark and The 1 an have an excell ent profess i ona 1 reputation and are the
developers of the Uptown District and Columbia Place in San Diego.
Odmark and Thel an have i ndi cated a wi 11 i ngness to work with the City on
resolution of all design and planning issues.
Planninq Comments: Because the General Plan and zoning call for visitor
commercial use on the site, this project would require a General Plan
amendment and a zone change. The Pl anning Department's major concern
with this proposal is the density. At 32 units per acre, the project is
proposed at the highest density the City will allow in any location under
its current zoning ordinance. The Planning Department's opinion is that
this project is not suitable for this location.
The Pl anni ng Department has not proposed development of thi s site for
residential use. However, if a residential use is approved, a
high-quality townhouse development with a density of 10-12 units is
considered to be most appropri ate. Adjacent uses to the west are 01 der
residential projects at 23 dwelling units to the acre and 16.8 dwelling
uni ts to the acre. The Pl anni ng Department cites alack of ameni ties
within the project as a problem, such as a swimming pool or community
center. The proposal does not include public parking for access to the
jogging and equestrian trail. Any residential development should be
screened and pulled back from Bonita Road and the generated traffic
noise, with significant internal open space and a well-landscaped setback.
Financial Benefits: The developer's proposal is to pay the City $720,000
cash upon issuance of bull di ng permi ts for the project. The developer
also proposes that the City would participate at the rate of 25% upon
sale of the property. An analysis of the proposal, assuming the sale of
the property in year ten, estimates the tot a 1 fi nanci a 1 benefit to the
City is at $869,546.48.
3. Joelen Enterprises, 200-room hotel
Joelen Enterprises proposes to build a 3 1/2-story upper mid-level hotel
with 200 rooms. The hotel proposal would include amenities such as pool,
spa, tennis courts, 14,000 sq. ft. of meeting and banquet space and
restaurant facilities.
~'''.3
Page 4, Item 2(,.
Meeting Date 4/23/91
The developer proposes that the hotel would include the City's 3 acres
and al so the additional 4 acres currently occupied by the golf course
restaurant parkin9 lot and pro shop. This proposed master planning was
suggested in the RFP, which called for "land uses (that) should blend
with and complement the existing restaurant/lounge and golf course uses."
The 4-acre area is owned by the Ci ty and 1 eased to the Ameri can Golf
Corporation for operation of the golf course. American Golf has stated
its interest and support for the hotel development proposed by Joelen
Enterprises. To date, officials of American Golf have declined to state
the extent to which they would commit resources to the development or to
the golf course. However, they have said that their participation in
such a project would include a substantial upgrading of the existing golf
faci 1 ity.
According to Joelen Enterprises the target market for the hotel would be
a mix of upper and mid-level business and professional groups, and
individual and family travelers. Joelen states that 90,000 guests per
year are anticipated and that the hotel would employ 170-185 people.
Joelen has indicated a willingness to work with the City on the design of
the project and to provide parking for public access and museum space for
a possible Bonita historical exhibit. Joelen is currently developing the
450-room Lowes Coronado resort adjacent to the Coronado Cays in the City
of Coronado. Joelen has indicated that a potential exists for linking a
Chula Vista golf course resort to the Coronado resort.
Pl anni nQ Comments: The Pl anni ng Department favors a hotel development
over the other three proposals. A hotel shoul d be des i gned in a manner
consistent with the character of the area, coordinated with the
redeve 1 opment of the adjoi ni ng four-acre site, and retain an appropri ate
staging area, here or elsewhere, for the hiking/jogging trail. The
development would be in keeping with the existing General Plan
designation for the area and the visitor commercial zoning. The
development would have the advantage of master planning the City's 3 acre
parcel and the adjacent 4 acres. This could provide for a single
entrance to the property al igned at Otay Lakes Road. In the Planning
Department's opinion this single access at Otay Lakes Road is highly
des i rabl e. The height and architecture of the proposed structure is a
concern to the Planning Department. At 3 1/2-stories and with a
contemporary design, the hotel as proposed is generally out of character
with the Bonita community. View corridors into the golf course could be
designed. though the Planni ng Department woul d st ill be concerned about
the overall height of the structures.
Financial Benefits: The financial benefits accruing to the City from the
Joelen proposal are estimated by the developer to be substantial, being
in excess of $1 million per year at project stabilization. It should be
noted that thi s est imated benefit is predi cated on market assumptions
which need further study. The developer assumes an average room rate of
2J,-tf
Page 5, Item ~(.
Meeting Date 4/23/91
approximately $135 per ni9ht with occupancy rates in the 80% range.
Whether or not this development can generate room rates at this level and
consistently hi9h occupancy rates is a question that must be addressed by
a thorough marketing study. This is a point upon which staff, Joelen and
any potential lender would be in agreement.
The Joelen proposal would lease the City's property for 66 years and
include an option to purchase the property during the fifth through the
fifteenth years. Payments on the lease would be based on revenues
generated by the hotel. Development of the hotel would take two to three
years, with a two to three year period before stabilization. Joelen has
proposed a percentage lease comparable to the lease arrangements used by
the San Diego Port District for its hotels along San Diego Bay. Joelen
has proposed that the City would receive the following amounts on an
annual basis: 6% of room income, 5% of beverage sales, 5% of
banquet/meeting room rentals, 3% of food sales, 10% of retail sales, 10%
of telephone income.
Joelen's estimates of gross revenues and payments to the City appear to
be reasonable based upon comparable leases maintained by the Port
Di stri ct wi th its tenants in hotel properties on San Di ego Bay. For
example, revenues for the first half of 1990 to the Port District from
the 300-room Le Meridian hotel in Coronado were $868,508, not including
Transient Occupancy Taxes. Port revenues from the 136-room Half Moon Inn
for the same period were $493,164, again not including TOT.
Joelen's estimates of the lease value at $3 million also appears to be
reasonabl e, based upon comparabl e 1 eases gi ven by the Port Di stri ct and
assuming that lease payments continue until at least 2002. Joelen claims
stabil ized annual revenue to the City of $662,087 as a percentage of
gross income pl us Transi ent Occupancy Taxes at 8% of room sales for an
additional $586,531 for a total of $1,248,618. However this revenue
estimate is for the fourth year after development and stabilization,
which may be as late as 1997.
Assuming a positive marketing study and development of a successful
project, the lease proposed by Joelen would appear to be favorable to the
City for the generation of revenue at a high level for the next several
years. However, Joelen claims that a purchase option included in the
lease is necessary to obtain financing for the property. Joelen has
indicated that other arrangements to satisfy lenders may be possible, and
it is staff's recommendation that the lease exclude a purchase option.
The purchase option presents two difficulties: 1) the sale of the 3 acre
parcel; and 2) the sale of fee title to the additional 4 acres now part
of the lease to American Golf. The purchase option presents the
possibility that the City would actually receive a very limited amount of
revenue from the project. A scenario can be imagined with development of
the project taking two to three years, stabilization taking an additional
three years, with the lessee exercising their option to purchase in the
%f. .5
Page 6, Item Z/,
Meeting Date 4/23/91
fi fth or sixth year before the City begi ns to recei ve the full value of
its percentage of gross income generated by the property. Such a
purchase woul d pay the Ci ty some determi ned fair market value for the
land. However, this would eliminate the possibility of receiving an
ongoing income stream from the project and also eliminate the City's
interest in, and potent i a 1 for, control of the entry and start i ng poi nt
to its municipal golf course. This sale would also leave the golf course
pro shop, restaurant and golf services facil ities in private hands as
opposed to maintaining some public control through a continuing lease.
Other Issues:
Museum: Joelen Enterprises has committed to the use of part of the hotel
for a Bonita historic museum or display. Joelen has also indicated an
interest in working with the community on the design of the hotel and to
provide public access and parking for golf and the jogging and equestrian
trails.
Golf Starts: In order to function as a golf-based resort, the hotel will
have to reserve blocks of golf starting times. Joelen Enterprises has
stated that the impact of such reservation of golf times for hotel use
would be minimal. However, a clear determination of the level of impact
that the hotel would have on the golfing public must be made available.
Golf Course Improvements: Development of the hotel could also provide an
enhancement for Chula Vista golfers, if done in conjunction with American
Go 1 f Corporat i on. As was stated earl i er, Ameri can Golf Corporation has
indicated an interest in upgrading the existing golf course and improving
the golf facilities in the event of the hotel development. The pro shop,
restaurant and associ ated facil it i es woul d also be upgraded by the hotel
development and the golfing public would benefit from these improvements.
4. ADMA Company, 80 for-lease condominium units
The units will
parking garages.
Bonita Road for a
acres) .
Adma Company is a Chula Vista-based firm, with substantial local
development experience. Adma has developed property on the south side of
Bonita Road and is familiar with the Bonita community and market.
be in 3-story buildings over partially-subterranean
Adma has al so proposed providing the area fronting on
public park and 28 public parking spaces {totalling .87
Plannino Comments: Because the property is zoned visitor/commercial, the
Adma proposal woul d requi re a General Pl an amendment and a zone change.
At 37.6 units per net acre (excluding the park dedication) this proposal
is viewed by the Planning Department as being too dense for the site. It
should be noted that the proponent believes the density calculation
should be made using gross acreage, including the park area. This
calculation yields a density of 26.7 units/acre. A more suitable density
1./,-fI
Page 7, Item 2 ,
Meeting Date 4/23/91
would be 10 to 12 units. As proposed, the project calls for direct
access to Bonita Road. On this curve at Bonita Road such direct access
could be a traffic hazard. If possible the development should share the
existing golf course entrance and exit.
The 3-story height of the development is a concern to the Planning
Department and would not be in keeping with other developments in the
Bonita area. Virtually all other developments in Bonita are 2-stories
and under. The view corridors to the golf course through the development
are a positive design feature, as is the small park proposed by ADMA.
However, the parking for the publ ic does not appear to be directly
associated with the park. ADMA has committed to the maintenance of the
park and to its development. In the Planning Department's judgment, such
a park would most likely be used predominantly by residents of the
project and should not therefore be considered as a public amenity.
Financial Benefits: ADMA Company has proposed a cash payment of $1
million for the property. Including property tax revenues to be
generated by the 1 and and buil di ng value, taken at a net present value
for 10 years, the total estimated value of the ADMA proposal to the City
of Chula Vista is $1,119,151.75. Adma has also indicated a willingness
to structure payment as a long-term lease if that is the City's
preference.
Other Issues:
Adma has stated that it woul d locate a Bonita hi stori cal museum wi thi n
its project.
Sweetwater Communitv GrouDs
A joint meeting of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group and the Sweetwater
Valley Civic Association was held on January 30, 1991, to review presentations
by each of the proponents for development of the Bonita Road property. The
comments by citizens from these groups have been incorporated into this agenda
statement and into the staff recommendation. Specific issues raised by
members of the two groups were:
1. Concern about a possible loss of parking space on the site for joggers
and walkers using the jogging and equestrian trails.
2. Concern about adequate parki ng for any project bei ng developed on the
site.
3. A request to include a Bonita historical museum in the development.
4. A request for appropriate landscape treatment of the project and project
entrance, and a request that the entrance to the project be aligned with
Otay Lakes Road.
th~1
Page 8, Item 2 '-
Meeting Date 4/23/91
5. Concern about impact of any development on the golf course.
6. Concern about traffic to be generated by the project.
7. A request that drought-tolerant landscaping be used.
8. A request that any development preserve and enhance the exi st i ng trail
system.
9. Concern about the possibility of having any kind of commercial use on the
property including a restaurant.
Parkina for Golfers and Trail Users
A major concern of the two community groups is the availability of parking for
golfers, joggers and users of the golf course restaurant. A survey of parking
use in this area was conducted by the City Parks and Recreation Department in
June of 1988. This survey and results are attached as Exhibit H.
The survey was conducted for one week, with all cars and people entering the
parking area asked about their use of the area. In addition, at two-hour
intervals a count was made of cars parked in the paved area around the golf
course restaurant and cars parked in the vacant three-acre parcel now under
consideration for development.
The survey reveals two important points. First, the available parking area is
used in significant numbers by people for access to the jogging trail. The
survey shows that the number of cars and people entering the parking area for
the purposes of go lfi ng generally exceeds the number of cars and peopl e
entering for use of the jogging trail, however, this difference is not great.
For example, on the Monday surveyed from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., the number of cars
entering the parking lot for golfing was 174. The number of cars entering for
use of the restaurant was 40, and the number of cars entering for the use of
jogging was 157. On the same day, from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., 116 cars
entered for golfing, 7 for the restaurant, and 103 for jogging. As can be
seen from Exhibit H, these results are fairly typical across the week long
survey.
The second important poi nt to be gai ned from the survey i nformat i on is that
while the existing paved parking lot is heavily used by all three groups,
golfers, restaurant users and joggers, the use of the unpaved area for parking
is relatively small and, according to the survey, cars parked in the unpaved
area often coul d have found parki ng spaces in the paved area. The total
number of spaces available in the paved area is 213.
The survey shows, for example, that on the Friday surveyed between 6:00 a.m.
and 8:00 a.m., 42 cars were parked in the parking lot while 10 cars were
parked in the dirt. Between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., 196 cars were parked in
the lot and 13 were parked in the dirt. Between 10:00 a.m. and noon, 201 cars
were parked in the parki ng lot and 5 were parked in the di rt. Thi s pattern
~~
Page 9, Item ~~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
continues throughout the survey. There are occasions when all 213 paved
spaces are taken and the dirt area must be used by cars for parking, however,
this need for overflow appears to be limited.
Observation of the parking area by City staff in recent weeks has shown that
even at peak hours of use, approximately 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., generally
there are sufficient parking spaces in the paved area to accommodate cars now
using the dirt area. For example, at 9 a.m. on April 10, 1991, there were 48
cars parked on the dirt. There were also 61 spaces available in the paved
parking area.
Assessment of Service Costs
At the Council's last review of these development proposals, a specific
request was made to estimate the cost to the city of providing services to
each project.
Staff has attempted to investigate the costs associated with the projects.
However, as an "in-fill" project built in an area with a complete
infrastructure, any development on the City's property would result in
negligible marginal costs to the City. Costs that would be incurred, such as
sewer capacity, would be paid for by fees. These fees are based on dwell ing
unit equivalents for various kinds of developments. Other kinds of services
provided by the City, such as fire and pol ice protection, would be provided
with existing City assets and paid for by taxes generated by the development.
In an area such as EastLake or Otay Ranch, it is poss i bl e to determi ne on a
large scale the costs associated with a variety of land uses. In these areas,
prior to development, consulting assessment engineers are employed to
determine as precisely as possible the appropriate fee levels and
infrastructure requirements for various kinds of developments.
Exclusive NeQotiation Process
If the Council selects one of the four proposals, the process for development
would begin with an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement. This agreement would be
submitted to Council for approval and would give the proponent the exclusive
right to negotiate with the City for development of the property.
Norma lly such an agreement runs for 180 days. Duri ng that peri od, speci fi c
development, purchase and/or lease points are agreed to and then submitted to
the Council for approval in the form of a Disposition and Development
agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of each proposal is described below.
Because some of the developments propose payments in the form of a percentage
of operating revenues or with City participation in profits at sale, these
revenue estimates will vary by performance of the projects and market
conditions.
t4-'t
Page 10, Item 2'
Meeting Date 4/23/91
1. Mr. Richard Pena. Dark orooosa1
Development of park land is estimated by the City Parks and Recreation
Department at $125,000 per acre. Maintenance costs are estimated at
$15,900 per year.
Revenue loss to the City, therefore, for park development is $375,000,
not including ongoing maintenance costs.
2. Odmark & The1an. 96-unit senior aoartment como1ex
The developer proposes a payment of $720,000 for the City's 3-acres
($5.52js.f.). The proposal also calls for the City to receive 25 percent
of profits at sale.
Based upon average rent rates of $500 for one-bedroom units and $650 for
two-bedroom units, and assuming a 10-year pay down of an 80 percent loan
for project development, estimated City revenues of $141,253.18 are
projected. However, the market value of the project at some future date
is speculative, and the profits to the City could be higher or lower.
Tax proceeds have been fi gured assumi ng a val uat i on of 1 and based on
$5.52js.f. and building valuation based on standard building valuation
rates used for permit assessment. Total revenue to the City is estimated
at $869,546.48.
3. Joelen Enterorises. 200-room hotel
Revenues from this proposal are quite speculative, and are based on a
percentage 1 ease. The Ci ty wou1 d recei ve revenues from three sources:
1) a percentage of operating revenues; 2) Transi ent Occupancy Taxes of
eight percent on room sales; and 3) property and sales taxes.
Staff analysis has assumed that 1991-1994 will be required for planning
and construction, with the City receiving only property taxes from land
and building valuation during this period. Beginning in 1995, we have
assumed that the City will receive 25 percent of total estimated lease
proceeds. In 1996, we have assumed 50 percent of total estimated lease
proceeds, with full payments from project stabilization beginning in 1997.
Full lease value has been computed assuming 200-rooms, leased at an
average of $90 per room, with a 75 percent occupancy rate. This rate is
a conservative compari son with average room rates at resort-type hotel s
on San Diego Bay. The Le Meridian in Coronado, for example, has average
room rates of approximately $165 per night. The Half Moon Inn on San
Diego Bay has room rates averaging $110 per night. Revenues in all other
categories have been taken from the Joelen proposal. Again, these
revenue rates appear to be reasonable based on comparable Port District
1 eases and revenues from comparabl e hotels. Actua 1 revenues wi 11 vary
depending on the success of the hotel at stabilization.
:I-ID
Page 11, Item 2./'
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Using these assumptions and discounting the revenues back to a Net
Present Value yields an estimated lease value of $3,014,339.24. As has
been previously discussed, the Joelen proposal includes a purchase option
for the 5 - 15th years. If the option was exercised, the City would be
paid for its three acres. The City and American Golf would be paid for
the additional four acres, with American Golf receiving the largest share
because of its long-term lease of the property.
Property taxes have again been assumed based on market valuation based on
standard permit valuation and construction standards.
4. Adma ComDanv. 80 for-lease condominiums
Adma Company has proposed a purchase of the three acres for $1,000,000
($7.65/s.f.l, the highest cash outlay of any proposal. This would be
supplemented by property taxes to the City, payment of which has been
based on building permit assessment values of construction and on the per
square foot land price.
Adma Company has proposed astra i ght purchase of the property, but has
i ndi cated a wi 11 i ngness to enter into along-term 1 ease of the property
if that is the City's preference. Including cash payment and revenue
from property taxes, the Adma proposal woul d result in revenue to the
City of an estimated $1,191,151.75.
WPC 4696H
tl-I(
EXHIBIT "A"
It is further recommended that the initial period of this exclusive
negotiation agreement be devoted to clarifying the following issues:
I. Is Ameri can Golf wi 11 i ng to commit to a joi nt venture development that
would replace existing golf course facilities, and master plan the entire
golf course entry.
2. What will the position of American Golf Corporation be in terms of
ownership and operation of the proposed hotel development and what
commitments is American Golf prepared to make for the improvement and
upgrading of the golf course as a condition of its participation in the
project.
3. That staff should pursue a long-term lease of the property to Joelen
Enterpri ses. The 1 ease shoul d be structured to avoi d a purchase opt ion
by Joelen Enterprises, while still making financing of the project
feasible.
4. That Joelen Enterprises be required to include within its development an
area to be used as a museum for hi storie documents, photographs and
artifacts important to residents of the Bonita Valley.
5. That Joelen Enterprises in planning their proposed hotel development be
required to specifically address the needs of the community for parking
and access to the jogging and equestrian trails.
5. That Joelen Enterprises clearly define and attempt to minimize the impact
of hotel golf reservations on the use of the golf course by Chula Vista
residents.
6. That Joelen Enterprises will conduct a marketing and feasibil ity study
for the use of the site as a hotel. This study must be conducted in a
manner and by a consultant acceptable to be City.
WPC 4697H
tl-- /Z
_,'r
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR DEVELOPI1ENT AND PURCHASE OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY
ON 4400 BLOCK OF BONITA ROAD
%"'13
[}tHIsn
II
c
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista is seeking proposals for the
development of vacant city-owned parcel of land comprising 3+ acres adjacent
to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. The proposed land uses should blend
with and complement the existing restaurant/lounge and golf course uses.
The undeveloped property is bounded by the golf course on the north, Bonita
Road to the south, the Bonita Vista Condominiums on the west and the South Bay
Golf Club Restaurant on the east. The adjacent facilities to the east include
a compl etely furni shed restaurant, lounge, and banquet hall totall ing
approximately 15,000 sq. ft. along with an improved parking lot. At present,
the restaurant is leased by the City to the gol f course operator (American
Golf Corporati on) for a maximum term of 30 years. (The 1 ease has
approximately twenty-six (26) years remaining.)
21,1'1
REQUEST
I. PURPOSE AND INSTRUCTIONS
A. The Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta is seeki ng proposals for the long-term
lease or purchase and development of approximately 3.0 acre site
located on Bonita Road adjacent to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf
Course. The parcel is bounded by the South Bay Golf Club.
Restaurant on the east, Bonita Road on the south, Bonita Vista
condominiums on the west and the golf course on the north.
Because of the 1 ocati on of the property, se 1 ecti on of the
successful bidder will not be based solely on financial
considerations, but also on the quality of the proposed development
and the abil ity of the proposal to blend in with the surroundi ng
area.
B. All proposals must include completion of City forms D and E
attached hereto.
C. All proposal s for the purchase or 1 ease of the subject property
must be submitted no later than 5 p.m., August 3, 1990 (postmarks
are not accepted). The proposal shall be del ivered in a sealed
envelope marked "Proposal for the lease/purchase of Real
Property." Bid documents or questions should be submitted to:
Lance Abbott, Community Development Specialist
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
(619) 691-5047
D. Proposers are requested to submit the original and three (3) copies
of the proposal. Successful bidder may be required to submit
additional copies on request.
II. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION/INFORMATION
A. The subject property includes 3+ acres of land, is within the
incorporated boundaries of- the Clty of Chula Vista, California,
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 958 of Chula Vista, Assessor's Parcel No.
593-240-24, and is located in the 4400 hundred block of Bonita Road
(see Attachments A and B)
B. The site is presently zoned C-V-P (visitor commercial). A copy of
the City of Chula Vista C-V-P zone requirements is attached (see
Attachment C).
-2-
~/S
C. The City is not walvlng any fees (such as development impact fees)
or other permit fees normally required as part of its development
process.
D. Prospective proposers are urged to contact the appropriate City
department for informati on concerni ng proposed development of the
property. The 1 essee/purchaser must be assured that the property
meets anti ci pa ted de vel opment needs/requi rements as the City
assumes no responsibility therefor.
E. The information contained in this document regarding property
description and location is believed to be accurate and correct.
However, the City of Chula Vista assumes no responsibility or
liability for its completeness or accuracy.
II 1. PROPOSAL
All proposals should include the following information:
A. The complete name and address of the individual, partnership and/or
corporation submitting the proposal.
B. Terms and conditi ons of 1 ease payment/purchase pri ce which the
successful proposer will provide to the City.
C. A written statement and supporting conceptual plans describing
proposed land use, number and type of units, square feet of
commercial space by type, approximate building heights, a
preliminary site plan indicating landscape areas, parking,
circulation and access.
D. A statement of qualifications and resume of developer, including a
summary of similar completed projects, which may include up to five
photographs or color slides.
E. Projection of financial benefits to the City including the number
and type of jobs that will be associated with the development and
any anticipated revenues to the City.
F. A proposed time table showing dates for negotiation, sale, plan
processing, and construction, along with evidence of financial
capability to complete the-project on time and according to plan.
G. A completed waiver indemnification agreement (Attachment D).
H. A completed disclosure statement (Attachment E).
I. A completed statement of qualifications.
-3-
11-/~
J.
Th ree ( 3 )
Successful
reques t.
copies of the complete proposal must be provided.
proposer may be required to submit additional copies on
The precedi ng items shoul d be numbered and submitted in the order
set forth in the RFP.
IV. QUALIFICATIONS
Potential buyers or
fi nanci a 1 abil i ty to
proposed development.
lessees must satisfactorily demonstrate their
purchase the subject property and construct the
V. SITE PLANNING
It is the intent of this proposal to encourage a project which maintains
the integrity of the exi s ti ng community and nei ghborhood. Eva 1 uati on
criteria will include, but not be limited to consideration of:
A. Maintaining the integrity of the adjacent developments and the
environmental quality of the Bonita area. This includes the
municipal golf course and the South Bay Golf Club Restaurant.
B. Providing a suitable easement for the relocation and continuation
of the existing jogging/equestrian path which currently traverses
the parcel, and accommodati ng exi sti ng sewer easement traversi ng
southwesterly corner of site.
C. Preferred land uses include the following:
1. High quality resort complex including restaurant/lounge and
limited related retail uses.
2.
Other uses which may, in the developers oplnlon,
better market opportunities including professional
residential apartments/condominiums or mixed uses.
provide
offices,
D. Land uses which will not be considered:
1. Reta i 1 stri p commerci a 1.
2. Uses such as a miniature golf course, fun centers, water
slides, etc.
VI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A. The successful proposer will be required to comply with all City of
Chula Vista and other local, state and federal requirements. It is
anticipated that the development process will include, but not be
limited to:
-4-
~--(7
1. Environmental and design review
2. Grading, building permits, etc.
8. The bidder should expect to have access only to public reports and
public files of the local government agency in preparing the
proposal. No compilation, tabulation, or analysis data, definition
or opi ni on, etc. shoul d be anti ci pa ted from the City other than
those included in this document.
C. Thi s Request for Proposal s does not commit the City to accept any
proposal or to pay costs incurred in the preparation of the
proposal for this request. Further, the City reserves the right to:
Accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of
th i s reques t.
To negotiate with any qualified source.
To cancel in part or entirely this Request for Proposal.
To require the proposer to participate in negotiations to
submit such price, technical or other revisions of their
proposal as may result from negotiations.
D.
The Ci ty, through
fees or permits
process.
this Request for Proposals, is not waiving any
normally required as part of its development
E. The City reserves the ri ght to requi re a development agreement for
thi s property.
VII. BID OPENING/SELECTION PROCESS
A. Bids/proposals are to be submitted no later than 5 p.m., Friday,
August 3, 1990. Proposals wi 11 be checked to insure they are
complete and meet the minimum requirements of the City.
B. All bids/proposals will be further reviewed by a "selection panel"
established by the City. The panel will narrow acceptable bids
based on, but not limited to, consideration of the following:
1. Lease or sale value
2. Proposed site plan
3. Compatibility of the proposed site plan with adjacent
developments
4. Compliance with the criteria included in the Request for
Proposal
5. The overall cost benefit of the proposal
-5-
:;i-It
C. Finalists may be invited to participate in a more in-depth review
and discussion of their proposal.
D. The final selection will be made by the City Council. The
successful proposer will have the right to enter into an exclusive
negotiation agreement for a period of up to six months for the
refinement, completion, and approval of plans and approval of
financial terms and conditions. It is anticipated that a
deve 1 opment agreement and/or escrow wi 11 follow successful
completion of negotiations.
For further information, please contact Lance Abbott at (619) 691-5047.
WPC 4445H
-6-
7ft 01 1'1
~;,
;.
sw
CITY
-'
t ;"- ___
I ,
I ,
, ,
~-------j
. :
,
,
"
" ,
'----i
A..,
'...--, .
..: . '1
r-.-,
I .,
I I
I ,
.
/
,
, ,
,rA11~,~MENT
'I , . ...l
I, ''I_
I, .
VISTt\
;!.~r~~:..n:~:".:-:.~.t'..J~_~'~r";~~~7'.--%~""J:~_l~;,:.J~ ,)-:. ....:.':'"-::.j.:J. I" ".'-.;';
'J.':;)'h"w-rJ':~~:...)'s':~.~~!J"f_/..J,)'1'''' ~J<:,.-!t-.,.. :(,. .,I.. ., ~~-.J -,..,I~___
'''J,:",.,...-~.i-j-!.~::.. ~...;",,::.__;"'..,;.j-~...~, 1;)j,~.~.....,~ :o~... /j"."J....-: -!-~".J':... 'f:' .
I .. '~""J ~ J:-.~d~~.j:r-Y~,J~J""1~.-::'j ..~.~J~,":,,-,"":..~ I..J ~."J ........ :.;~j ...-!~j~
I:SFD:S i ~'E'D .if."J?g FRED H. ROHR PARK :;::/:;:"
:- ; ..r..J-!...... . __ _,.._j....._ . .........,..._ >J I.. ,",_ I .,I .,OJ
.., oJ,., ......J... :.,l.......~.j... ._. _.' -!,:J..,I;j--V",; ..h...;,..:.,.... oJ '''. ....,j........r... ..J
J J.if3' J. -J'.(... .:......J...... JJ;'"" ..). . '", :....... J,.I ...t.....; ...1.
;'J..rj '-:' ':.\"::J . SWEeTwATER REGION"!. o'ARK '.1 :.JJ.;r)~.J...a'.,J.i'", .J..oJo,J_. 4~' ";'~~;;'~.~ _ ':.:'_ J .....1_..../...
.,....J,.-.ilJ.,r '" r. . .J-,.)._....;A.-.I....... ~-'~-'.....;~)..J~..J~. "~~'j. J ~....
r-J.JoJ'.1 ;i.. ~'):"""',. . "...;'....._ ..'.1 -'.J-'.-..,J ' "',.I' _J.;;.J...... ~.).Jj/j ~......._.,.-I
.1':,'..1' J.,J J ~./'.I_J'..."<,," j' . ,~",")J";"-:' .ril::':~..~ ~":S-'''' ''':1-.J,::,,--;~ ...I,:;... ".,... .rr: --: -'..I ....:,.
..I...'_:J..!, ':J.':;-:~:'-,_::; -!J. ':'.;':i.:';'..i -' . .' 'j) ..j_':;).~~;....,. 4.....,. ... ~;;.j.~'J. J:,;"':,~)~ u. ~.~.~_ ~.-:J ~. -!...J..~:...f~ ..J;
~}.'......J.J-r.),J.I..."J_ ~ '~JJo.,.I)...... .J\.JJ~.,JJ"""oJ .,.......~/..J.J~)Jf:',_. lJo.J'-_j.JJ ~
,..r . ,~-,"'..J.~'" ..I) '1',', ..- . '-'v _..}.....; ...,...., J..J) ._. ~J...J'" ..'r. .... J
' .. .,I.J:: -'~' . . r..'-!. :.. -. '. ..~..I-'..... ..-;'......,'...-:.. J -.;:J - :.J,,) 'J .....'Jr' JJ .....;-....'.J . \~'J _~'..J'.'.1 /.-'0" ...-~, ".1. .... ..JJ'''; J
J.,. ....,...:'.J...,....J-;..'.J:...J~J:/.;... :s..J..t..,J..-'~..J:.....J.;':..J.... .~..; ............ .J..._~.:J_,...:)::,............ ':::"-:'.,jJ .1-'....,.,.;..,,!, .J~' ~:,'
~'.I"":'.I J)~,j~J J...) " -'.').... ;-.~::rjJ..it. ~ oJ..J.)'10( ..,.J.....~..~. ."J . -l.-.LJ ..'...;;' /.r) -....~'1...t.J",_~J'._UJj,., J:;, "'oJ..} " J.._... ..J .~~..J..., oJ .1'"
.",;JO~'-J..J"'..J .rl:.!' ..};~..., ~J'~ .;: . .)...J,~;."J....JJ._. ~~;.. _~...'" i:' -. I.':I-"j .. J...~,JJ~.,.:i'.._lJJ I;.J"?'~ '.;......~,,_... .. !~~/r _,.... .J-:.J..J~_..;;. ~ t J'"'
"'.jJ."f .:'r~:;'''''}' .....:..:c....-{ Jr.....J '/i.".'O":'; :.:. ..~..L- ).,..1; _'~ ....~_I..J..... r' .;.~-, " '" " I' or '.1- ::"i';,'.JJJ""'I.i.JJ.: -:' )0..... lJ_;.'.....I~.~~. ; .,,/"'.h .,..J -::,.;........~~ J:....-
.'-I'~j..J-.~jJ.JJ',J.'...'-:"""...".:... ,,' .f:.". '.J'..r'I".J -:"\' .:j; 'Jr_,:.. ';..J..;..:.._:.....,...;...,..I.J.~J..:.r~J., .."I...J...../..j,,,.j,'.~j_-";.. .,....1"..' -:",,'j':'.-;'x
- .1. ."':::P..J :'.:"h--'J~ ..J.: J'~ ,,-~.~ '';: '-?j 1 :;:~:'~~: .--::-;.-'?'...; Jj'''''.,:''''' :.:J:") ';' ,':1J"'\-',JJ.,)~'~/l':I.;'.::'::" J) ~";..r:,"~j '~"~::"~:"'" J..,:' :. ..I':" .J.. J _ .'
- '..Ij~~., ,lJ"!,...J.1...,;. ' ~ oJ ".'.1....... ,J".:,'~' .Ii .:~'.,.J,.,_....' J....,-:., JL'--1..J..Zl/.V.,....,- ....J_...,....."J.;:..JJ".J)..."."'..jJ'~_. _ __ J",J~JJ
.J.J~.~I~:..:I.::.'_...~..:/i.\)..J.:,,.;J".i!/4...::./.J.I..J...-.....:~.j:,:;!.J;:- "'...,.,., J70Cr.:os' ''':'0;'' ?'V...... 'J. s' '.I.;t;t)RJ..~.;;.: ,).~-j~.~.1'!:.,.:J.; ~:::...
... .I....~,...-J.I' ...I.....'N..1 .....)~.,..J-_..... ""J'A.. .In: ~ '''''''. _' .J-,}.".... ..._...... ..J.'
,_...,;...~.-::.:....~.J....v.T...1.iJ J.~;)J",i:;~~.J...1 J."._I_.......;..J../~.'.J'_.~'...-'.-' . -~, - ~.' ..~.) _ "'/-;-::_;:::'.JJ_..~';.:::."':"
';'.'~:"':!:,':':~";Jo~;j j~;;~::J.;:J/ /<,-::;-: J~,.';.;;";'?,~-.i.:;:'~~~.. aOMMERGJAJ.: r<;'~V~1?)<>; J..;~;.JJJ::',~-/:
>;;~~1~,~';~\J..f:;~~::~~~~;:~:;;;' d:~E~:;; ~ :~:~~.{,-..,,:::'~: :/;'--, ~,~~~;~:'} {.;;J!.5:~~j/;):. :;:"'J .... ;-..~,,~ .".J,'-~,,!:.;>/ "'.~: :'-:. .:;;-':_':'-.'J~,
'.)0..,;) .'.~.J-- ....~_.....J J.,.......1-I J.t::1:::z...I'~':O:~'~'''' I:~. :'j 'Jj'''~J..-JJ'y!-?..:' rUU'L^ VISTA ~:.
. .J..I. :-::1:, I':!. -D ,).'J1 .JJ.lo..' . -r-:\J"'~'Q'"' .,oJ J.-....)" " '..,.1..1 '."J"'):"'J "J:')"~. ........ ~
j.t: ~-:";;'.',9.' ':J~ ..JJJJ",: .'. ,..' I ,.1.1.- ._I.:........y.....;.JJ, oj"j_ ~_
~J..,/.;.,,;,.., .J :..(: .:.;"- ;.(.....~;:~-..<.t.~'...~ ; ;1,;::.,... -',)-; -~,-~~t ::,::-:);~~t:~.~.,.. ..~.~/..;~.<;j.'~.(~~~.r~::z~.; M UN I C I PAL ~J
,J,J")oJJ.').'._"". .,.- . - J ..~ J~'._"J ,. J>J<.,J~ J.'.':":i;,( GOLF COURSE ;'
'~"."'''''j:'''''''''.''.i.';_:;~':.,.. .'.I"./..:.-~~~-:J'r~'. 'J,>:j:.~., .Jo, .. ~ I"
~~,~"- .... i~;;Ji!~!~rI~~?t{f.Y;
. .BONITA VILLAGe. -'11.-0-
. '.\-C~TER~....i.
,----- \'-, l___
\
\
":u,-,,,-,, .J -0
..--,
,
" -------;-' - '--l
; .
-, .
" .
.
--------
'-- --.
,
.
.J
LOMA PASEQ
-'
0
0
'"
'-'
'"
400 <,
w
-'
.J
q
,
"
,
,
0'
200'
l..~~___
:
~ - - - .....
~E'~"
A ll~N
,
.
,
\SERV.
STA.
BONITA 1
!::ENTRE EAST
C'C.p I
,
,
CONDO'S
(33)
BONITA
- - ~">f/)o,
v-}V
)o~
r ___
, - -......--._~-
;I "1 -------___....:l
, ." 4
, " "If
, "
I I. , ..
. -.., r---- +-- -,_: JtI
:. " r;---~----~1FEED
:i : : ~D ~BARN
_ ~ 1 I . .
_..;1 I I
-------1 -----T -- ---.
;j
'1
"
_____1
CENTRE
- - - --~
VAC.
, R.3,P'S
,.
.
,
f ---<f~
I /
R.2'20-D
/
E:{HH3aT B
!'''- - c. f\
o
GPA - 8J-4/PCZ-84-A
II Land Use and Zoning II
From "Parks a Public Open Space"
I' ...... I
and A-D to VISitor Commercial' a
, .
C-V-P for approx. 3.5 acres
~ '~~--'\'l ",f
.J\ I'
~.~ '-'{\ r:
'1.'P~..,_\ -~p
I' \ I' .
,\ .\Y"
. ~ ..,. - - ,; - - .
, .' ' " ' .
I---r,' u \ ,~,~ ;' -k "" ii''* ,
_"",.r' -,",,'" ~ .".",
,. ' _....". d' "," 4 ??~,,'c' /~ ..' ..
..';;:''' -' > ".-j:, ;,.. ,~,--, ., .' .
0' \_....,'.... _.~~"C,,;/' \..' ,
.,O\'~--- ~< " ,~'"
\ ' ,,"o~o" . ".," '
;>-cc.t<;'S 17. ...
, .,.-.. -,,' " '" -' :
, " ..,.. ..
\ \ ~
'----/~ ~. ',; "'-.
/ // <t ,t \0
\ / / < .- '
I , " . ~ "
II '. '.,'
" ,'.
,
I
10-
, ,
zl '.'
.
~. )'
~I
~!/(
~III'
- ~I/;:
I of'
..~_.. -- - ~(ll
J :___h th."
0_ ,._~.J'
I . "
,
i
"/
l'",',:;:-
..~
I
$f.\AoT.
II
c-: I
-II
;1 I
;\ !
CD.II I
:: I i
.. '
\
\
ATTACHMENT
B
p'~;j. 958
'\1_
,
.
'...
_~ 289.98"
_'~~~~}~~~-tM- .'.,~ L /
_._ ,. __,.... -'t. ,-"'.. I I
_'::~:"_ _ .,.::<.".... _". N Og.
_' .. '.'''1 -./ 22'30.
~ S'::E3S-' _;.._-.-~.'_~'__ -N) .:.1....':'- . E
. EA. .' ../--.-. .. ...., .,
EWE; ;;!,l>;:;:.~~:.;;';:~:~'~~:" : : ::,- .:'--
/--;;--1" . - . '. . . . :: - ; :,0:-:':0'0':: :.:.:
" .~l41
_ <J~1/ .
,/ p /
.//
i I
if
//
//~~./
.;.,"J'
0-""""
\ 0- \
..-\-., \~".-" .~_.I'--'
...., ,,:"'.....
. "p' ."..
\ ". ..\.r""'"" ..
~:' .
)\.\~. ...~~~
~ '. 'p:,'~i'R?~~~~~.
;. \ 0"
~.\o
o' I
0"\
/ 0-\ 0.
r- \0 ".
...; \ ..~..~(,.,p)
......"...... .
"" . ,-y<--- .
.",
c,
.'
/
,
,
I
/
,
, /
/.
.;,~"
."\__#'0# ""---69--
"00
\
\\0"-
l';0.' '.
----:~' ~
....\ \'.
,..-":-':.
c---: -:-- /-'s,\..-o.~o';-'E ~02;...
.~.~>~/ ..' Q Y..... /~I.~
." ,A~-~--'<'" l: t. J
., 1_--" ..._---;...----..~.. 1.'~
(.,~;.--\ >' ~ . .;, 1,
~ .;~~('"..
" ~)~~~\:
/' \. t"'~ ~
s \0.10. 'to #
'<
\ \' \
~). ~ ~
c-".-.....,~...
:
-~~
o
".
"'.
-::l
'.oj
~- . .
,
.
o
"
;
,
~
o
.
i.
"
'-
,
);\ Ij \'-\ \ .:. \ ?'."'I..
,'"
00j
co\j\'\Sr:.
r>J'.\'l.'f-\\,-\0
UJ\
,.
2#.. fit
"-c,'.
[)
Sections:
19.38.010
19.38.020
19.38.030
19.38.040
19.38.050
19.38.060
19.38.070
19.38.080
19.38.090
19.38.100
19.38.110
19.38.120
19.38.130
19.38.140
19.38.150
Chapter 19.38
C-V - VISITOR COMMERCIAL ZONE
Attach.
C
...
Purpose.
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses.
Sign regulations.
Height regulations.
Area, lot coverage and yard requirements.
Setbacks from residential zone-Parking and loading facilities.
landscaping.
Site plan and architectural approval.
Off-street parking and loading facilities.
Enclosures required for all uses-Exceptions.
Outdoor storage.
Wall requirements.
Trash storage areas.
Performance standards.
19.38.010 Purpose.
The purpose of the C-Y zone is to provide for areas in appropriate
locations where centers providing for the needs of tourists and travelers may
be established, maintained and protected. The regulations of this zone are
designed to encourage the provision of transient housing facil ities,
restaurants, service stations and other activities providing for the
convenience, welfare or entertainment of the traveler. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part),
1969: prior code ~ 33.510 (partl.)
19.38.020 Permitted uses.
Principal permitted uses in the C-Y zone are as follows:
A. Hotels, motels and motor hotels, subject to the provisions of Section
19.58.210, with such incidental businesses to serve the customer or
patron, provided suchi nci denta 1 uses and businesses not otherwise
permitted in this zone shall be operated in the same building and in
conjunction with this permitted use;
B. Restaurants with a cocktail lounge as an integral part;
C. Art galleries;
O. Handicraft shops and workshops;
E. Bona fi de anti que shops, bu t not i nc 1 udi ng secondhand stores or junk
stores;
F. Thea ters;
G. Any other establ ishment serving visitors determined by the commission to
be of the same general character as the above permitted uses;
H. Accessory use and building customarily appurtenant to a permitted use and
satellite dish antenna in accordance with the provisions in Section
19.22.030F.1_9 and 11 through 13;
I. Electrical substations and gas regulator stations, subject to the
provisions of Section 19.58.140;
J. Agricultural uses as provided in Section 19.16.030.
(Ord. 2160 5 .1 (part), 1986: Ord. 2108 ~ 1 (part) 1985: Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (part),
1969: Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1971: prior code ~ 33.510(8).)
21.. .12-
81,0
(R (,1,%)
()
19.38.030 Conditional uses.
The following uses may be permitted in the C-V -zon", subject to t.he
issuance of a conditional use permit subject to the findings set forth in
Section 19.14.060:
A. Car washes, subject to the provisions of Section 19.~8.060;
B. Automobile service stations and towing service, subject to the provisions
of Section 19.58.280;
C. Bait and tackle shops, including ~arine sales, supplies and rentals;
D. Bars or night clubs (Dance floors subject to the provisions of Section
19.58.115 and Chapter 5.26); _
E. Commercial parking lots and parking garages, Sub5ect to the provisions of
Sections 19.62.010 through 19.62.130;
F. Commercial recreation facilities, SUbject to thp conditions of Section
19.58.040, as follows:
1. Bowling alley,
2. Miniature golf course,
3. Billiard hall,
4. Skating rink;
G. Public stables, subject to the provlslons of SectiQn 19.58.310;
H. Artists' supply and materials stores;
T. Clothing sales (new);
J. Unclassified uses, See Chapter 19.54.
K. Roof-mounted satellite dish subject to the stanelards set forth in Section
19.30.040.
L. Recycling collection centers, subject to the provisions of Section
19.58.340.
(Ord. 2273 ~ 6, 1988: Ord. 2252 ~ 6 (1988); 2233 ~ fi (1987); 2160 ~ 1 (part),
1986: Ord. 2108 ~ 1 (part), 1985: Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (part), 1971: Ord. 1212 ~ 1
(part), 1969: prior code ~ 33.5l0(C).)
19.38.040 Sign regulations.
See Sections 19.60.020 and 19.60.030 for permit requirement and approval
procedure.
A. Types of signs allowed: Business (~Jall anel/or marquee and a freestanding
sign) subject to the fOllowing:
1. Wall and/or marquee: Each business shall be allowed a combined sign
area of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage facing a
dedicated street or alley; however, the sign area may be increased to
a ~aximum of three square feet per -I inpal foot of bUilding frontage
provided the sign does not exceed fifty percent of the background area
on which the sign is applied,- as set forth in Section 19.60.250.
Each business shall also be allowed signs facing on-site parking
areas for five cars or more and walkways ten feet or more in width.
Such signs may contain an area of one square foot per lineal foot of
building frontage facing said area; however, the area may be increased
to two square feet per lineal foot of building frontage provided the
sign does not exceed fifty percent of the background area on which the
sign is applied, as set forth in Section 19.60.250. The maxi~um sign
area shall not exceed one hundred square fept;
;;>. Freestanding (pole): Each Jot shall be allor/ed one freestancling sion
subject to the following:
a. Signs are restricted to those lots having a minimum frontaoe of
one hundred feet on a dedicated street. In the case of corner
lots Or through lots only one frontage shall be counteel,
$2111
(I( 9/88)
.-
b. The sign may contain one square foot of ar~a for-each lineal foot
of street frontage but shall not exceed one hundred fifty square
feet. In the case of corner lots or through lots, only the
frontage the si gn is ori ented to shall 'be counted toward the
allowable sign area,
c. Maximum height, thirty-five feet,
d. Minimum ground clearance, eight feet,
e. The sign may project a maximum of five feet into the public
right-of-way,
f. The sign shall maintain a ten-foot setback from all interior
property 1 i nes,
g. Corner parcels containing five acres or more shall be allowed one
freestanding sign on each street frontage on a major or collector
street and shall be spaced at intervals of not less than five
hundred feet apart. Such signs shall not face the side of any
adjoining lot in an R district,
h. Only the name of the commerci a 1 complex and four tenant si gns, or
a total of five tenant signs, may be displayed on the sign. Where
the pole sign is used to identify the name of the complex or the
major tenant, the sign shall be designed to identify all proposed
tenants up to the maximum number allowed herein. The minimum area
allocated for each tenant shall be not less than ten square feet,
i. Freestanding pole signs less than eight feet in height are
restricted to a maximum sign area of fifteen square feet and shall
maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all streets;
3. Ground (monument): A low profile ground sign may be used in lieu of a
freestanding pole sign. The sign shall be subject to the following:
a. Maximum height, eight feet,
b. Maximum sign area, fifty square feet,
c. The sign shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from all
streets and ten feet from all interior property lines,
d. The sign structure shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with the main building and constructed with the same or
similar materials.
B. Other signs: See Chapter 19.60 for the following signs: Window (Section
19.60.270); canopy (Section 19.60.280); temporary construction (Section
19.60.290); temporary promotional (Section 19.60.300); public and
quasi-public (Section 19.60.310); sign boards and buildings (Section
19.60.330); directional (Section -19.60.340); warning and instructional
(Section 19.60.350); service station price signs (Section 19.60.360);
directory (Section 19.6G.370); real estate (Section 19.60.380);
unclassified uses (Section 19.60.400); signs on mansard roofs (Section
19.60.4101; signs on pitched roofs (Section 19.60.420); business (Section
19.60.430); signs on architectural appendages (Section 19.60.440); and
theater marquee (Section 19.60.450);
1. Signs on screening walls or fences: In lieu of a freestanding sign, a
sign may be appl ied to a wall or fence used for screening of parking
areas. The sign shall be subject to the following:
a. The sign may only denote the name of the principal business or the
name of the commercial complex,
b. Maximum sign area, twenty-five square feet.
~-:ll/
C. Other regulations: All signs are subject to the regulations ,of, sections
19.60.040 throU9hl9'.60~nO-.and the' standards of Sections, 19.60.,140
throU9h 19.60.210.
O. Nonconforming signs: See Sections 19.60.090'through 19.60.120: _,_'. " '
E. The design review~<committee may-redtice':'srgn' areas below those'ilUtho'riz'ed--
above based onthe';sign guidelines and criteria contained in the desi9n
manual. lOrd. 2309A',.5 9'.1989: Ord. 1575 5 1 (part),1974: Ord. 1356 II 1
(part), 1971: Ord. 1212 ll'l (part), 1969:' prior code ~ 33.510(01.1.
(
'"
,"
, - '
-".,:
19.38.050 Height regulations.
No buil ding arc' structure shall exceed three and one:half s,tories or,
forty-five feet in height :exc€pt a-s~provi ded in Section 19.16.040; _ provi ded
however, that said "liinHatib-n may,- be adjusted by conditional use permit.
(Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (partt;1971:0rd. 1212 III (partY, 1969: pr5or, code,,~
33.510(E). )
19.38.060 Area, lot coverage and yard requirements.
The following minimum area, lot coverage and yard requirements shall be
observed, except as provided in Sections 19.16.020 and 19.16.060 through
19.16.080 and where increased as determined by the issuance of a conditional
use permit:
(
Lot Area
(Sq. Ft.)
10,000
Lot
Coverage
(Max. %)
40
Side
None, except when
abutting an
R district, then
not 1 ess than
twenty-five feet
Yards
Exteri or
Si de Yard
10* for
buil dings
o for
si gns
in Feet
Front
20* for
buil di ngs
o for
signs
Rear
Ten feet except
when abutting an
R district, then
not less than
twenty-five feet;
none when
abutting a side
yard wi th no
si de yard
requi rement.
*or not less than that specified on the building line map shall be provided
and maintained. The setback requirements shown on the adopted buil ding 1 ine
map for Chula Vista shall take precedence over the setbacks required in the
zoning district.
(Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (part), 1971: Ord. 1212 II 1 (part), 1969: prior code ~
33.5101F). )
19.38.070 Setbacks from residential zone-Parking and loading facilities.
In any C-V zone directly across a street or thoroughfare (excluding a
freeway) from any R zone, the parking and loading facil Hies shall be distant
at least ten feet from said street and the buildings and structures at least
twenty feet from said streets. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1969: prior code
533.510(G)(1).)
2J,2S
r-
...
19.38.080 landscaping.
The site sha 11 be landscaped in conformance with the 1 andscapi ng manual of
the city, and approved by the director of planning. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (partl,
1971: Ord. 1212 ~.1 (partl, 1969: prior code 5 33.510(G)(2l.)
19.38.090 Site plan and architectural approval.
Site plans and architectural approval are required for all uses in a C-V
zone, as provided in Sections 19.14.420 through 19.14.480. (Ord. 1212 ~ 1
(partl,1969: prior code ~ 33.510CGlC3l.l
19.38.100 Off-street parking and loading facilities.
Off-street parking and loading facilities are required for all uses in a
C-V zone, as provided in Sections 19.62.010 through 19.62.140. COrd. 1356 ~ 1
{partl, 1971: Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (partl, 1969: prior code 5 33.510CG)(4l.l
19.38.110 Enclosures required for all uses-Exceptions.
All uses in a C-V zone shall be conducted wholly within a compl etely
enclosed building, except for outdoor restaurants, service stations,
off-street parking and loading facilities, and other open uses specified under
condi ti ona 1 use permits as determi ned by the pl anni ng commi ssi on. Permanent
and temporary outside sales and display shall be subject to the provisions of
Section 19.58.370. COrd. 1436 ~ 1 Cpart), 1973: Ord. 1212 ~ 1 Cpartl, 1969:
prior code ~ 33.510CGlC5l. 1
19.38.120 Outdoor storage.
Outdoor storage of merchandise, material or equipment shall be permitted
in a C-V zone only when incidental to a permitted or accessory use located on
the same premises, and provided that:
A. Storage area shall be completely enclosed by walls, fences or buildings,
and shall be part of an approved site plan;
B. No outdoor storage of materials or equipment shall be permitted to exceed
a height greater than that of any enclosing wall, fence or building.
COrd. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1969: prior code ~ 33.510CG)(6l.l
19.38.130 Wall requirements.
Zoning walls shall be provided in a C-V zone, subject to the conditions in
Sections 19.58.150 and 19.58.360. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (part), 1971: Ord. 1212 ~ 1
(part), 1969: prior code 5 33.510(G)(71.)
19.38.140 Trash storage areas.
Trash storage areas shall be provided in a C-V zone, subject to the
condi ti ons of Secti on 19.58.340. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (part), 1971: Ord. 1212 ~ 1
(part), 1969: prior code ~ 33.510CG)(8).)
tl"~/'
19.38.150.. Performance standards .
Antses".in.'a':.t~v zone shall be subject to initial and continued.
compl i.iHlCe ,.wi th._ the -_performanc'e' standards . set .. fo rth in. Chapter 19.66. :>"_
(Ord.l~56 5~1 '(part); 1971,.;: Ord.clZ12- 5 ,1;, (partl.. 1969: prior code
5 33.51O(H). l'.' . . ".
(
-."'-1':'"
Sections:
19.40.010
19.40'~O'20
19.40.0'30
19.40.0'40
19.40.050
19.40.060
19.40'.0'70
19.40.0'80'
19.40'.0'90'
19.40'.10'0'
19.40'.11 a
19.40'.120'
19.40'.130'
19.40'.140'
19.40'.150'
. .
C~<1pter 19.4.0
:1:-1
-- -. - ~ -
THORaUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZaNE
Purpose.__, ,. ',___
Perm'i tted uses .,.
Conditional use..
Sign regulations:
Height regulations.
Area, lot coverage and yard requirements.
Setbacks from residential zone-Parking and loading facilities.
Landscaping. . .
Site plan and architectural approval required.
aff-street parking and loading facilities.
Enclosures required for all uses-Exceptions.
autdoor storage.
Wall requirements.
Trash storage areas.
Performance standards.
Cd':;- . ,
19.40'.0'10' Purpose.
The purpose of the CoT zone is to provide for areas in appropriate
locations adjacent to thoroughfares where activities dependent upon or
catering to thoroughfare traffic may be establ ished, maintained and
protected. The regulations of this district are designed to encourage the
centers for retail commercial, entertainment, automotive and other appropriate
highway-related activities. 'C-T zones are to be establ ished in zones of one
acre or larger, and shall be located only in the immediate vicinity of
thoroughfares, or the service drives thereof. (ard. 1212 5 1 (part), 1969:
prior code 5 33.511(Al.)
19.40.0'20 Permitted uses.
Principal permitted uses in a C- T zone are as follows:
A. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services for
residents of the city as a whole or the surrounding community, such as
department stores, banks, business offices and other financial
institutions and personal service enterprises;
B. New car dealers and accessory sale of used cars (see Section 19.40.030 for
used car lots); boat and equipment sales and rental establishments,
subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.070;
C. r1otor botels and motels, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.210;
tj..). 7
845
(!\ tJ / n ())
ATTACHMENT "0"
WAIVER AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
As partial consideration for the purchase/l ease of the real property
consisting of 3+ acres of real property located within the corporate
boundari es of the Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta, Ca 1 iforni a, located on the 4400 block.
of Bonita Road (porti on of Assessor's Parcel No. 593-240-24), Rancho de 1 a
Naci on, tlap 166, and presently owned by the Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta, the
undersi gned and all hei rs, executors, admi ni strators, successors and assi gns
of the undersigned hereby jointly and severally covenant and agree to waive
all existing or future causes of action against the City of Chula Vista which
arise out of or in any way relate to the design, construction, sale,
occupancy, or use of the above said real property, and, furthermore, agree to
at all times indemnify and hold and save the City of Chula Vista harmless from
and against any and all actions or causes of action, claims, demands,
liabilities, loss, damage or expense of whatsoever kind and nature,
specifically including all claims of negligence by the City of Chula Vista or
by any of its employees except those caused by the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of said City or any of its employees, which said City may at any
time sustain or incur by reason or in consequence of the design, construction,
sale, occupancy or use of the above said real property.
DATE
SIGNATURE
WPC 444511
-7 -
J.1,.~i'
CITY OF CHULA VISTA.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ATTACH~1ENT "E"
Name of Contractor/Applicant:
Nature of Contract/Application:
Location of Proposed Work:
...
Contractor I s Statement of Di sc1 osure of Certa i n Ownershi p Interests on all contracts/
applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council,
Planning Commission, and all other official bodies.
The following information must be disclosed:
1A. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract/
application (i.e., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, owner).
1 B. Li st the names of all persons havi ng any ownershi p interest in any real property
involved in the contract or application.
2. If any person identified pursuant to 1A or 1B above is a corporation or partnership,
list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the
corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to 1A or 1B above is a non-~rofit organization or
a trust, 1 ist the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4.
Has any person i denti fi ed above had more than $250
business transacted with any member of the City
Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
please indicate person(s)
worth
staff,
Yes
of pub 1 i c or private
Boards, Commissions,
No If yes,
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co~artnership, joint venture, association,
social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(tJOTE: Attach addi ti ona 1 pages as necessary.)
Signature of contractor/applicant
/
date
~PC 3058A
21..2.1
~rlnt or type nalOe ot contractor/appllcant
Developer
Odmark &
Thelan
Adma Co.
Joelen
~
..
W
~
Exhibit "0"
Land Use
96 Senior
Apartments
72 one bedrm
24 two bedrm
80 for lease
condominiums
-average rent
of $915
.87 acres public
park
200- room
resort hate 1
-400 sf/room
-restaurant,
pool, tennis,
spa, sauna
-14,000 sf
meeting and
banquet rooms
Comparison Matrix - Proposals For Development 4400 Block Bonita Road
Oensity/Height
32/du/acre
2-story
37.5/du/acre on
residential area
Hi gh Dens ity
over 7 acres.
Approx. 40%
lot coverage
Parkinq/Traffi c
96 spaces under
carports
768 tri pS/day
3-stories over
parking
640 trips/day
Unknown
Amenities
.87 acres Publ ic
Park, 28 publ ic
parking spaces,
jogging/walking
trail
Jogging/walking
tra il, improved
golf facilities
Purchase/Lease
Project Value
Purchase For $720,000 $4.57 million
with 25% City Profit
Participation at Sale
Estimated to be $141,253
Purchase for
$1 million
$6.13 mi 11 i on
66-year lease with $16.1 million
payments based on
percentage of
revenues, with option
to purchase years 5-15
Approximate lease value of
$3 million, assuming no
buyout.
Payments based on following
percentage of income:
6% of room income
5% of beverage income
and banquet rentals
3% of food sales
10% of retail sales and
telephone tolls
City Revenues
$869,546.48
$1,119,151.75
$3,014,339.24
Exhibit uE"
Bonita Road Golf Course Property 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Revenue Generation Estilates
April 19'11
Od.ark " Thelan, 96-unit Senior
land Pay.ent - 3 acres ($5.521sf) S720,OOO.00
Assessed Valuation land t720,000.00 S734,400.00 $149,088.00 $164,069.76 S779,351.16 S794,938.18 S810,836.94 S827,053.68 t843,594.75 t860,466.65 san ,675.98
Assessed Valuation Buildings H,854,664.00 $3,931,757.28 S4,OI0,392.43 $4,090,600.27 $4,172,H2.28 S4,255,8bO.53 S4,340,977 .74 $4,427,797.29 \4,516,353.24 $4,606,680.30 \4,698,813.91
Annual loan Service $3,659,731.20 S399,072.0b n99,072.0b S399,072.06 S399,072.06 \399,072.06 $399,072.06 $399,072.06 $399,072.06 \399,072.06 $3119,072.06 S399,072.06
NOI \557,280.00
fiR!! Yalue at Sale, 7.51 S4,644,000.00
Return on Equity 17.29I
Eouity At Sale (2511 U41,253.18
Ta~ Revenue U1,436.66 Sl1,605.39 Sl1,898.70 S12,136.68 U2,379.41 $12,627.00 U2,8n.54 S13,137.13 $13,399.87 S13,667.87 SI3,941.22
NPV Frol Year 10 $149,546.48 Sl1,436.66 Sl1,bb5.39 SI1,898.70 $12,136.68 $12,379.41 $12,627.00 S12,879.54 S13,131.13 $13,399.87 SI3,667.87 S155,194.40
Total City Revenue S869,546.48
Adla [0., 80-unit lease Condos
land PaYlent ~ 3 acres l$7.6S/sfl U,OOO,OOO.OO
Assessed Valuation land $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,020,000.00 $1,040,400.00 Sl,061,20a.00 U,Oa2,432.16 $1,104,080.80 $1,126,162.42 SI,148,685.b7 \1,171,659.38 \1,195,092.57 SI,218,994.42
Assessed Valuation Buildings \5,126,866.80 \5,229,404.14 \5,333,992.22 S5,440,672.06 S5,549,485.50 S5,660,475.21 S:i, 773,684.72 \5,889,158.41 S6,006,941.58 SII,127,080.41 1i6,249,b22.02
NPV Frol Year 10 S119,151.75 S15,317.17 $15,623.51 U5,935.98 $16,254.70 Si6,S79.79 $16,911.39 \17,249.62 U7,594.bl $17,946.50 ~18,305. 43 SHI,671.S4
Total [i ty Re~enue S1.119,151.75
~
.
\N
-
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Richard Pena, Park Development
Land Payment - 3 acres LS/5f) 40.00
Assessed Valuation Land SO.00
Assessed Valuation Buildings 50.90
City Development and Maintenance 15375,000.001 ($21,000.00) 1621,000.00) ($21,000.00) IS21,000.001 ($21,000.00) (121,000.00) ($21,000.00) ($21,000.00) ($21,000.00) ($21,000.00) (S21,000.00
Total Revenue 11375,000.001 ($396,000.00) ($417,000.00) ($438,000.001 ($459,000.00) ($480,000.00) ($501,000.00) ($522,000.001 ($543,000.00) ($564,000.00) ($585,000.00) (1606,000.00
3oelen Enterprises, 200 -roam Hotel
Assessed Valuation Land
$2,439,738.00
$2,439,738.00 $2,488,531.76 52,538,303,42
12,589,069.48 $2,640,850.07
$2,693,667.89
$2,747,541.25
$2,802,492.07
42,859,541.91
$2,915,712.75
$2,974,027.01
Assessed Valuation Buildings
113,66B4O00.00
$13,668,000.00 513,941,360.00 $14,220,187.20
$14,504,590.94 $14,794,682.76
$15,090,576.42
$15,392,301.95
S15,700,235.71
516,014,240.42
$16,334,525.23
$16,661,215.13
Total Property Tax Revenue
$40,269.34
$40,269.34 $41,074.73 541,096.23
S42,734.15 $43,586.83
$44,460.61
145,349.02
$46,256.82
$47,181.96
148,125.59
$49,088.11
Transient Occupancy Taxes IBS)
$394,200.00
$394,200.00
4394,200.00
S394,200.00
$394,200.00
$394,200.00
$394,200.00
$394,200.00
Roams Revenue (61)
$295,650.00
$295,650.00
$295,650.00
$295,650.00
5295,650.00
$295,650.00
$295,650.00
$295,650.00
Food Revenue 131)
$104,762.00
$104,762.00
S104,762.00
5104,762.00
$104,762.00
4104,762.00
5104,762.00
S104,762.0C
Beverage Revenue (51)
$66,365.00
$66,365.00
566,365.00
$66,365.00
$66,365.00
$66,365.00
$66,365.00
$66,365.00
Banquet, Rents, Other (51)
$10,136.00
$10,136.00
$10,136.00
$10,136.00
510,136.00
510,136.00
$10,136.00
S10,136.00
Telephone (107.)
515,059.00
$15,059.00
$15,059.00
$15,059.00
$15,059.00
515,059.00
$15,059.00
$15,059.00
Retail Sales (11)
425,676.00
$25,876.00
$25,876.00
525,876.00
525,876.00
$25,876.00
$25,676.00
$25,876.00
Total Revenue (NPVI
$3,014,339.24
$40.269.34 $41,074.73 $41,896.23
$42,734.15 $238,909.21
$478,254.31
$957,397.62
4958,304.82
4959,229.96
1960,173.59
$961,136.11
';;)J:lO ,,'\.: 'xOJddo JO) .d-A-J,
B ,IOI:JJJlUWO) JOll';r^ 01 0'\;1 pUO
' . . .... .'
";lJodS UJdO :JI/qnd B s>{JOd WOJ..:!
"
,,5UIUOZ pUD asn pUDl
II
~f:"
~ '@.]~
N:; II \1
~
'1-v8-Z)d/1rl:~8 - '1cl9
p
r
r
m
V?
-
-
-
-
.......-
-
-
-
8'd'~'H
.'
'::>V,1
1-----
r:
J:
N~- i"-m.n'n;f..u
a33.;/~____-~---...; I :;
,_ _ __J_ _ _ _ _ J L.._
It!' I',
~ . " /
(' "
c----______ I.. ;
-~~...--lrltl.f-~' ,
--._- -<
..c
-<X:~/).
..(.-:~ov
v~_
o
o
r
'. 007
,002
U>
"
/
:Ie
,
,
1- -
3/f.LN3:J
....LlNoe
(Sf:)
spaNO::>
,
I d'J<>
~S'tf3 3!:!1.ra:;
1 ~IINOB
'V.lS I
,,"cBS
"
'"
'-~/f~f3 .~~
~f"'.
,I;
/".
"
"
-1T:,
'~lcf~N.'-'
_.,-~~~,~
~f,~:"';'" ,
"'"~.
r.1b
,0
03SUd
,
,
,
L__.,~.__
uwo,
1 1'''''' \ ---
t-' ' ,
. lJ3.LN3::J \ \
__~- 391':77111 vJ./Noe"
" ..~(~~5(~m .
- . -~(.-.r.._,.,.r"...-_.r_.... Z
- r: 'r- ).:.1--"- r,;..,-r' C' '-i
- '..!. .'rrr...rr;-l",,~.'("ry'. ,,'.; rt
~..;;.;..' J ? J?~{-/;.':E/f~~ff~~.};~:t;. &'ftr;?~~E~{-.rr; r ~1-~
"'~r..rT_~. .r....T'..,',;r(..r..'~{"": ,..... \. ".Jorr 3 C>
,.,-..,--/.' .r.;r..r-:-.'..../'r!'~(..r:-.-r.r.r:..-..,...,~-..._l" .."'3 CJ!) ,..,
r , r- ,-......., '';<'..-. ._,or rr.....r.. "'-C~"r:
'"';"*' r.,.:!. ;-,,r "",,;'r -...;. 'r..;:..r~{:...'_-,r...,.".-.. :,,.:; CJw uo .:: r _ t'
.... 'r,.J.r ..' ,.,... .,.. ("IC...-..... r I, J r
:':;C:Z:.-'Pr:.. r':..:~t_-,::c ~r~ oi;r7 ::-::J~"_'"..:.,: .C:-:.!r'~::; S..l.WN1r.. J'I _r " . ._' r c;..~r
'~ - ... l.,- ...rr..:r. -....},.;~.:,J.-., ....'~.....:~.rr,:.<
-~ 3SHnOJ .:f109 '~.F.::;:'=;.t"':;'I'-':'''':r'''r; r,:,-.:,."'r."':rT. r r' -:.....:-,;~"'-':.'r"(
. . '.J.,,".'., .;: ,':. "(""'::~-'_',.,- r ' . I .r'._'-.";' ...ri,..,' _ ...... '(
';' l't;IdIJINn~"J '~-tl,...-\r;t:,".F,.r...'.... _.~........!r: __r_~r':'" ..'::..-"::.,.....-,:....,..'O...c..,;Q:.r ,
-': "") ") - .t. ,~-:-;:..;:-/~-...:: ::'. -;,':: I' ';'~~ d..n-r ~J- :' ..r'c"l(-;'c'r"(" :...-::J...., .
:-. \/l..SI^ v .nH~ r;.(-.c(r.._:~'r..,r,r;.r;...' -' -.-. -. .......;.t_V~d,\.r2:::'_CJ.r ;r;..,r',....r;..... -..c,__ (
'f.r,'~'-~':: "r<'..F,rr:.!'.'--'.(/'.j ~-- --,:',< rr:..~/{;~:r;~'-;r;:,~r~~~~:~2 - -:..,~:.:~.:~::J' :'-Y";'::: ~;:{:;~ -; ;-,~:~rf.~.:%.?;-r;~~fct-~~
:/;~';-j:,;'j"~::>:...:.-J:.~,rcl,:,^~?jt7f\[.tO~3W~~GD: . " ~~~/j,'drO~":~:'-i:.r;;;;D:;:':)-~~~~::-;:r t!~r'f;'-;;;:j
";';~7.~';':" ~;":'r':-~::-;'~;'Dg. ~'IS~A:::.-'n~sn-:-.Jt""\-u"B' , .~, ~,.;:~ ~ ;':;:S~:P:',.~.;7r::-:r;_'~!:.-< {;f ,:~:,rr-.~~f';'r.<-;~~
r.r.... r- ..r"r,--' r ..\...-'....~..~ 'V/\; i-U....... v.a~a .:.,'..- -r'......r. 'r""',. ~ r.-''T"'!......f;,-.,.'''r.'. r...;;,... t .__'.~(".
.......,.~.. rr..:...,......./..,. -""-,-."J'..'":',.. - '.... - ....:..-...._.r.- 'r,.",( , _ r'...r,....,...,;rr
,.,'rr,.,.r-. -.- , .......,..(rl'r.:.(....,-....,... ; .,-.......\..I'".z;.ro.(o.tr-!..c...r ,.,..-,-".....-.'- . -' ':'"-.r'-"',"'':'" r . ._'.~'";:,.r,-,.......'-'''''''''
'.'r'" ,..-. '.,!:-r",o-;,.-: .(},.( "-.r'. (",i"_r/ ,...,,.";..._ rl'_T....r..,. '--;'.-,.-r'" -...'.. "",. ",.., .. r.:-,~..-.
..-. ,..':- '_r,.,. -'-r'..r.r..-, -,:...,,.-(..:..~-.!"'lr..('\.,..'("'\.,.,..r.,......,..r..-r,..::. --:rr.....=-'. -..-_/r;f:.... ("'-_ar~. r-r,c-r_r_, 'r-' r
..:::. ! -'.:-:~ r:....:.:......,r ,'.- ;,:-:-""L'::;.':"'hr.".-~,..-r. lr("("rr~r:r.r.r,..."''''~'.-",:- .:"/.!:. ,r.,' ---!',r.;:,:''o-,. .'.-.-_/:... ':"11', _ .::.; ,~.:;J/.y: :-y..";;...r-......."/:rr ~ .';F:~.'
::;~'2.:=-~~;;';;::'~;~}:<~:;f;';~;0;~~,;~?~~;-/{'V:'-:':;' r -' '''..-, '"<~;?~:<..j:!/7;.;:~;:> _r J-:.~.'i::;f.::..0:r}r;.:
- i-r r:- ,,/,"'-' r ,..-f'r " ....... r;:,.. ""F"r'.r(.,..r'(-''-,-. C -I~r ' ('~'-' rT-_.t- . r: .,-r.-__r"-"'c~,,"r- r:j-'"irrS-r;.:! ,..r,.,- ~ rr ,'::",r-:,t':."
. :~ r,r '; r:-;._,....r ,;--..r;,.......,::;. ,......,__-1;(.:....\ :' ":......,.. f',............ ~. ~.. . .... ,....:,:.rr,....Y:. .-;.r..r_"r~...:..J:"ir:t",,_...-;...J....:r;...-J.,.
, ,:,"";:...-r:..r... '.'.-" :..~.,..;.r:...-~ c"~';":c"i'~r:" ,- I'.......,J':! C'<;..:r::: r ..-.f._.-,,:"':':_,. J..--'[ .:.......r;. .i-(.... 'r2.-:.:..r
,orr_rJ:-r........,......r... .C;1r.r;-,..- rC"f. .....,..:.-: ,....rr'r-"...;.,:-.C'i..'-;.; .-,.....r;:..,..r!..~r.:-;;-:;..!.-..,..f.;.".::.(';r
..........., -.. r . ""r :-.'...r...(.... r: -c"..r.rr_- - , ~...,.. 1..:-,... (I. , _ " r., r. _. . i-. .,...._, .. r r..,,-
. -:-': r../ :,.rf-,,rr;,:; ;;:"r....~ ..:-.;:;.:~...r .-:.:'-:~"'.:-:' -~:.:':.'" :;~.f-;'..=:.c"A..:..r, . _:- -:'-:r ....0J>o-__,...i-{- r!,r',.,'.,
,...; "... r,rr,-.,. _r- .;::r~..r'...!"""..,....... - .:""............-:,..,-r.-~':...::.("'.:-"~ ...._~._ ,-r =c r "
~~?#/(j~ij?F)/j$j,;j~i::i/}f;~%~~}~~~~tf;.~ ~193lJ lJ3.L"'M.l33MS ' .' ~ ;:,:~:,;.~~~;
:!,..;:;: 21tnfd _ tl.l:lo.tj _~. .O;,;~__(<{~~}. ~ l~a't
,~ ,.'" >.:~,.._,::- r...._ ",'..............~,.,r,.,..~r.......,.,...rr\'r.r;.... ....;..(-'..-;1" ..,_.~.. ,
~;::(~~~~X6?1:y~t81:i~::t~~~~t?}EB1;~
\1.LS/1I
.
I
/
I .
.L~'~
.1,'.,..
I:'"
~--
I
.
,
.
,
I
.
,
.
. .
f-_-----T
. ,
I
I
I
..
ll~ll Hq~4x3
.1----,
,
,
,
/
MS
"
"
>~ ie" Exhibit "G"
\
(
I ro
.. ~
I .1!2~.
! :<q
.,-
'1
!ico
.'.f:''"f.........,
! \
. '.
o ~ \.
! 00
.' ~.
.,+' ...'....,...
..,+' \. .
all
l
..L
* r.......... //
~
t
OJ
+'
.~
Vl
:-
E 'co
:...
g i-
W ; Ol
1 .!:
~ ;01
;01
...J 10
~ 0-
.
;
;
;
;-
! Oro
! ...
!-
.
;
; c:
; ell
i 0-
0'"
!-
! '"
! 11>
! ;:]
" CT
Q)
OJ
s-
u
'"
M
-0
OJ
<=
3:
o
I
Eti
i
~..3~
I!
n
I.
. .
. ;
.
;
~
'"
~
"
;
>
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
It
.
;;
%
"
;;
=
"
j :
t I
.: :.
I i
I ~i
J
:I 0 I
? ~ I
i z
;' ;::
~ ;
~ ~
J! J
0;: ;
; ~ .=:
: ~ ~
II
II
, I
- III
i
. I
"
i,'t'1 I
, ~ J J
Monaay CHULA '~<:'TA GOLF COURSE PARKING - OT SURVEY EX H I B IT
6 am: 10 am "H II
Golfers Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks ~
# Cars: 174 #40 #157 #3 SPALfC:S ~(i )
# People: 212 #62 #179 #3 Lor ASPMlr
~
*' Cars in parking lot at 6am 66 Lot K l# = /VWl18<f( of eN'S of< pEoflE 6JlERw;: /-01
11 Dirt t:' 1-* - Nv.M8&:. O~ G4i'5 iN La< AT <<ME IJD.'<=:-O.
8arn 187 Lot - - AI~ NDTEO is THE Aluo<liJcf'. pMKEO ,N ,t!,
16 Dirt Y D,;<:O MEA.
lOam 203 Lot
10 ~V'.- "'PM 14 Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 79 #60 #40 #12 #3
# People: 102 #88 #55 #9
12pm 166 Lot 471/!'~/:_Y"_2c"/ /'-.!-
3 Dirt
2pm 163 Lot !.'llf!.
;UWGpM 7 Din ?fer . 0'.' J Jell,
I". . ') , '/ v,'
Golf Rest Joggers ,/ -8)/ '" Feed Ducks
# Cars: 116 #7 #103 #6
# People: 149 #9 #141 #7
4 pm 152 Lot
2 Din
6pm. 157 Lot
14 Din
Tuesday
6 am ~ 10 am
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 128 #34 #129 #12 #4
# People: 141 #48 #162 #12 #4
*Cars in parking lot at 6am 37 Lot
2 Din
8 am 123 Lot
9 Din
lOam 156 Lot
10 AII!- 'J.p", 3 Dirt
Golf Rest -Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 85 #55 #25 #3 #6
# People: 97 #65 #36 #3 #12
12pm ~Lot
;;). Dirt
J.Prll-t,PM 2 pm 131 Lot
I Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
'# Cars: 103 #20 #86 #0 #9
# People: 122 #2<3 #101 #0 #14
4 pm 140 Lot
2 Di~
6pm 193 Lot
14 Dirt
Wednesday
6 am - 10 am
Golf Rest (~ Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 193 #31 #139 #0 #0
# People: 209 #47 #151 #0 #0
~Cars in parking lot at 6 am 71 Lot
4 Dirt
Barn ;~ 1~5 Lot
21 Dirt
10 am 2 {OLot'
/01,,,,- J.f"'- 13 Dirt
Golt ~.:..-;: Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 88 #.">3 #51 #1 #0
# People: 105 #67 #63 #1 #0
12 pm 178 Lot
13 Dirt
lfl' -CfM 2pm 157 Lot
3 Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
If Cars: 73 #56 #81 =0 #10
:: Pc-oplc 91 ;;77 #<:'-3 .0 #19
4 pm 158 lot
9 Dirt $-35
Grm 175 Lot
11 Di{~
Thursday
6 am L 10 am
.\ Golf Rest Joggers Sales 6. "-_o1dors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 147 '31 '103 '2 .0
. People: 163 #40 #113 #2 #0
7{-cars in parking lot at 6am 22 Lot
4 Dirt
Bam 156 Lot
8 Dirt
10am 202 Lot
liJh....-d.ft>\ 3 Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 91 .42 '22 '3 .3
. People: 101 .61 '40 .3 .6
12pm 163 Lot
4 Dirt
;,lri\ - c; p'" 2pm IlAI Lot
I Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 86 #41 #41 #0 .9
. People: 100 #53 #201 #0 #14
4pm 157 Lot
3 Dirt
6pm 157 Lot
13 Dirt
Friday
6 am ~ 10 am
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 197 #52 #171 #0 #0
# People: 206 .60 #193 #0 #0
,*Cars in parking lot at 6am 42 Lot
10 Dirt
8 am 196 Lot
13 Dirt
10M" - d..f'" lOam 201 Lot
5 Dirt
Galt Rest Joggers Sales.& Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 101 #91 #31 #4 #7
. People: 120 .102 #40 #4 .16
12pm 189 Lot
8 Dirt
2pm 152 Lot
)./rr(,fI"'- 6 Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 80 .63 .51 #0 .13
# People: 87 #71 #60 #0 #27
4 pm 160 Lot
1 Dirt
6pm 150 Lot
2 Dirt
Saturday
6 am ~ 10 am
Golf Rest (~' Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 178 .74 '194 #0 .0
# People: 190 '98 #211 .0 #0
*Cars in parking lot at 6am 106 Lot
6 Dirt
8 am 160 Lot
14Dm
lOam 205 Lot
lOAM - Jf"" 7 Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 121 .68 #87 #0 #14
# People: 139 '81 '101 .0 .30
12pm 189 Lot -r:-'''
4 Dirt
2pm 193 Lot
Jp~< - {,fr. t Dirt
Golf Rest Joggers Sales & Vendors Feed Ducks
# Cars: 75 #32 #30 '10 .10
# People: 89 #46 #41 #21 #21
4 pm 157 Lot
7 Dirt .!I..~t,
6pm 127 Lot
1 Dirt
.'
,
t1"~7
THIS PAGE BLANK
tJ.. .3Y
- -.,'
EXHIBIT "B"
"
!Y
J
ITEM
~~
Community Development Dept.
July 25, 1990
From: Richard A. Pena
Bonita, Private Citizen
To Chula vista City Council
Subject: Proposal for Use of City Owned 3 1/2 acres at 4400
Bonita Rd.
Reference: The City's request for such a proposal.
1. In accordance with the above reference I wish to
formally submit my ideas on what would be an ideal use of the
subject land. Since this is not a proposal which would in any
way generate funds to the city it is, therefore, not in
conformance with the criteria asked for in the Community
Development Specialist's instructions. It is, nonetheless, a
legitimate proposal, and I express the hope that it will be
received and considered as such. Though I am submitting this
proposal as an individual it has been discussed with other
members of the community and all concur as to its merit~'.
2. In accordance with paragraph III (PROPOSAL) of the
reference the following information is submitted: ~
a. The complete name of the partnership will be the City of
Chula Vista (more particularly the Parks Department).
b. There is no purchase or lease price.
c. Outside of perhaps a half acre or so devoted to parking
the entire area will be park land. This is not to be confused
with a regular city park such as seen on the other side of the
valley (Rohr and the former County Park).
(1) The space is visualized as a grassy area with
undulating hills to break the monotony. There could be a series
of attractive sidewalks, either concrete or decorative brick,
leading really no where, excepting to park like benches
situated at intermittent intervals.
(2) There would be no picnic tables, cooking pits, children
playground equipment or any of those other things associated with
most public parks.
(3) Trees, of various varieties, should be planted at
vanous intervals, so that their foliage can, in time, supply
shade to the park stroller.
(4) In the future there could be funds raised by the
community for the building of a park band type building, such a
structure to conform to city specifications.
(5) There would have to be no alteration to the present
entrance to the golf course. The park would share this entrance
with limited parking at the north end of the park adjacent to the
dirt road bordering the course's first hole. The basic idea of
the park should be something that one could walk to, not drive
to.
d.
A statement of QU:2 ~f~1"ions and resume of developer is
~
obviously not applicable in this proposal.
e. There would be no financial benefits to the City nor
would there be any anticipated revenues.
f. The time table would depend on the Parks Department.
g. and h. Not applicable.
i. This, I suppose, refers to the qualifications of the
proposer. My qualifications for sUbmitting such an unorthodox
proposal is the fact that I have lived in the Bonita area for
over thirty years, and the years previous to that in Chula Vista.
I was one of the original members of the Bonita Valley Country
Club (now South Bay Golf Club) and have, of course, seen many
changes in the area, some good, some not. The three and half
acres in question is probably one of the choicest parcels owned
by the city anywhere. In my opinion, it would be a pity to let
it get away for some private enterprise, regardless of the
capital that it might bring in, or the glitter that it might
contribute to this parcel that was recently labelled wrongfully
as an eyesore.
Many area residents envision some sort of public cultural
building on the site. This, of course, would be the optimum use
of the land. This, also, would be very costly, and anyone,
including me, would be rather presumptious in expecting- the city
to go this route. Private enterprise could, of course,
undertake such a venture but this would require an angel of the
highest magnitude, something which the community seems to be
lacking.
The park is the obvious answer. It would be inexpensive to
build and maintain and would afford the area something attractive
and something in which to be proud. I liken it very much to
Friendship Park near the library.
There are critics of such a plan who might say that if one
wants to go to a park he need only drive for five minutes to the
other side of the valley and he has a good one. Very true, but
only if the sole reason was a park for people's sake. This park
would be a park for park's sake.
In any event the proposal is submitted for your
consideration.
ct::~~~7~
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR PURCHASE OR LEASE AND DEVELOPMENT
OF REAL PROPERTY AT
4400 BLOCK OF BONITA ROAD
Submitted to:
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Community Development Department
Attention: Lance Abbott,
Community Development Specialist
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
submitted by:
Om-lARK & THELAN
3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92103
(619) 291-7300
AUGUST 31, 1990
J. (" - 90
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
PROPOSAL:
A. Identification of Development Entity
B. Terms of Offer
C. Development Concept
D. Developer's Statement of Qualifications
E. Projections of Financial Benefits to City
F. Proposed Schedule
G. waiver And Indemnification Agreement
H. Completed Disclosure Statement
I. Statement of Qualifications
QUALIFICATIONS
References
1
1
1
2
5
5
6
7
2
8
EXHIBITS
A Terms of Offer
;)r.-'II
PROPOSAL:
A. IDENTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT ENTITY
Name:
Odmark & Thelan, a general partnership,
Address:
3200 Fourth Avenue
Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92103
(619) 291-7300
B. TERMS OF OFFER
The terms of the offer are set forth in Exhibit A hereto.
C. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
The development concept plan can be characterized as
follows:
o The location of the property on a golf course with a
walking trail, in close proximity to a major food
market, drug store, restaurants, and other convenience
shopping facilities, as well as proposed medical
services, makes it an ideal location for senior
citizens housing.
o The project consists of 96 residential apartment units
for senior citizens, composed of approximately 75%
one bedroom one bath units and 25% two bedroom one bath
units. Units are located in two story sixteen-plex
buildings.
o The site plan has been designed to take into account
the established development pattern along Bonita Road.
In this regard, it is envisioned that a substantial
landscaped parkway would be constructed as a part of
the development.
o The entry to the project is located on the access road
to the Country Club parking. Pedestrian access is
proposed to Bonita Road. There are 96 parking spaces
under carports. A landscaped recreation / pool area is
proposed in the center of the project with views
overlooking the golfcourse. Also, guest suite
accommodations are provided for the use of friends and
family visitors of the seniors.
o Based on the need to obtain input from City staff and
the neighboring community at the earliest stage, the
product has been designed to allow for flexibility in
design details such as roofing detail and articulation,
exterior colors and finishes, refinement of the
landscape palette, etc. Also, the design can be
adjusted to address the walking/equestrian trail
traversing the northeasterly boundary of the site.
o Extensive landscaping and meandering pathways between
buildings gives interest to the site plan.
D. DEVELOPER'S STATEMENT OF QUALIIFCATIONS
Enclosed is a corporate brochure together with a list of
projects developed by the principals of Odmark & Thelan.
Odmark & Thelan's capability and ability to perform is
evidenced by the success of its projects. We have been the
successful respondent to several Requests for Proposals and
have worked very successfully with the agencies in those
cases.
Odmark & Thelan specializes in low-rise, attached, garden
mUlti-family projects similar to that proposed.
A description of representative projects is set forth below.
o UPTOWN DISTRICT: (former Sears site in Hillcrest)
The principals of Odmark & Thelan, in a joint venture
with Oliver McMillan, responded to a Request for
Proposals issued by the City of San Diego, for which
they were unanimously recommended as the selected
developer. The project involved acquisition of three
adjacent properties owned by different parties and
incorporating them into the project as well as
obtaining all necessary land use approvals for a mixed
use project consisting of 140,000 sq. ft. of commercial
space, 318 residential units and a 3,000 sq. ft.
community center. The project is anchored by Ralphs
Supermarket and financing of approximately $56.5
million was provided by Great American First Savings
Bank.
Establishing a close working relationship with the
community from the outset proved to be very
constructive. All comments received were considered
and incorporated as appropriate. This approach was
very productive and helped in meeting all deadlines.
Through variation in color and building elevations (no
two buildings are exactly alike) the project appears to
have been developed over a period of time, creating a
true village atmosphere. The project has been the
subject of many architectural feature articles and is
being cited as exemplary of how to achieve a successful
mixed use project in an urban, in-fill environment.
~,-~,
-0-
o COLUMBIA PLACE
Out of several contenders, Odmark & Thelan (then known
as The Odmark DevelopmentcCompany) was unanimously
selected by Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC),
a subsidiary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
San Diego, in response to a Request for Proposals. The
project was conceived in response to CCDC's ambitious
goal of providing 6,000 residential units in the Marina
Redevelopment Area of downtown San Diego, at a time
when the downtown area was in transition.
Because of the uncertainty of the downtown market, it
was important to retain flexibility in the project
concept and design so that it could proceed on a rental
basis, if necessary. By subsidizing the initial
purchase price of the land, CCDC allowed for the
flexibility needed to address the uncertainty of
existing market conditions. The purchase price was
structured so that CCDC would participate in profits if
and as sales occurred, as certain performance
thresholds were reached.
The project was very well received in the market place.
Minimal marketing expenditures were made due to
extensive unsolicited interest shown by homebuyers
during the course of construction. Reservations for
all of the units were taken on the first two weekends
that they were made available prior to completion of
framing. At the time of completion of construction,
there was no remaining inventory.
This project made a significant contribution to the
City's downtown revitalization efforts: it spurred
significant rehabilitation by the owners of the
existing adjacent buildings which had been dilapidated
and in need of repair, thus addressing the goal of
eliminating unsightly conditions and encouraging
investment in the area by existing as well as new
owners. It also addressed the goal of providing
affordable residential ownership opportunities
downtown.
The public/private partnership which this project
represents, culminated in a successful result for all
parties.
-3-
o ESPRIT LUXURY VILLAS
This project consists of 108 apartments, in 8-plex
buildings, located adjacent to the Mira Mesa Shopping
Center. A pedestrian walkway offers convenient access
to the retail goods and services, restaurants, and
theatres. Key project amenities include central heat
and air conditioning, washers, dryers and refrigerators
in each unit, patios and balconies, carports, and
storage areas as well as a well landscaped pool and spa
area.
The project is developed under a long-term
unsubordinated participating ground lease. The rental
office opened in February, 1990 and the project rented
up at an average rental rate of 1 unit per day. The
strong market response to the project has enabled us to
command rental rates at the top of the market.
o THE ORCHARD
The Orchard is an example of what the public and
private sector can accomplish by providing quality,
affordable housing for senior citizens.
It is a 563-unit apartment project which was developed
in cooperation with the City of San Diego. Constructed
in two phases during the late 1970's and early 1980's,
the project is on 10 acres of land leased from the
City. While the City of San Diego cooperated
extensively in providing favorable lease terms, the
project received no other government subsidy.
The moderately sized apartments open directly to richly
landscaped grounds in a garden atmosphere. Landscaping
contains several varieties of fruit-bearing trees, a
favorite of residents. Additionally, numerous plots
are devoted to areas which are utilized for private,
individual gardens.
The project has operated since its inception with
virtually a zero vacancy factor. Its success has been
based upon its innovative design concept and a
dedicated, active property management team which
provides a non-stop variety of activities and events
for its residents.
-4-;). ~ . 'I J
F. FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO CITY
The direct financial benefits to the City are derived from
the terms of the Offer which is Exhibit A hereto.
G. PROPOSED SCHEDULE
o
Negotiation of Purchase
Agreement
1
2 months
o
Plan preparation, processing,
and approvals, site development
and preparation of building
plans
3
5 months
o
Close of escrow
Upon receipt of all
approvals necessary
to commence
development
o
Construction of project
7
9 months
Total
11
16 months
As discussed above, our track record provides evidence of
financial capability to complete the project on time and
according to plan.
-5-
WAIVER AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
ATTACHMENT .0.
As partial consideration for the purchase/lease of the real property
consisting of 3+ acres of real property located within the corporate
boundaries of the-City of Chula Vista, California, located on the 4400 block
of Bonita Road (portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 593-240-24), Rancho de la
Nacion, Hap 166, and presently owned by the City of Chula Vista, the
unders i gned and all hei rs, executors, admi ni strators, successors and assi gns
of the undersigned hereby jointly and severally covenant and agree to waive
all existing or future causes of action against the City of Chula Vista which
arise out of or in any way relate to the design, construction, sale,
occupancy, or use of the above said real property, and, furthermore, agree to
at all times indemnify and hold and save the City of Chula Vista harmless from
and against any and all actions or causes of action, claims, demands,
liabilities, loss, damage or expense of whatsoever kind and nature,
specifically including all claims of negligence by the City of Chula Vista or
by any of its employees except those caused by the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of said City or any of its employees, which said City may at any
time sustain or incur by reason or in consequence of the design, construction,
sale, occupancy or use of the above said real property.
ODHARK & THELAN
AUGUST 31, 1990
DATE
By:
SIGNATURE
WPC 4445H
-7-
~ r- - till
,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~~Ni
ATTACHMENT "E"
. .
~ame of Contractor/Applicant: ODMARK'& THE LAN
lature of Contract/Appl fcatfon: Request for Proposals for
44UU ~locK oz oon~ld KOdU
.ocatfon of Proposed Work:
.'
Sale or Lease of Property in
:ontractor's Statement of Di scl osure of Certain Ownershi p Interests on all contracts/
lpplfcations which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council,
'lanning Commission, and all other official bodies.
'he following information must be disclosed:
A. List the names of all persons having a financial, interest in the contract/
application (i.e., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, owner).
n~rn~rk ~ Thpl~n ~ C~lifornja ~eneral oartnership
8. List the names of all persons having any ownership fnterest fn any real property
involved in the contract or applfcation.
Odmark & Thelan, a California general partnership
If any person identified pursuant to 1A or 18 above is a corporation or partnership,
list the names of all individuals 0\1ning more than lW of the shares in the
corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
Ted P. Odmark
John D. Thelan
If any person identified pursuant to 1A or 18 above is a non-profit organization or
a trust, 1 ist the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or benefiCiary or trustor of the trust.
Has any person i denti fi ed above had more than $250
business transacted with any member of the City
Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
please indicate person(s)
"son is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
:ia1 club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
is and any other county, city and county. city, municipality, district or other
itica1 subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
worth of pub 1 i c or private
staff, Boards, Commissions,
Yes No x If yes,
lTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
ODHARK & THELAN
ff~nature of contractor/applicant
/ 8/31/90
date
3058A
ODHARK & THELAN
Pnnt or type name Ot contractor/appllCant
QUALIFICATIONS:
As discussed above, the ability of Odmark & Thelan to perform is
evidenced by our past successes.
REFERENCES
Pamela M. Hamilton, Executive Vice President
Centre City Development Corporation
225 Broadway, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 236-7101
John Lockwood, City Manager
City of San Diego
202 "CO Street, 9th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 236-5941
James L. Spotts, Director
City of San Diego
Property Department
202 "CO Street, 9th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 236-6144
~'-'1!
EXHIBIT "A"
TERMS OF OFFER /
FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Purchase price
$ 720,000*
Plus profit participation
25% of gross profit upon
sale of project**
*
Purchase price is based on 96 units (or $7,500 per unit),
all cash at close of escrow concurrently with commencement
of development (i.e. issuance of building permits);
**
Profit participation is based on 96 units and a construction
start date of on or before 7/1/91.
(
goelen
0nterpn,ses
f
I'
I
II,
'I
']
August 28, 1990
The Honorable Mayor Cox and City Council
City of Chu1a Vista
Chula Vista, CA
I'
Gentlemen and Ladies:
Although we have been aware of the RFP for only a few weeks, we had
originally investigated the property on Bonita Road for development a num-
ber of years ago.
Though the remaining time allotted was extremely short for develop-
ment of a proper proposal for a project with a scope such as this, our in-
terest is strong enough for us to have worked up the enclosed in rather
short order. Though brief, we believe that you will find it sufficiently
comprehensive to base your positive decision to go forward with us on this
proposal.
Also, initial investigation at the City level has brought us to be-
lieve ~hat the Cityrs thinking is very compa~ible with what we believe is
the proper approach to development of this parcel, and ~hat we are probably
uniquely bes~ placed at ~his moment ~o be the developers.
We are Nhands onN developers in ~he ~ruest sense of the word, person-
ally seeing to all aspects of what we do from original marketing studies to
final design, construction and operations. This holds true even in the
large resort hotel and marina project we presently have under construction.
Timing is also good, as we have just recently commenced the search for our
next project.
Therefore, we have done what we could with the attached in the time
available, and hope to then have the exclusive opportunity ~o work fur~her
with the City on a comprehensive plan for development of this beautiful
piece of land.
Sincerely,
JOEL EN ENTERPRISES
~~~
Lenore s. Citron
\ws5\bonita 8rfp28
~~ - f"
',1')"(11:"
"
~-) ",
I~f\ r)')'. 1 C
II 'e,1 /1')'") (lOOn
,- ,f\ V 11;1 (11 /!~)'1 rlP\.l/1
goelen 0nterpn,ses
August 30, 1990
The Honorable Mayor Cox and City Council
City of Chula Vista
Chula Vista, CA
Gentlemen and Ladies:
Proponen~s, Lenore and Josef Citron wish to be perfectly clear about
their intentions regarding the adjacent 4~ acres contiguous to the Eastern
border of the 3 acres which are the subject of this RFP. The 4 acres are
presently utilized for parking and clubhouse/restaurant for the golf
course, and are at this time under lease to American Golf.
Proponent's plans show the resort hotel constructed on the 3 acre
site, including sufficient parking spaces for the resort's exclusive use.
You will notice that Proponent's plans also call for a one-story extension
of the hotel structure to the right, (Ease), across che dividing line be-
cween che cwo propercies, co be used as a porcion of che meecing and ban-
quec space of che hocel. Also shown is a connecting canopied walk-way be-
tween the resorc and che exiscing clubhouse.
If necessary, Proponent's architect suggesced chat the one-scory
scructure could be moved West under the main structure, solely on che 3
acres. This would tighten up the sice considerably, and could possibly
lead to height questions.
A becter plan, and much beccer use of che propercy would be, as
Proponencs suggest, a master-planning of boch properties. Proponents had
one meeting wich American Golf, but due to cime constraincs more discus-
sions will need to be had when -and if- Proponencs are granted exclusive
negotiation rights with the Cicy.
In any case, the undersigned stand ready to sit down and work ouc
with the City, adjacent tenants, and any other body with legitimate inter-
ests in the area, whatever is fair and proper to all parties in interest to
make the City's plan for the improvement of the property to work.
Sincerely,
/
/
7"><. ~ /~ ::
(
(~_.
{;,/ 64" J~/
Lenore S. Citron
\~s5\bonita\8rfp28 8cvamgtf
,.-,.'",..!::
J. r..)
~~-'Ir
nn 1 ~ ,.,
rc-. ~,-n /1 r" (,(")('
! f\ V Ir'~ (1\ /1'l~J (10\.'.'1
~
EXHIBIT ~
THE PROPOSAL
\ws5\bonita\8rfp28
;)(,-1(-1
J
I
I
August 28, 1990
Bonita Grand Go1-f Resort),..,
A P~~j;:t; :~~~:' ~~~:~~~.e. .".~,~'~~:~.:;,c~.:,~.:,;,~,~.~,_,I':""."'?"";~1,,,~:i',..~..'
":':y'(~;'~:~::~;~;g/' ",:' :,' ,? ",; - ~, .
C,:;;':,".f,;,c.:;,;:;;;:,-
- . ',~- '-'.~):-:~: ,~',.,-:~:?'"
The Honorable Mayor Cox and,city,'icouncil
and Community Development0Department
City of Chula Vista . ,,v'"
276 Fourth Avenue ~
~. \'
Chula Vista, CA 92010 ,,,,'A.,~,~""';'
'",'-.' ,', ,:
-, - .' ..~.
Attn: Mr. Lance Abbott, . community Development Specialist
re: Response to RFP for Development.of Property on 4400 Block,
of, Bonita Road ..'
'j:,' ;,
Dear Mayor Cox,' CounciLMembers cand,Mr..Abbott:
is
This response to, your,'"RFp,for,{the
made by Proponents: "C'''''':')0')/'",:,,',,,',),, ,','.
above-referenced property
:t'-..'....
A.)
Josef A. citron and Lenore S. Citron,
terprises, a California Partnership
1972, and whose business address is:
DBA Joelen En-
established in
5000 Coronado Bay Road, .
Coronado, CA 92118.
Phone: 619/424-2200
FAX: 423-0884
B.) The terms and conditions under which the Proponent,
Joelen Enterprises, is making this proposal are out-
lined in Exhibit "B", attached hereto.
C.) Also attached hereto as Exhibit "c" are conceptual
drawings and site plan illustrating the proposed land
use. The following is a brief description of the pro-
posed use and improvements.
Proponent, Joelen Enterprises, considers an essential ele-
ment of proper development of the property for the proposed use
to be the master-planning of the subject vacant 3~ acre property
together with the adjacent contiguous 4~ acres to the East, which
presently is improved with a parking lot and restaurant-cum-club-
house. The completed new improvements would consist of a low-
rise upper-mid-Ievel luxury resort hotel of approximately 200
rooms with an average each of approximately 400 square feet, plus
circulation, public areas, and back-of-house, (hotel operational
areas), and parking.
The buildings will comply with the existing height restric-
tion of.3 1/2 stories or 45 feet, and ground coverage of 40% or
5000 Coronado Bay Road - Coronado, CA 92118 .-~619)424-2200 - FAX(619)423-0884
~fI-'f7
less. In shortt it is, Proponentsc;intent, to follow all, regula-
tions and ';requirements,h;as'?,theY1"understand",them,~, presently~in
place 'in,this ,'city" for' the'C-V'~ Visitor;~Commercial' zoning'
this property. ' '
" , Included' will' be an upscale food and beverage facility, ,pool
and sundeck, spa, sauna,' exercise room,,-sundry'shop, about 14,000
square feet of meeting and banquet facilities, tennis courts,
appropriately 'lush landscaping' and,' the requisite loading and
parking facilities. Again,' it is felt that a proper use of the
subject land will be a combining of the property to the East, so
that the total improvements will- inClude the golf clubhouse, pro
shop and appropriate "19th tee" facilities.
The plans will provide for suitable easements for the exist-
ing jogging and equestrian paths -which proponent, Joelen Enter-
prises, feels ,is a 'necessity to ,maintain the charming rural char-
acter ofthesite-cplus'a'proposedbicycle path. A concern of
Proponents is the possible need for a means to handle local and
other storm water from properties to which this property is ser-
vient, for the'total site, and they will look for a cooperative
effort to handle any potential problem from this.
The hotel will be designed to attract principallY a mix of
upper mid-level, business and professional groups, as well as in-
dividual and family travelers. Proponent, Joelen Enterpris~s,
feels that a motel or lower-quality hotel would be a misplaced
improvement on this property.
As the site adjoins the golf course, full advantage will be
taken of the vista of this attractive property from the hotel.
The exterior architecture will be warm and woody in a contempo-
rary manner, to blend well with the horsY/sportY/outdoorsy nature
of' the area, the gOlf course and parks to the North, while turn-
ing a neighborly face to the existing commercial uses to the
South. Proponents' adherence to a residential feel in their ho-
tel development will also make this hotel a good neighbor to the
residential use to the West and other nearby properties.
; I
i!
,
i I
, ,
------------<>------------
San Diego County area hotels average between 61% and 65%
group business, and this hotel will be no exception. Not being
on a freeway makes the site ill-suited for a motel, as stated
above. Absence of an adjacent major business or industrial cen-
ter also makes the site inappropriate for a commercial hotel.
Therefore, proponents have adjudged the site suitable for a
property attractive in large part to smaller groups of ten to 225
wishing to hold corporate and other business meetings, seminars,
incentive vacations, conferences, clinics, symposiums and other
similar assemblies during their stay at the hotel. The majority
of these ,functions are held from fall through spring of the year.
A primary reason for these groups to assemble at this hotel is
the golf course, and arrangements will have to be worked out with
. .'
the.operator of the course for,this business
The facilities,will also attract the upper end of the local
affairs, engagement parties, weddings, graduation parties, .anni-
versaries, Bar Mitzvahs.and the like, as well as locals using the
restaurant, 'bar, 'and other facilities of the project.
Proponent, Joelen Enterprises, has a reputation for remain-
ing very sensitive to local needs and desires. Therefore, the
developers will welcome input'from the appropriate local authori-
ties and organizations, and will work with them regarding-inte-
grating the Sweetwater Valley' Museum displays' onsite. ._ The de-
velopers would also like to have a Chula Vista city Christmas
Tree on site as an annual tradition. ~
D.) A short resume' of the Developer-Proponent, JoelenEn-
terprises, is attached as Exhibit "J".
The exhibit includes some historical clippings together with
information about their latest development: the Coronado Bay Lux-
ury Destination Resort Hotel and Marina in the San Diego Bay in
Coronado. They presently have this project under construction
and it is scheduled for opening October 1991.
Proponent,~Joelen Enterprises, and the City of Chula .vista
had previous experience of each other in 1979-80 when Proponents
built the "Briarwoods", a 169-unit condominium project at 54 and
Briarwood Road. As stated above, at this time proponents, as
owners and developers, are under construction on their ninety-
million dollar 450 room Luxury Destination Resort Hotel and 100-
slip Marina on Crown Isle at the north end of the Coronado
Cays in Coronado. (Thomas Guide page 68, EF4-5.) Planning and
permitting of the project began in 1984. Opening is scheduled
for October, 1991.
The developers chose: the firm of c. W. Kim, noted local hotel
designer, as architect for the Coronado project, and he had
enough interest to personally do the preliminary plans and plot
plan submitted with this proposal (some of his credits are of-
fered as Exhibit "F"); the Loews Hotel Corporation as operator;
and named the finished product, Loews Coronado Bay Resort Hotel &
Marina. Some Exhibits, (labeled Exhibit "H"), are attached re-
garding this property as well. It is suggested that if the Chula
vista City officials wish to properly consider this proposal,
they will find it worthwhile to take the time to come to
Proponent's office at the hotel site in Coronado, where they can
view plans and drawings of the Coronado project and see it under
construction, to judge Proponents' qualifications for development
of the subject property of this proposal for themselves.
E.) Financial benefits of the project to the City include:
1.) Income from lease payments and projected eventual
purchase price of the land; (See Exhibit "E".)
~ (, -SO
2. ) '",Transient. occupancy tax on all' rooms income;
"." ~ ~ .
,:< ':.--t.;_:,-",~,::":>:"-':""__ -:',;'.' ..,C-">',.:,'':::'" '''':' ",:':,_;;. ..: ,',,' ,:__
,v:;sales.t:and;use: taxes:' from'l retail:jand "'food ;:and
erage sales; ."
. - - - . .
bev':" c'. "
4.) Projected increase' in business and. sales taxes
',' from .nearby;'retail outlets as ,a result of; the proj ect-
'edover,.,,,90, 000, guests per, year '<, plus-local' business
that, wi'll ,be attracted to the site.
5.) Additional rental income to the city from the
present adjacent golf operation as a result of the in-
creased number,of golf rounds that will be generated at
the course'. by the hotel.
6.) It is expected that more than 175 people will work
on the 'construction and furnishing of.. the hotel over
abouta,two-year period. 'Then, approximately 170-185
people will receive permanent employment when the ho-
tel opens, in management, reservations and reception,
bookkeeping, bell staff, food and beverage preparation
and service, housekeeping, maintenance and groundskeep-
ing, security, and other jobs.
Hotels, especially resort types, have proven to be ex-
cellent sources of training for young people learning a
lifetime trade or profession, where there has tradi-
tionally been good opportunities for moving up as high
in the worldwide hospitality industry as one's abili-
ties, desire, and willingness to work can take them.
In a resort such as this, local young people interested
in a career in the industry are especially welcomed.
F). The proposed time table for this project is attached as
Exhibit "I".
Should the city elect to enter into negotiations with Propo-
nent, Joelen Enterprises herein, Proponents are prepared to then
provide the city financial information together with bank refer-
rals and verifications as required by the city.
Sincerely,
JOELEN ENTERPRISES
Y . /
~/,~
Lenore S. Citron,
General Partner
JAC: ja
encls.
\ws5\bonita\8rfp28
EXHIBIT "B"
TERMS & CONDITIONS OF LEASE ',PAYMENT/PURCHASE PRICE
Proponent, Joelen Enterprises proposes to lease the
subject property for a period of 66 years, in order to
be able to satisfy the primary lender for the project,
with an option to purchase to be exercised within the
5th to 15th years.
Negotiations for lease payments and purchase price are
expected to have a basis around three million dollars,
($3,000,000.00).
ease payments should be based on a graduated scale,
working up to the following percentages for the rest of
the term of the lease:
6% of rooms income
5% on beverage sales
5% on banquet and meeting room rentals
3% on food sales
10% on retail sales
10% on telephone income
The attached "Exhibit G" shows projected income to the
city based on the above percentages, after occupancy
stabilizes between the third and fourth years of opera-
tion of the hotel.
\~sS\bonita\8rfp28
,. ~ - 51
\wsS\bonlta\Brfp28
.,~ . ."
.....,.,.
...-'"'.
srTE.PLAN'
,........ ";"
- .,-.
'. - >-'---'" '/.;.., ".:..,:.::!.'~,)f..:,~:';:_~:' ->~''!.'-.
~';...:;' _r ,',,,. .. ,,_,:_'~"" _ ~ ;',_' . _ ". '.
.. . (Full Siz~~r~,:,ings"Av:'i.lable)
.,,;;,}'Et~;;'z;~;~f1ffr~Wt;~ "\:
.....v'.
.<>""
'.., ~.;.'-
-""'''--
, ~.-
~''-':~
i~:!.:";'
-",,;,,
..~.;:;~~'~-;;:.:;
.-..:<',:~:
'--'-~_ .,~c...,,. .
;: - ~~. \~~';:;::;: :;:
c..'
~ ~ ~S"
""""0
(-~:D
.~
...1-
.:-..t-
r-""
-"'.'-
<"~-,
,_T
,-" '-,~.
-_:,~!:-
~,~~;~
iii;;l'~ (>
~~~~~:jt~\-
\ '''~1:1 ;):l~J:;~~ ~.
lZ
.~
l:l.
I.
LU
!::
,
:~
~
.1. .'Ri.~....~wl
,.-"'011
',. E
. ',:~ -
0< ~
~ _ :ID_2~
Be.:: >-<
~4&.:_~<
e815~
""- ~~
..", --~u
.~-t.
'~
".
~~
'-.'
EXHIBIT "D"
WAIVER AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
As partial consideration for the purchase/lease of the real
property consisting of 3+/- acres of real property located within
the corporate boundaries of the city of Chula Vista, California,
located on the 4400 block of Bonita Road (portion of Assessor's
Parcel No. 593-240-24), Rancho de la Nacion, Map:166, and
presently owned by the City of Chula Vista, the undersigned and
all heirs, executors,'administrators, successors and assigns of
the undersigned hereby jointly and severally covenant and agree
to waive all existing or future causes of action against the City
of Chula Vista which arise out of or in any way relate to the
design, construction, sale, occupancy, or use of the above said
real property, and, furthermore, agree to at all times indemnify
and hold and save the City of Chula vista harmless from and
against any and all actions or causes of action, claims, demands,
liabilities, loss, damage or expense of whatsoever kind. and
nature, specifically including all claims of neqligence by the
City of Chula vista or by any of its employees except those
caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of said city
or any of its employees, which said city may at any time sustain
or incur by reason or in consequence of the design, construction,
sale, occupany or use of the above said real property.
i~ i'-7o
dat '
~/fZ~
~L~
1
~(, -5'1
EXHIBIT "E"
CITY
CHULA VISTA "
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Name of Contractor/Applicant:
JOELEN ENTERPRISES
Nature of Contract/Application:
RESPONSE TO RFP
Location of Proposed Work:
4400 BLOCK OF BONITA ROAD
Contractor's Statement of Disclosure of Certain Ownership Interests on all
contracts/applications which will require discretionary action on the part of
the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies.
The following information must be disclosed:
lA. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the con-
tract/application (i.e., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, owner).
Josef A. Citron and Lenore s. citron
lB. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in any real
property involved in the contract or application.
NONE
2. If any person identified pursuant to lA or 15 above is a corporation or
partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the
shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partner-
ship.
Josef A. Citron and Lenore S. Citron
3. If any person identified pursuant to lA or IB above is a non-profit organ-
ization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the
non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Has any person identified above had more than $250 worth of public or pri-
vate business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commis-
sions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
NO
'Person' is defined as
association, social club,
receiver, syndicate, this
pality, district or other
nation acting as a unit."
"Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture,
fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust,
and any other county, city and county, city, munici-
political subdivision, or any other group or combi-
(Signature Page Follows)
;Jr. .55
\ws5\bonita\8rfp28
I
-;
J .._
~_?'::~c-.. ,
~
t.
i
EXHIBIT "F"
ARCHITECT'S CREDITS & EXHIBITS
(See Attached)
1
~(,-5/rJ
L
t~~~:.
I>.,~,'.
,.'..'"
-1(,.,.,..",,' .
~~~s~~;'~:,
13>'';'' "'"
i~!:';:~'('::
I,:', "
~'''f~':
~~ff i
I
;-.:',;
I
t..,
:"t.t~':_':"..
I
~
I
I
t
. .' ". ..~~-:~~.~~j~.;~:~:i:~:L:~;~::. ;~' .. ":'
PROJECTED.iNcoME;'To'THE'; CITY :.. .<)c.~
""",","-;,"
_', .". " "J, '..'
C",.,', .
. ,'--,-."'"
Using the figures in the proposiil,!.Flease' payments, would be based
on a graduated scale, working upto:'''6% of rooms .income, 5% on
beverage sales, 4% on food sales and.10%.on'retail sales.
The graduated scale would start at a somewhat. lower level, as-
sisting the project with time to stabilize occupancy.
------------<>------------
Based on the above, the project could be expected to generate the
following income for the City of Chula.vista,bythe.fourth year
of operations, ("Stabilized Occupancy'Year"). . Room. rates, as
well as lease payments, could be anticipated ..to.increase on an
annualized basis. Past experience shows that the annual increase
can be expected to be at least 5%, with inflationary pressures
insuring even higher numbers. (Unlike most commercial rental
properties, hotels can be responsive to upward inflationary in-
fluences almost on a daily basis.)
The year's income to the City would be as follows:
Rooms
$439,898.00
Food
104,762.00
Beverage
66,356.00
Retail Sales
25,876.00
Banquet, Rentals and Other Income
10,136.00
Telephone
15,059.00
YEARS' LEASE PAYMENT TO CITY
$662,087.00
Transit occupancy Tax
586,531.00
TOTAL YEAR'S PAYMENT TO CITY
$1,248,618.00
\ws5\boolta\8rfp28
~(. - 5 r
.;
f,'
i-
t;-
~~:
~"
I'
t.
~"~
t
i~
t.
~~'
~i~
t.
~i
~,
~~,
~~::.~
;t.'!
~",,-, .
~t.\
1<-.
,
J:,
t~
'.
.'
EXHIBIT "I"
,PROPOSED PROJECT TIMETABLE
ITEM TIME
Negotiations, Developer and city 60 days (1)
Drawing legal documents 60 days
Open and draw escrow documents 15 days (2)
Market study, due diligence 120 days (3)
Drawing plans and specifications 180 days (4)
Bidding and'contract letting 90 days (5)
construction 18 months
.-----------
TOTAL TIME: 36:!: months
Hotel opening: september, 1993
------------<>------------
NOTES:
1'(1) + Additional time as may be needed for city actions.
~-
1~(2) + Approval time for city as needed.
:(3) This time could start as soon as initial agreement is reached
I~f":'~~"':~' ~~~r:~~~ialired between the City and the Developer, and run oon-
; (4) This period is an absolute minimum for completing plans for
a resort hotel. It is an extremely complicated "little city" of
~:'~ it. sown.
l
~i:;
ij'
~.
l~'
"
J.,
(5) Involves much more than any comparable cost structure:
Plans, spec'ing and bidding must be done on FF&E, (Furnishings,
Fixtures and Equipment), OS&E (Operating Supplies & Equipment),
\_'. and Kitchen, Bar and Restaurant, as well as the normal structure,
t engineering, plumbing, HVAC, electrical, offsite and landscaping
"work. Involves a minimum of three separate and different disci-
plines, plus the hotel operator, with whom an agreement to manage
must first be reached, and who should then be involved in all of
the above.
"
:,
"
\ws5\boolta\8rfp28
;)(~ - 5'/
'i,,{,
-
,-
~~-5'
....-
;~
goelen &nterprtses
EXHIBIT "J"
DEVELOPER'S RESUME' AND CLIPPINGS
\Ws5\bonita\Brfp28
5000 Coronado 8iiV Rrl
;) (, - fll
. r:nrnni'lrln rA q?11 A . fR1 q] 4?:1-nRRn . F^X. fFi1 ql 4?:1-nRR,1
...
goelen enterprises
4
JOSEF AJ:ill. LENORE CITRON
FOUNDERS/OWNERS JOEL EN ENTERPRISES
GENERAL PARTNERS. CORONADO BAY. HOTEL VENTURE
Joelen Enterprises was founded in 1971 as a general partner-
ship between Josef and Lenore Citron.
The pair joined forces in
marriage and in business, bringing together their collective
experiences and talents in the real estate development industry.
Josef Citron had already developed a career in construction,
residential development, real estate and investment since 1954.
Some of Josef Citron's earlier accomplishments include:
* 170 unit housing tract in Paramount, California
* Citron Realty and Investment Corporation, 56 million dollars
in homes and apartments, San Fernando Valley
* Marketing Director Midland Properties, Beverly Hills
* 254 housing units in Thousand Oaks and Conejo Valley
* Developed a heavy machinery manufacturing business for
reinforced concrete for pipe and road bulding
* Building large, custom homes in Beverly Hills, Bel Aire a~d
West Los Angeles
With the formation of Joelen Enterprises, Josef and Lenore
Citron began their Coronado based firm, specializing in the
development and construction of quality real estate properties
throughout Sout}lerl} California.
Their developments i!lClude:
*
A series of apartment complexes in Santa Monica
.,
A unique 148 Ul1it apartmellt comnltJnity in Vista, CA
~.
5000 Coronado Bay Rd . Coronado, CA 92118
~~-,~
. 1619] 423-0880 . FAX [6191423-0884
,"Ii."':"" '"~
i
I
I
I
1-.
I
,.--.
.....,. ... ..
............. ... 1"" ~.......
...........-~ ......:::J
~ ....... ..,...,.,.........,....-............
.r~
Real Estate/Construction
ESTABLISHED 1886
VOL. 105, NO. 26
TUESDAY, MAY 8,1990
2131 THIRD A VI
'W.
.,;~ '
-,,-iJ
.:'.;.~~'t;~.~- --
~ Ground Broken For 450-Room Loews Coronado Bay Resort Hotel And 97 -Slip Marina
, Ground was broken yesterday at Cro\\'n Isle, a 17.4-acre uis1andH
6'south of Coronado along the Silver Strand and north of the Cor.
wnado Cays, for tbe $80 million., 4SO-room I.....oews Coronado Bay
Resort and 97-slip marina. Participants includf'd Jonathan Tisch,
president and chief executive- officer of Loews Hot.els, whose firm
\l,ill manage the property (or tbe owners, Josef acd Lenore Citron
or Jo-elen Enl..erpris.e8; Coronado Mayor Mary Herron; and John
lrnanishi, reprc6cnting tbe in\'estment firm MKK Associates -
COt:1pri5K1 of Marubcni Project Investment Co., Tekken Proje-ctln-
ves.tment Co., KG HoLi'l Coronado Corp. and KS San Diego Ioc. Mrs.
Citron christened the hulJ of an antique skiff to mark thE' beginning
of construction. Tisch saJd LoeW6 hed "s{>arcbed Southern Califor.
nie {or years for tbe perfect property (0 bear tbe Loews name - and
we found it u;th the Citrons and tb.i~ project." He said the property
Uha.ct ihe key ingredients to be one of the country's most spectacular .. .
destination resorts." All4SO rooms and suites in the botel "ill offer I
view. or tbe, ~y or tbe ocean - and aome "ill bave botb. There will ,
be 35,000 sqlf,'re reet 01 meeting space, inoluding a J4,ooo.square, '
foot ballroom. a 5,oo<l-squAu'.(oot fitness center, five tennis courts
and a large swimming pool a.cd sundeck area. Cruises from the
marina will offer an alternaltive location (or seminars and entertain-
ing. Gue.ts will bave aeeess to Silver Strand Stat<! Beach via a pe-
destrian underpass. Plans call (or a specialty restaurant and bar,
an inlormal restaurant lor all-day dining overlooking tbe marina. a
lobby lounge witb d\)' ,ie,,'. and a food and beverage outlet at the
pool pavilion that also "ill serve the tennis and marina areAi. Other
amenities \\i)l inr.1ude .8. pro shop, clothing boutique. hair salOD. and
jewelry store.
'~-" --~. ..,...........
€I~ t r r l I" ~ r- r
! -\ - , I I I
t r \ , ! i ")
, ! [ I -'
I \\ I \ \ \_~) ,
, .
I I , ~
; . \
l__.. , L t f
.
FROM KAWASAKI STEEL CORPORATION VoL 12 No.3 May/June 1990
,
t.
/,-.
Tt;~ ;,~~" . ,<'.. 0: ;.~.i- Sa. of Coro"aiQ nea, San OB>go In Soc;,~e", Ce":':;'":';:;' s-,:).'''s the 5"f c' :; '-:c.,ior reso,", h:'l6.' C6-.'elco;:,.7ie;;; prOfeCl m wh;c'j
f:"...~~., S:~:'IS P,,-:',C:;J=='"'g Fo' r'",(Y2 O'f:3"S 0' ;,\i US~~~ ,-:o;;';"or; P<)i~:;: sO',:: s:~~,' 0" ~:,;~:
Close-up:
OU' 17':2,11 2r::::; ;:- :.:.:.;;es 3 ana': [s
at'.'c~~c 1:;;; S_~'~,' :' ;he i21es! KSC pro,
d~:::. ;;;::~::; -~ :-:; ':,s:.J!;s c: c':ver'
S;!-::::2:.:,"" S:'2:::~::: :-21 h2'.S slg'1illcafJiiy
eC2":ce: p::=_=' :;::=gO~IES They range
lrc;~ ex;S;:5::::~: ::: c.;' spe:ic! s~.ee!s 10
nb', r;-',2:e'l2.iS ;-:'~::: 'Ig cera:71!CS 2nd
CJS~'E::S 2~: :: -J ::1e l~'nKe'j' sysler;;$
0..1: C'JCJC;S :: ..::':::: 2'e dEs:rl~d Iii
1'1;:;'2 d~:c'
;-:--:e:l;lc-,ECl ir,
w'\:~ 'E:::::: ~ c. .- '':-'':',ec
KSI (USA) Ficc:s r,12jOr Bond
ISSU0
_,' -, >.'Z; c:
-T
miiijG~ b::J:,j ;SS:..:2 t, Io(S' :....c~ ::'E.::~-:~.::
p~e;::ede~' n t~e ~iS r3r~.€-::..:-: -.; :-.~
l:rSlISSU':- ~lo2;ed i:'e~e C,' '~2 5~::~ :: ;:-:
012 JapcleSE slee' C2"'-,;J~~..
Kawasaki Wafer Technology
Established in Silicon Valley
The succe~s c' t\3>\, I<(~<::-s S :':::;""".~'='
P:Oe'UC:lcr :~ Cc.::::;~~'c.s S':::-
Vaney. lies De~:'1c :.''';02 ~c,2' ~O\'e::~- ::;-:
c,:8 C X~)2"':~;G1 c! ~2:: < '? S ~~. ~. ,~~~ ~
21"',)e n ~~?e 5 :\':": v, ,': ,~,~.
c. new C::::'-':;:::",,1' ''^
!2::1.!1':?:: c'
',,' ~,~' -
~
J\,\,;".<::,
:,,'
- c 0'" :,~ '
1
F.'I', ".-
"C'" 1'1:;. - 'I:' "".._~,i:'J!IJ,')
P:'E_'" 1
,..-..- .
... L;.-
KSC Joins Partnership to
Create Major Resort Hotel Complex on
12.8 acre Site
:0~~~~~-' . ~~,:'.~~~:':~::,'~,w
--~....~
~
.----',,.,..,-
;.-
\1-~
t..'._,"":- .
.~.-~9,;
. I~ -
,
"
..: .-7' -,.:.
~ :,~-.. .
.fr.~'''''-.<..
r" ,-
.' < .
,
.,.
,( .
f.
~
\-
-';j:. ~
. .-
.(./
o
-;''''1!L
.S!;;.!.~
."'~~::;
-f,~~;.I$)~
~':''E"f:~ :':~C~".&.\D; :?.~y ;7~:;TI
mrv, C()l!O"'ADO"'''HOrn~f Of:l.D<IIJ'<TEV'I,lS6..-.:J;~m
saki Steel is joining :he MarcOeni
)raticn, a iead:,1g Japanese :rading
nancing C:lr.1pany. t"1e rC,7.aga1-
, one of Japar:s largest c:::r:s:..-ccjon
2.f'ies. an': Joe!en Entef~risc5. a
rful10cal ceve!oper, in 2. c:::psortium
ve!cp a pr:.'Tle Soul~ert, CcYcrni3
sa rescrt 2nd hc:ei c:::i7:;::,ex.
huge, 128 acre site is !cc2:=d on
orci,ad2 821', just 2CroSS ~;-e gay
e lrom S2n Diego 2nd 'o'er'/ ~e3r lo
~exlccn Dc.Ger an cree. t:Essed ......Ith
V2CC:ion we::.~nEr !er ~ucr, oj ;rle
Tr.e LOe'8S Ccron2da Ec.'v ~escrt
iEmu2iiy ;Jrcvlce ~50 rc.:;:-:-:S In Lve.
-s:c~e'i tu'!d:r.;;s ,....r,er, ;t ,S C:::J-
j in A~t'~~n, 109' AI: ~(>:~s I.~i!
'<"enS (:1 '~e 522. 2~d '-c'::; I.,.: te
"-:~C-:(==-S,"~ ~--,
:.c::::s, :.-:;'1'1::' ,::C:~,"'::.::.-: -;;2,;n
':-:<:;
, ~ xc.-, [C' ~ ,:::;'
=::::;r in
.'-2 ::ro
i\:: :~
--~;"L S:c,?i'S :::'~
",nC<I~::: :.:s '-.)
'.:t:',o' ..c,,,'
Holding Corporation, a subsldlarl of lei:!
multinational conglomerate. Lc€ws Corpo-
ration. Loews Hole! r.as long been an ex-
tremely successtul hotel operator In East
coast U.S.A. (in New York and 'Nas;:,rg-
ton). in Europe (France 2nd ~.~0naco), and
the Baharr,2s. More rec:ent:y. ,t has scc;ed
similar successes 2t ihe Ar;zona VE-f.:2na
Canyon Resort ana the SaCia'.'cnlca
Beach Holel A subs,dary 2150 ,uns a
world.wlce 2SS0C121,cn 01 386 f;}te,s 2::d
the prestigious "Grar',de Coilec:ion" oi !'Jx-
ury hotels. lis recenlly jorr..ed jc,nl \'e:~;.;re
with Ccvia. ~'le op€ralor oj :iie APOLLO
airplane iilght reservation sys;e01, :5
desli~ned 10 lur1~.er Increase :t-'e 2bl;:\Y 10
gener2te bock,r.gs :iCi71 ;:>=:2r.;i21 ;,--::S;S
wor:cw;Cc.
The
aie the
c:::~.~c-.:s
-=: ~'-,-
r-',; k ~ ,\..,
SOI';2 :,'vC :~; :::;s :=;f 1:-<' :::..,'-0'~.'
r,elc ~''i :J,>:r 'CC2i ,:,;~=::: '0'
i'~ct ""'3S :::..:::-:r, :II:lr'n:'~ :'l '-,'~
(!) San Diego
- Bay Bridge
/
Hotel Site
Thf map shows lhesitB b::alion. J5 minutes by C3
.>:1tlSS Ih8 Bay Btidg. and tI8al". bard'" wi"
Mexico.
An artists rnpression of /he competed resort romp&.
record and high reputation of Joeten was
another factor encouraging KSC
participation.
San Diego is already an extremely popu'
lar resort area, with large. modem conven,
tion facilities, the largest zoo in the wortd,
:he famous "Marine Wortd: and close
proximity to the Mexican border (30 min,
utes drive) for :hose who want to sample a
completely different ambiance. In 1992,
the area will host the competitors for the
Americas Cup yacht race, and the hotel's
marina will be able to berth 97 yachts and
motor cruisers to cater for resort guesls
arriving by sea.
The project is unusuaf in that the owners
at the resort complex are also taking:he
entire responsibility tor building the $88
rnii'lon resort themselves. This gives KSC
:te cepo~unlty 10 bUild on expeflence ac~
q~:red in building SBveral similar projects
In Aus:r2Iia, Ha....'2ii and oU--,er prime
IOcaliGf,S.
.
~ ,- ".
r..,;",
:;;Ct ..l.U~
opc:r,-,::C ~ loi',I, h-
;: r;C.""f'.
'f;
.~
"
,'!(
.
,
~,.
,,<
"
,;
l
I
~ NEWS FROM WEWS HOTELS
Ui';~IA O_kLtn ur.FJll.IJI. V1~i' 1"rP.~r1F,m 01 pl.Jt:JI/c flkJfJJ./UlJJ.
667M~~J.W<'l~, N()W \tlJt(, H_Y. ~...ti/(Z~5452m
FOR IMY.EDIATE RELEASE
May 7, 1990
LOBWS Rent-Ill ~t.eo""'lll "'~"'RI>
LOIlW6 OOIlONADO !lAY REBORT
WITH GRomm BREJ.IrIXG BRIlU:7J.8T 8PUSH
COIWIIlADO, CA, IlAY 7 -- Today, Loewe Hotel" celebrate" the
ground breaking of LOEWS CORONADO ~y RESORT with a breakfast for
local dignitaries, clients, neighbors and friends. Construction
of the 450 room luxury resort. hotel and !>7 ..lip JIlarina is
scheduled to begin immediately with completion in the Fall of
1991.
Gu@sts gathered to ~ip coffee, munch bagels and meet the
principals of the project, Jonathan Tisch
President _ CEO ot
uoews Hotels, who's cocpany will manage the property for its
o~ners, Josef ~ Lgnors Citron o~ Joel~n EnLerpr1s~s and John
r~anl~hi representing MKK Associates -- Marubeni project
Inve5troent Company, Tekken Project Investment company, KG Hotel
Coronado Corporation and KS San DIego, InC.
.. .. .. .lnore.
I
i
~.
,
;
- 2 -
~.
One ot the morning'& highlights was when Mrs. Lenor@ citron
did the honors and christened the hull of an antique skitt to
offIcially .ark the beginning of the construction and the
co~pletion of their rive year development effort. Coronado Mayor
Mary Herron also spoke and welcomed the city's newest neighbor.
Speaking far himself and his wire tenore, Josef citron said,
-Today we are celebrating a signal event in our lives, and we
think, a special day in the history of the Coronado Cays. With
MKK Associates as financial partners and Loews Hotels as our
managers, we tee 1 we have the perfect team in place to bring a
premier destination resoct to Coronado and the city or San Diego.
Five years of planning culminate today with the beginning of
construction on a beautiful building which will enhance this
magnificent site as well as the lifestyle tor the residents of
our community..
Of the 17th addition to the Loews portfolio, Mr. Tisch said,
.~e searched Southern california for years for the perfect
property to bear the Loews name and we found it with the Citrons
and this project. We have baen in the hotel business tor nearly
'0 years and have a proven track record in operations and
marketing, and ~ith a strong prssence in ~GW York, Chicago, D.C.
and in San oiegols ~ey fe8der ~rkBt - Los Angeles, with a sales
offIce dnd a hotel - we know where the business 1~ tor this
rE:sort_ "
..... .~ore
~ (, - ftJ!5
~
I
- 3 -
-,
"i
Mr. Tisch continued, "This property has the key ingredients
,
.&
~
~-
$
to be one at the country's most Bpectacul~c destination resorts
upstanding owners in the citrons and MKK Associates, a one-oi-
a-kind site, an accessible location, design and decor befitting
~
~
o
the locale, ~e~ther that can't he ~at, and a captive audience
~
~
with all eyes on this year-round oasis -- especially as the
America's CUp returns. As all our hotels are, we are committed
to being 900d neighbors and to becoainq entrenched in this
community. Loews coronado Bay Resort joins our other distinctive
western region properties: the award winning Loews Ventana
canyon Resort in TUCSOn, L.A.'s first and only luxury beachtront
~
,
,
~
~
hotel - Loews santa Konica Beach, Denver's finest Loews Giorgio
and the largest hotel in ~rica's southwest, Loews Anatole in
Dallas. Welcome Aboard LoeWB Coronado...~
The resort comple~ will occupy. 17.4 acre island in San
Diego Harbor called Crown Isle. The site is on the north end ot
the Coronado Cays residential development and is surrounded on
thr&e sides by 3,500 feet of shoreline overlooking the Coronado
Bay Bridge, downtown san Diego and the new marina.
All of the 450 room~ and suites will offer v1G~s or the Bay
or the Pacifio Ocean, and some Yill enjoy both.
.....more
- 4 -
The property will serve the individual corporate. group
meeting. and resort markets and offer an ideal location for each.
While guests will enjoy privacy on this secluded island. they
will also enjoy being only twenty ~inuteB tram Lindberqh
International Airport. fifteen minutes trom downtown 5an Diego
and a two minute walk to the ocean. In addition. vater taxi
service will ba provided to the new San 01ego convention Center
across the bay.
Heeting and runction tacilities will total 35.000 aquare
teet of divisible meeting space including a 1.,000 square toot
I
t
t
ballroom and outdoor terraces Offering expansive views.
Of additional interest to meeting planners will be cruises
from tha hotal's ~arina which otter an alternative location tor
eeminars and entertaining.
t
1
I
In Keeping with Loewe Hotels commitrent to providing quality
fitness facilities for its guests, tna new hotel will feature a
r
,
5,000 square foot fitnee6 oenter, tive tennis courts and an
,
I
extensive swimming pool and 6undeck area. GUGstG will haVe
priv~te ~cces& via a pedestrian underpass to Silver strand State
Beach. The scenic Coronado Golf Couree 16 nearby and tUGre are
also 67 other courses in the area to Ohoose trom.
_....more
~~-~~
- 5 -
"
I
r
Dining faoilities will suit every taste. Plan~ call tor a
specialty re~taurant and bar, an informal restaurant for all day
dining whioh overlooks Coronado and the marina, the lobby lounge
with city views, and a fOOd and beverage outlet at the pool
pavilion whiob will aleo serve the tennis area and marina.
As a ~rue destim,tion resort, ~e hotel will al~o feature
several retail ou~lets including a pro ..hop, clothing boutique,
hair salon and a jewelry store.
Loews Hotels, founding division Of Loel./s Corporation, owns
and/or Ilanages 16 other distinctive hotel~ in N..", York, bleW' York,
Washington, D.C., Quebec City, canada; '1'eaneclc, .IIew Jer~ey;
Dallas, Texas; Denver, COlorado; Monte carlO, Honaco; La lIapoule,
France; Paradise island, Nassau, The Bah~~; ~c5on, Arizona:
Ganta Honioa, Calitornia; NaShville, Tennessee; .and AAnapolis,
Maryland.
* . '" .
Contact: Michelle Oaklan Mcfaul
Lo4"'s Hotele
212-545-2633
Don Borgen
Don Borgen & Associates, Inc.
<>19-;<24-J902
Japan's largest construction COIp.-
panies; Kawasaki Steel Corp., part
of the Kawasaki Group multi-in-
dustry conglomerate, and Tekken
Construction Co. Ltd. '
The Loews Coronado Bay Resort
is only the latest of several San
Diego County resort and hotel
developments that have attracted
Japanese investment in recent
months. Last September, the 300-
room Le Meridien hotel in Corona-
do was acquired by Chiyoda Fi-
nance of Tokyo for more than $80
million.
Also last year, TSA Internation-
al, a Honolulu-based company that
makes U. S. real estate invest-
ments for Japanese deal maker
Takeshi Sekiguchi, became a major
investor in the Four Seasons
A viara Resort planned for Carls-
bad. Sport Shinko of Osaka bought
the La Costa Resort Hotel for $250
million in 1987. ...,::'
The Loews Coronado Bay ResOrt .
project will be a mile south :Of
downtown Coro~ado along CalifOr-
nia 75, also known as Silver Strahd
Boulevard. . "
The hotel's Coronado Cays sit~ is
owned by the San Diego Unified
Plea,e.ee RESORT, D2B
Japanese Money Bririgs
Resort Closer to Reality
. Development: The long-delayed project near
Coronado Cays is now expected to be completed in 1991.
By CHRIS KRAUL
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BUSINESS EDITOR
A long-delayed resort hotel
planned for Coronado finally seems
on the verge of reality with the
signing of four giant Japanese
firms as investors and the an-
nouncement Wednesday that Long
Term Credit Bank of Japan has
agreed to finance the deal.
Construction on the 450- room,
13-acre development, to be called
Loews Coronado Bay Resort, will
start in May, with completion ex-
pected in December, 1991, accord-
. ing to lead developers Josef and
Lenore Citron, owners of Joelen
Enterprises of Coronado.
The three-story, $88-million
project will go up on Crown Isle at
the north end of the Coronado Cays
residential development on San
Diego Bay. It will include a 97 -slip
marina~ three tennis courts. two
restaurants and several retail
shops, Josef Citron said Wednes-
day.
The Japanese investors are Ma-
rubeni Corp., one of Japan's five
largest general trading companies;
Kumagai Gumi Co. Ltd., one of
'. +~:.::.
F{~;
>"-
"
OVER
2..(, - , 1-
~-
f
,
~
'\
I
,
r
I
'~
i'
f
"
};
:!
~
~t"
g
,
t
,.
t
~~f
~"
RESORT: Closer to Reality
With Japanese Financing
Continued from DZA
Port District and leased to Corona-
do Cays developer Signal Land-
mark. In 1985, the Citrons acquired
Signal Landmark's lease of the
Crown Isle parcel and set about to
develop it.
The Citrons' first announced a
development deal in 1986 whereby
the Hilton hotel chain would oper-
ate the resort. But the deal fell
through after Hilton redirected its
new hotel development focus on
convention and casino properties,
Citron said Wednesday- ..
After a protracted planning pro-
cess. the city of Coronado gave the
Citrons permission to develop the
site alter the developers agreed to
build a new access road from
Califorll1a 75 so guests' cars would
not congest the Co:onado Cays
reside!1ual area, Mayor Mary Her-
ron S31d.
, Although descnbi!1g the hotel
dcvf'lopr.1cnt proposal In pOSItive
....
';t';
f~
v,'
:i:;
.:;
!I.':'
.,'
.!~
::,
!.
terms, Herron said Coronado has
'little planning authority over the
property because it is on Port
District tidelands.
"The agreement that the devel-
oper will put in a second entrance
was a success for us:' Herron said
"We have accepted L-,e fact of a
hotel bemg there. It's Frt of the
port's master plan_ ConstrJction is
timely_"
Transient occupancy taxes gen-
erated by the hotel could net
Coronado more than $400,000 per
year, Herron said.
Citron SOld his past develop-
ments ir.clude tract and custom
hou..ses and apartment buildings,
mainly l!i the Los Angeles area.
Loews, w'rjch is part of an enter-
tammer1: and hotel concern owned
by CBS ?:-csident Lawre!1ce Tisch
and hiS fc....!Tllly, operates 16 hotels,
includii.g ~hc recently opened San-
ta MO;;1(2 Bea.ch Hotel.
"-,'
~
4i:""
I
~
0(\
CORONADO
..
,
,
,
':01. 76 No. 41
@1987 Worrell Enterprises Inc.
._'
Thursday, October 22, 1987
----
.. '
--',- .....~..,~-......_..--_....~ ......-
~'ttitr.ons get develoi)l11e'lit'(j
,:permit forCrowri Isle'
"""B,y Mark Amott ,,'
} J burnal Reporter
. : : ,': :-.. ~ .
'\ : :"Ne~rly three years after pro-
; posing a 45D-room luxury hotel at
..: the, Coronado Cays, developers
:' Josef and Lenore Citron have
""receive~ a coastal, development
'permit allowing construction on,
-"Cr?wn Is1e)ennisula:" ...... ,
.,': Granting of the ,permit was
delayed for the past 2D months as
'Signal' Landmark, the original
Crown Isle owners, worked to
satisfy the demands of federal
'"":""law' protecting' the 'least' tern, a ..
_ sbore bird listed,as an endangered
. .specles.
, San Diego Port District Ex-
" 'ecutive Director Don Nay in-
.formed the Citrons this week that
....:...:an.. interim agreement for least
'tern nesting site mitigation
. satisfied the final condition of the
coastal permit.
- _ " The Citron' 5 sWhecuring the
,coastal development permit was
particularly satisfying because
the Crown, Isle project will be
their first waterfront develop-
ment S!Dce 1972. "We were
building three apartment projects
in Santa, Monica when' the
Coastal Initiative of 1972 was
created," Josef Citron, said,
"Though we were nearing com-
pletion, the coastal commission
halted construction, The situa-
tion eventually resulted in an
apology from the Coastal Com-
'mission and the repayment of a
" portion of our legal fees, but even
though water-oriented develop-
ment had been our forte we
stayed away from it all of this'
time," he said.
", Proposed for, the I3-acre
Crown Isle, the northern most
pennisula of the Cays, is an $82
million luxury destination resort
hotel and marin'a. As planned,
the project would eventually
,': become the Coronado' Bay
, Hilton, according to' Citron:,:,.v
.;,"
"With this final approval we
can now proceed with seeking the
financial backing we need to pro-
ceed with the project," 'Citron
said.
Crown Isle was created from
the dredging of the' Coronado
Cays marinas more than I D years
ago:. The property came under
-i
the control of the Port District
but was leased to Signal Land-
mark, the parent company of'"
Coronado Landmark 'which
, developed the,residential manna..~
community, of the 'Coronado
Cays,
The agreement sets aside a
10-acre site in the Coronado Cays
for the least tern until a perma-l"
nent 1 D-acre nesting 'site',
somewhere else in the bay can be
purchased and set aside by Signal
Landmark, .The firm has another I
year to find such a site. - :'1'
Signal Landmark spokesman
Craig Boucher said he is op- ''',1
timistic about a fmal solution to"'~
the problem because there are- :
four different' land owners m:\,
South Bay with potential nesting ,
sites. One of those landowners is, '
the Navy which has previously set "
aside nesting sites for the bird on
the Strand and at North Island.
The agreement allows the
Citrons to proceed with effortS to
secure funding for their project
which they initially proposec in
January of 1985,
Statement of Projected Revenue and Expenses
, ftJ - (O'}
I..-~-.j I_I~ "l_J
Statement of Projected Revenues and Expenses
80 unit Condo-Spec Apartment Project
year 1
4.5% increase
year 2
4.5% increase
year 3
4.5% increase
year 4
4.5% increase
year 5
, . Scl-leduled Gross Rent $878,400 918,720 959,040 1,000,800 1,045,920
2. Less Vacancy (5%) (43,920) (45,935) (47,950) (50,040) (52,300)
~ . 'l'ota 1 Operating Income 834,480 872,785 911,090 950,760 993,620
4. Operating Expenses ( 21%) (225,310) (235,650) (245,995) (256,705) (268,275)
:J. l\~ e t Operating Income 609,170 637,135 665,095 694,055 725,345
6. Debt Service (604,500) (604,500) (604,500) (604,500) (604,500)
, . ;0e~ Spendable 4,670 32,635 60,595 89,555 120,845
Assumptions:
h. ~and Area for 80 unit Project incorporates app. 2.13 acres at land value of $1,000,000.
3. Developer responsible for completion of public park and related public parking including all
grading, landscape, hardscape and improvements; dedicated land area is app. .87 acres.
Proposed Time Table/Financial Agreement (F)
~~ - 'f()
August 29, 1990
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
TO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Vacant Site of 3+/-Acres Located On
Bonita Road Adjacent to Chula Vista
Municipal Golf Course
Submitted by:
ADMA CO., INC.
?~ - rl
~
e
(
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAB
Letter from ADM A CO., INC
Entit~ Submitting Proposal (AI
1
2
3
Purchase Terms and Conditions - Letter of Intent (B) .......
Description of Proposed Land Use (C) .......................
a. Elevation
b. Site Plan
Statement of Qualifications/Resume of Developer (D)
a. Partial Photo Summary
4
Projection of City Financial Benefits (E)
5
a. Statement of Projected Revenue and Expenses
Proposed Time Table/Financial Capability (F) .. ............. 6
Waiver and Indemnification Agreement (G) .................... 7
Disclosure Statement (H)
8
ADM~~
I I
Land Development
August 29, 1990
Mr. Lance Abbott
Community Development Specialist
Community Development Department
City Of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 92010
Re: Request For Proposal Far Real Estate Purchase
and Development of app. 3.0 Acre Vacant Site
Located on Bonita Road Adjacent to Chula Vista
Municipal Golf Course.
Dear Mr. Abbott:
The following proposal represents ADMA CO., INC. 's analysis.
on how best to develop the subject City-awned property
blending a delicate balance between honest community
necessities and real market conditions.
We intend, in conjunction with our proposed residential
project, to develop a public park with approximately 28
adjacent public parking spaces. The residential development
will consist of eighty (80) for rent condominium spec luxury
units. The land planning/architecture will complement the
community character while cons~dering the public view
corridor to the golf course.
ADMA Company is a Chula vista based land development firm
with 15 years of experience in developing high quality
award winning projects in Bonita, Chula Vista, La Jolla and
currently Coronado. We are certain we completely understand
the site planning, architectural, environmental and market
concerns related to this Request For Proposal. Due to our
direct experience in developing approximately 27 acres
across Bonita Road (SWC and SEC Bonita Road and Otay Lakes
Road) and having responded to a previous City Request For
Proposal in 1985 for this same site, we are very confident
that our proposal is the highest and best use of the subject
property. A motel resort complex in Bonita and inland [rom
the freeway is an "untested ris]('I, while our proposal,
according to our lenders, is considered "sound" even under
today's complicated lending criteria.
2(, - r~
City A070 . 2'90-A Londis Avenuo . Chub Vista, Coliforriio 9?010 . (619) 1176-q1l11
ADM~"
Mr. Lance Abbott
Page T!;o
Augus t 29, 1990
ADMA's plan !;ill !;ork successfully. We have a high degree
of experience and confidence in the area and if provided
!;ith the opportunity will perform to the mutual benefit of
the City Of Chula Vista, the Community and our company.
~~~~~:c~""mi"""
Nathan S. Adler
President
Attachments
Entity Submitting Proposal (A)
~fI- 9-.3
ADM~"
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
REFERENCE:
August 29, 1990
City Of Chula Vista
ADMA CO., INC.
Entity Submitting Proposal
ADMA CO., INC.
a California Corporation
290-A Landis Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 92010
Attn: Nathan S. Adler
President
Telephone:
(619) 476-9411
~(,-1-L/
Purchase Terms and Conditions - Letter of Intent (8)
~v-15
ADM~~
I I
Land Development
PURCHASE
LETTER OF INTENT
DATE:
August 29, 1990
TO:
City of Chula Vista
FROM:
ADMA CO., INC.
REFERENCE: Request For Proposal
4400 Block of Bonita Road
(Adjacent to Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course)
COMMENTS:
The follm,ing represents a Letter of Intent outlining the terms and conditions
by which ADMA CO., INC. will agree to acquire the above referenced property:
1. Purchase Price: $1,000,000 all cash at close of escrQw, plus
a commitment in the form of a written City
Development Agreement to dedicate and fully
develop app. .87 acres for public use as a
park with associated public parking.
2. Deposit: $50,000 to interest bearing account in favor
of Buyer upon execution of the Purchase Agreement.
Deposit shall be held in escrow and applied
toward the purchase price, and/or, be returned
to Buyer upon Buyer's withdrawal from purchase.
2.A. Return of Deposit to Buyer: Buyer may unilaterally elect to terminate the
escrow at any time on or before 120 days from
the full execution of the Purchase Agreement
for any reason whatsoever, thereby releasing
the parties from any further Obligations here-
under, and all deposits made by Buyer shall be
returned to Buyer.
J (, -~"
City PtalO . 2'iO~A Landis Avenue' Chula Vis fa. Colilornlo 920tO . (6t9) ~76.9~tI
ADM~"
City Of Chula Vista
August 29, 1990
Page Two
3. D2posit Transfer:
Upon completion of due diligence, review and
approval of appraisal, and in no event later
than 120 days from full execution of the
Purchase Agreement, $50,000 of Buyer's deposit
shall become non-refundable subject to the
remaining terms and conditions of our Agreement.
If property is made unmarketable by Seller,
or acts of God, the deposit shall be refunded
to Buyer.
4. Close of Escrow:
Escrow shall close five (5) working days after
the execution of the City of Chula Vista's
issuance of a Development Agreement for subject
property entitling Buyer to develop said
property consistent with the final negotiated
Request For Proposal.
5. Closing Costs:
Buyer and Seller to each pay their share of
all closing costs, including but not ~imited
to escrow fees, transfer tax, an ALTA title
insurance policy with appropriate extended
endorsements, recording and filing fees, etc.
as customary in San Diego County, California.
6. Purchase Agreement:
This proposal is to be superseded by a formal
Offer to Purchase which shall be submitted by
Buyer to Seller within five (5) Iwridng days
from the date Buyer was selected by the City
Council as the "Successful Proposer" having
the rigllt to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation
Agreement. If acceptable, the Purchase
Agreement will be executed by Buyer and Seller
within six (6) months from presentation of
said Agreement, or by mutually extended time
agreeable to Buyer and Seller. Escrow
instructions will be ordered by Buyer imrrediately
after Purchase Agreement is executed.
City Of Chula Vista
August 29, 1990
ADMf!Z" Page Three
7. Exhibit "All
The attached EY.hibit "A" is incorporated
herein as a conceptional frarreworJ{
concerning provisions which shall be set
forth in the Purchase Agreement pursuant to
paragraph 6 above.
Respectfully submitted, on behalf of Buyer,
ADMA CO., INC.
NATHAN S. ADLER
President
APPROVED:
SELLER: Cl'IY OF CHULA VISTA
Authorized Signature
Date
Authorized Signature
Date
;;(,-1-?-
ADM~'o
1. Due Diligence/Contingencies:
EXHIBIT "A"
A. Buyer shall have the right to confirm the
foIl OIling development issues:
1. Written approval, satisfactory to Buyer,
of Buyer's development plan, by all
necessary governmental agencies, including,
lIithout limitation, the City of Chula Vista
City Council, Planning Commission, Community
DevelopnEnt DepartnEnt, and any other
pertinent governmental agencies.
2. Approval by Buyer of an appraisal by a
qualified ~~I appraiser confirming the
value of the property to be not less than
the agreed upon purchase price.
3. Confirmation that the governmental
building height requirenEnts lIill alloll
for a structure of three and one-half
levels consisting of up to 45 feet
in height.
4. Approval by Buyer of the civil engineering
and utility feasibility study, cost
analysis and soils test of the property
performed by qualified engineers of Buyer's
choice. All such studies are to be conducted
during reasonable hours on the subject
property and are to be at the sole expense
of the Buyer herein. Buyer further agrees
that all surfaces used for said soils tests
shall be returned to their original usable
condition.
5. Approval by Buyer of the area and
configuration of, and physical encroach-
ments (if any), upon the property.
Confirmation of governmental setback
requirement of all boundaries.
6. Approval by Buyer of the applicable
<;overnmental development fee Sch2dule
CIS it effects the property in Buyer's
proposed development thereof.
Pdge 1 of 3
~(,- =/-g
ADM~'o
7. Approval by Buyer of the Preliminary
Title Report, covenants, conditions,
restrictions, reservations and easements
shown in said preliminary title report
of the property (including a reasonable
copy of each recorded instrument referred
to therein and plotted eas~nts of
record) dated no earlier than the opening
of escroll as obtained by Buyer.
8. Written preliminary approval by a
mortgage/construction lender of Buyer's
c]loice of mortgage and/or construction
loan for Buyer's ownership and development
of the property satisfactory to Buyer.
9. Buyer or his authorized agents shall
have the right to physically inspect
subject property during normal Ilorking
hours.
2. Test Results:
In the event of a cancellation by Buyer, 'Buyer
herein agrees to release to Seller without
charge, the documents, test results and permits,
if any, so obtained by Buyer on the subject
property.
~. Permission to Enter:
Seller grants to Buyer and Buyer's authorized
agents, permission to enter subject property
for the purpose of an appraisal, soils tests,
hazardous Ilaste analysis or physical inspection,
etc. Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller
harmless for allY damage, loss of claim Ilhich
may arise due to Buyer and Buyer's authorized
agents entry therein. Buyer and Buyer's
authorized ag2nts to use rea.sonable discretion
and professionalism l:lhen entering the subject
property.
4. Liquidated Damages:
There shall be a liquidated damages clause in
the Purchuse Agreement and escrOhT instructions
in the amount not to exceed the total amount
of deposits discuSS20 aboV2.
Pa9" 2 of 3
ADM~"
5. Escrow and Title Company:
6. Prorations:
7. Transfer of Title:
Escrow and Title shall be conducted through
First American Escrow and Title Company of
San Diego.
Standard prorations shall be performed at
close of escrow.
Title shall be transferred to ADMA CO., INC.
(EscroYl Holder will be handed complete vesting
prior to the close of escrow). Buyer reserves
the right to assign all or part of their right
title and interest in and to the escrow created
hereby and the real property being sold here-
under.
Page 3 of 3
'J.(,-'1f:J
Description of Proposed Land Vse (Cl
a' - 8D
c
A
p
A
C<HIBS .\SSOCL\TED PLANNERS AND ARCIIITECTS
(.It).57-t.(UI.'D
.125 \n~"'t \\lIshiIllHuu snite 7 >llln dicK;) culifuT";1I 9210.1
Project Description
The proposed site plan maintains view
corridors from Bonita Road to the Chula Vista
Municipal Golf Course and provides the public
with a generous park area along with 28 public
parking spaces. The fairway oriented
residential development rests on top of a
partially subterranean garage which meets all
parking requirements for residents and their
guests. The residential units, elevated over
the garage In response to flood plain
concerns, rise three stories to 33 feet above
the garage roof deck.
The architectural character is a gently
undulating blend of pitched roofs,
trellises, dormer windows, expansive
overhangs, wood, river rock, stucco, and
plentiful landscaping in harmony with the
Bonita Valley tradition.
~~ - i/
Elevation
;)(, -g~
D
c(
D
II
c(
I-
z
D
m
I
<:'! '
'"
~,;~ d
~::~ ~~
Uiiz"
,I~
2 .
~';I' ~
<,'.;-
> ,".
5 ::~'
.
a
<
a
.
~
Z
a
.
Site Plan
~(,-tjL}
'"
o
,.
o
~
~
.
'"
0
"-
;;
"
u
'" .
3
.
,
.
o
~
...
,.
1llttttttPlriln
, ",:,<\<,::"<,~<,>,\i,,, .;g$(<':;:'
:~,' ''(,
~, ,- '" - ", , - ~).-
'~-,' .
.'- ---.-"
---------
------.--
.~~___.H~~_
.~~~_..._..,......
.-.------
~~-_.~--
~._~_._~-_..
.~-~~.~-,--"
..___~_M.__~
--~~---
~_.----
-~-_..".~.._.,.-
__n_~_~_
-----..."...-.
c
PA
A
COM"" ~nD nAN..u.s A.IW .utO<ITl'.cTS
G'
o
.
!
i
Statement of Qualifications/Resume of Developer (D)
~(, -g"
ADM~~
I I
Land Development
ADMA CO., INC.
(Statement of Qualifications/Resume)
Incorporated October 27, 1975
Background Information as of August, 1990
Founder and
President
Nathan S. Adler:
Master of Arts - International
Relations/Politics
Graduated January, 1977
University of San Diego
Bachelor of Arts - Political Science
Graduated June, 1975
University of Southern California
Statement of
Qualifications
ADMA CO., INC. is a diversified real estate
company based in Chula vista, California.
The firm is organized with separate
operating divisions for real estate
development and property services. ADMA
has a total commitment to quality which is
always evident throughout the whole range
of its activities beginning with
methodical and careful analyses of a
project's compatibility with the existing
community character and its financial
feasibility; continuing through the
planning and construction stages to the
finished product.
01'-11-
City Pl070 . 290-A Landis Avonu8 . Chulo Vista. Colifofnio 9)010 . (619) 1176-9411
ADM~~
ADMA CO., INC. EXAMPLES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
1978
- BONITA CENTRE
Award-winning (Chula vista Beautification
Award) 100,000 square foot shopping center.
Said Centre has been cited as one of the
finest commercial developments of .its kind in
terms of design, economics, and attention to
aesthetics.
1981-82
- BONITA CENTRE EAST
Award-winning (Pacific Coast Builders
Conference; Chula Vista Beautification Award)
25,000 square foot shopping complex. Well
known for architectural sensitivity and
efficiency.
1982-85
- VILLAS de BONITA
67 condominiums built in two phases. Winner
of a "SAM" Award for Excellence-Design and
the Chula vista Beautification Awards. Top
quality land planning and construction of .
unique courtyard styled homes.
1983-85
- PEPPERTREE ESTATES (Chula Vista)
14 lot exclusive custom home project.
Highest quality development of its kind in
Chula Vista area. Environmentally sound--every
tree removed in said project ADMA replaced with
a 48 inch boxed tree.
1984-85
- EUCALYPTUS RIDGE (Chula Vista)
60 unit efficient condominium development in
City of Chula Vista constructed to VA/FHA
standards. Considered very practical and
architecturally pleasing.
1986
- EATON'S COLONY AT BONITA
This development includes 39 first-quality
duplex townhomes. The architecture is
"California Cape-Codl' and is considered to be
the finest townhome project in the South Bay
of San Diego County. Winner of 1988 City of
Chula Vista Beautification Award.
ADM~%
1988
- CITY PLAZA (Chula Vista)
Mixed use building completed in the downtown
redevelopment area of Chula Vista. Project
consists of 20 residential apartments on
second and third floor level and
approximately 9000 square feet of commercial
space on the ground floor.
1990
- LA JOLLA WINDIGO
Recently completed high-quality condominium
spec/apartment project located in La Jolla
Shores on Camino del Oro. Development
consists of 12 units with unobstructive views
of the ocean. Underground parking is "water-tight"
which results in no water discharge into the
public storm drain system.
1990
- CORONADO LA AVENIDA INN
Currently in planning process, project is
projected to consist of 133 unit inn with
approximately 11,000 square feet of
commercial space. Project will maintain in
situ existing historical Martinez murals.
Underground parking will result in net gain to
the public of 103 parking spaces.
ADMA CO., INC. has committed its efforts toward developing
projects of the highest standards of quality with respect to
land planning, design, construction and environmental
sensitivity. The company has implemented a philosophy of
refusing to cut corners and compromise the quality and
integrity of a project while at the same time avoiding needless
and excessive costs.
&, -$'1
Partial Photo Summary
~c., . 8'1
Eatons' Colony
",f.:
~(,- 1'0
."Ii'.;
'- . t
;rIh" '
-;,..' .
" '.. . -.,,:
tW ,fJt~jl
~~~I:~r
_,~::::.~}1
,;'.'_' . __.:c~
~:...1 .i::o~'
'", ~
-!.,
. ,
City Plaza
';) (, - ';/
C. -4- PI DO"WIlto"WIl
I~~ a.2;3.. Chula Vista
A MIXED USE PROJECT AT 333 "F" STREET
r-
CO:M:MERCIAL SPACE
FOR LEASE
· Conveniently located in the heart of Downto"WIl Chula Vista,
· Within easy walking distance to restaurants, theatres, stores
shops and health clubs
· Located within a strong demographic area
· Ample parking . Easy access to 1-805 and 1-5
"."'-:.
Windigo - La Jolla
e):
~j;
.U "-'c=,. ~
~" -9~
"-4i ~.
Projection of City Financial Capability IE)
~~.93
ADM~" MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 29, 1990
TO: City of Chula Vista
FROM: ADMA CO., INC.
REFERENCE: Projection of financial benefits to the City
including the number and type of jobs that will
be associated with the development and
anticipated revenues to the City.
1. PUBLIC PARK
a. Property Value:
b. Hard Construction Costs:
c. Soft Costs (25% of Hard Costs):
Potential City Financial Benefit:
$198,000
100,000
25,000
$323,000
2. PUBLIC PARKING
a. Property Value:
b. Hard Construction Costs:
c. Soft Costs (25% of Hard Costs):
Potential City Financial Benefit:
$92,000
45,000
11 ,000
$148,000
3. INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES ANNUALLY
a. Property Value:
b. Hard Construction Costs:
c. Soft Costs (25% of Hard Costs):
d. Total Estimated Assessed Value:
$1,000,000
4,925,000
1,225,000
$7,150,000
1.25%
e. Property Tax Rate
f. Total Anticipated Property Tax for
Proposed New Construction on the
Designated Parcel:
g. Potential City Financial Benefit:
(18% of $89,375)
89,375
$16,087
;;}~-,tt/
ADM~~
4. OTHER FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
a. Building and Housing Annual Fees
b. Business License Fees
c. Utility User Taxes
(Telephone, Gas, Electric)
*d. Construction Employment
*e. Construction Payroll
*f. Multiplier Impact of Construction and Permanent
Employment Payroll
* While not always directly allocable to the City,
these benefits serve to strengthen the local
economy.
5. EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
Employment Component
Outside Managers
Leasing Agents
Maintenance (Bldg)
Landscape
Cleanup
Property Manager/Accounting
Number of
Jobs Created
2
2
2
2
1
1
Total Estimated Jobs Created
10
6. Acquisition Price (Fee Title): $1,000,000
(See Attached Purchase Agreement)
"
ADM~
DATE: August 29, 1990
TO: City Of Chula Vista
FROM: ADMA CO., INC.
REFERENCE: Proposed Time Table;
Evidence of Financial Capability
A. Proposed Time Table (in concept)
PROJECTED
DATE
EVENT
1. RFP Submittal Deadline
2. City of Chula Vista RFP Selection
3. Exclusive Negotiations/Purchase Contract
4. Due Diligence/Government Entitlements
5. Development Agreement
6. Construction Documents/Building Permit
(i.e. Start Construction)
7. Complete Construction
8-31-90
11-30-90
3-30-91
7-31~91
8-31-91
1-15-92
10-15-92
B. Evidence of Financial Capability
1. See Statement of Qualifications.
2. Major lender revolving line of credit currently
available for property acquisition, (subject to
MAl appraisal) - further details/evidence
available on request.
3. TARIAM, INC., an Investment/Development Company,
has made a formal expression of interest concerning
financial involvement - further details/evidence
available upon request.
~~-~5
"
Waiver and Indemnification Agreement (G)
~" - 9~
ATTACII~lENT "0"
WAIVER AND INDEI1NIFlCATlON AGREEMEIIT
As partl al cons I dera tl on for the purchase/l ease of the rea I property
consisting of Jt acres of real property located within the corporate
boundaries of the-City of Chula Vista, California, located on the 4400 block.
of Bonita Road (portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 593-240-24l, Rancho de 1a
Nadon, ./lap 166, and presently owned by the City of Chula Vista, the
undersigned and all heirs, executors, administrators, SUccessors and assigns
of the undersigned hereby jointly and severally covenant and agree to waive
all existing or future causes of action against the City of Chula .Vlsta which
arise out of or In any way relate to the design, construction, sale,
occupancy, or Use of the above said real property, and, furthermore, . agree to
at all times Indemnify and hold and save the City of Chula Vista harmless from
and against any and all actions or causes of action, claims, demands,
liabilities, loss, damage or expense of whatsoever kind and nattire,
specifically Including all claims of negligence by the City of Chula Vista or
by any of Its employees except those caused by the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of said City or any of Its employees, which said City may at any
time sustain or Incur by reason or In consequence of the design, construction,
sale, occupancy or use of the above said real property.
August 29, 1990
ADMA eA .'fe
by; Il~'1-L-
SIGHATURE
DATE
President
WPC 444511
-7-
II
Disclosure Statement (H)
,
I
r
~
l
~
f
,,, -~ r
...
CITY OF CIIULA VISTA,
DISCLOSURE STATH1ENT
ATTACHflENT "E"
Name of Contractor/Applicant:
Nature of Contract/Application:
Location of Proposed Work:
ADMA co., INC
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
. '
. ~
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE 4400 BLOCK OF
BONITA ROAD CONSISTING OF 3+/- ACRES
Contractor's Statement of DisClosure of Certain Ownership Interests on all contracts/
applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council
Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. '
The following information must be disclosed:
IA. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract/
application (i.e., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, owner).
ADMA CO., INC , a CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, NATHAN S. ADLER, PRESIDENT
lB. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in any real property
involved in the contract or application.
2. If any person identified pursuant to lA or IB above is a corporation or partnership,
list the names of all individuals OIming more than 10% of the shares in the
corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
NATHA'N S. ADLER
CAREN ADLER
3, If any person identified pursuant to lA or IB above is a non-profit organization or
a trust, 1 ist the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4.
Has any person i dent ifi ed above had more than $250
business transacted with any member of the City
Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
pol itical subdivision, or any other group or combination ac?t.' g. ".. a uni t."
(l101E: Attach additional pages as necessary.) if -I
-ADMA co., INe by ^VfL / AUGUST 29, 1990
Signature of contractor'/app! icant date
worth
s ta f f ,
Yes
Of public or private
Boards, Commissions,
No X If yes,
iPC 3058A
NA'I'HAN S. ADLER, PRESIDENT
rnnLOrLyT5e nall'(' 01 cOlllracroi7appllcant
-'-- -
3Oa.
RATIFICATION OF BAY FRONT SUBCOMMITTEE
JOHN S. MOOT
1933 RUE MICHELLE
CHULA VISTA 91913
(MALCOLM APPNT)
421-1722 (R)
232-1222 (B)
WILLIAM VIRCHIS
1604 DARTMOUTH AVE
CHULA VISTA 91910
(RINDONE APPNT)
421-5616
RUSS BULLEN
42 PALOMAR DRIVE
CHULA VISTA 91911
(MOORE APPNT)
479-6197
LARRY V. DUMLAO
650 RIVERA STREET
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
(NADER APPNT)
421-6454
WILLIAM TUCHSCHER
3633 BONITA VERDE DRIVE
BONITA 91902
(EDC APPNT)
260-2814 (B)
SHIRLEY GRASSER-HORTON
229 "F" STREET
CHULA VISTA 91910
(PLANNING CMSN APPNT)
426-0661 (B)
JOHN RAY
1777 YALE STREET
CHULA VISTA 91913
(RCC APPNT)
421-5030 (R)
691-3522 (B)
PAT ABLES
1826 GOTHAM STREET
CHULA VISTA 91913
(CULTURAL ARTS APPNT)
482-0425 (R)
470-9582 (B)
BFSUB
30A. .. J
THIS PAGE BlANK
.30A."2.
30b
RESOLUTION NO. 1.t.lcf9
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REQUESTING THAT THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED
PORT DISTRICT APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR FY 1991/92 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ESTABLISH A STRATEGIC PLANNING
COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP A FULL 5-YEAR CIP PROGRAM.
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, it is important to ensure that adequate
public, recreational and commercial facilities are provided
throughout the Port District tidelands of all member cities;
and,
WHEREAS, it is important that the general well-being of
the tidelands be enhanced through a full implementation of
the bay-wide mooring and anchoring plan and a more complete
clean-up of the bay, including the clean-up of sunken and
derelict vehicles; and
WHEREAS, it is important to plan for the financing and
development of such facilities and actions on a long-term
basis.....
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby request that the
Commissioners of the San Diego Unified Port District
appropriate funds to cover the costs of the FY 1991/92
capital improvement projects (CIP) outlined by the member
cities in the enclosed Attachment and that the Commissioners
establish a Strategic Planning Committee, consisting of 3
Commissioners and the Mayors of the 5 member cities, to
enable the Port to develop a full 5-year CIP program for the
District. It is understood by the City Council of the City
of Chula vista that the appropriation of funds for FY
1991/92 projects is not a commitment to fund any specific
project request, and that prior to a decision to fund an
individual project, City and/or Port staff shall submit
appropriate project reports for the Commission's review.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Chula vista that the City supports the use of Lane Field
as a site for a new regional library and that this proposal
should be considered within the context of the proposed CIP
process.
,3Db - (
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement
for and on behalf of the city.
Presented by
John D. Goss
City Manager
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
c:\marty\p-reso
~ob.2.
April 24, 1991
Dr. Robert Penner, Chairman
San Diego Unified Port District
3165 Pacific Highway
San Diego, California 92101
Dear Chairman Penner and Member Port Commissioners,
On April 23rd we, the mayors of the five Port District cities, forwarded a joint letter to
Chairman Penner requesting your support in establishing a 5-year Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) for the Distirct. That letter also affirmed our support for the Commission
to consider, within the proposed CIP process, the use of Lane Field as a site for a new
regional library. The purpose of this follow-up letter is two-fold: 1) to provide more
detailed information on the capital projects proposed by the member cities for FY 1991/92
and 2) to outline a process by which the Commission and member cities can develop a full
5-year CIP program.
The five cities conclude that it is important for the Port of San Diego to develop a 5 year
CIP as a planning document so that the Port, its member cities, the public and other public
agencies are aware of the Port's strategies for expending its resources on appropriate
capital projects. As part of that CIP each of the member cities suggest that the projects
outlined in Attachments A through E be included in the FY 1991/92 budget. The
aggregate costs for the FY 1991/92 CIP projects are projected at $30,658,000. We request
that the Commission appropriate the above amount as part of the District's FY 1991/92
budget process. It is understood by the member cities that the appropriation of funds for
FY 1991/92 projects is not a commitment to fund any specific project, and that prior to
a decision to fund an individual project, City and/or Port staff shall submit appropriate
project reports for the Commission's review.
A second objective of the member cities is to establish a strategic planning process leading
to the development of the full 5-year CIP. The principal goal of this process will be to
pursue a fuller development of the bay, ensuring that adequate public, recreational and
commercial facilities are provided throughout the tidelands. Within this overall context,
the stategic planning process will help produce a District CIP program for fiscal years
1992/93 through 1995/96 (years 2-5 of the 5-year program). It is expected that the full
5-year CIP program will include specific projects within each member city's trust area in
addition to projects of general application to the Port, such as fully implementing the bay-
wide mooring and anchoring plan and achieving a more complete clean-up of the bay,
including the clean-up of sunken and derelict vehicles. To achieve these objectives, it is
our recommendation that the Commission establish a Strategic Planning Committee
consisting of 3 Commissioners, the Mayors of the five member cities with support from
their City Managers and staff.
3Db-3
In conclusion, we believe that the capital projects proposed by the member cities for FY
1991/92 and the development of a full 5-year CIP program will expand recreational and
commercial use of the bay and in turn help the Port District meet its overall trust
responsibilities. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Leonard Moore, Mayor Pro Tern,
City of Chula Vista
Mary Heron
City of Coronado
Michael Bixler, Mayor
City of Imperial Beach
George Waters, Mayor
City of National City
Maureen O'Connor, Mayor
City of San Diego
c:\marty\L4-24P
EOb-'I
w
~
~
ATTACHMENT A:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: FY 1991-92
PROJECT
1991-92
Change freeway sign
on 1-5 to read "J" St/
Marina Pkway South.
250,000
Design-Marina Pkway
improvements (with 4
travel lanes and a
landscaped median) from
Sandpiper Way to the
Port/City boundary north
of G Street
300,000
Construction of above
3,000,000
Nautical Activity
Center - Design
Construction
300,000
2,900,000
Design & Construction
of +/- 2100 linear ft.
of 12" waterline in Bay
Blvd.
500,000
Marina View Park-
Construction
416,200
NIC Flowthrough
Seawater System
(2/3rds cost)
250,000
Bay Blvd. St. Imp.
324,600
Utility Relocation
at Bay Blvd./no. of E
1,620,700
TOTAL:
$9,861,500
~
Ct-
.
~
ATTACHMENT B: CITY OF CORONADO
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: FY 1991-92
PROJECT 1991-92
1. Golf Course Shoreline Erosion Project
$1,600,000
2. Oakwood Bikepath Connection Project
2,300,000
TOTAL:
$3,900,000
u,.
~
,
~
ATTACHMENT C: CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: FY 1991-92
PROJECT
1991-92
Land Acquisition
.
.
Dunes Park II
Pier Plaza II
Parking Facility
Transportation
2,000,000
900,000
.
.
Construction
.
Dunes Park
Service Facility
(Pier Plaza II)
Parking Facility
Restaurant
Street-end Protection/
Beach Access
.
.
.
.
Other
.
Sand Replenishment
250,000
TOTAL:
$3,150,000
w
8-
.
OQ
PROJECT
Marina Development
Twenty Acre Bayfront Development
Harrison Avenue - Phase I:
Engineering & Design (24th
Street to Marina)
Harbor Drive Connection:
Engineering & Design
(Harbor Drive & Tidelands
Avenue)
TOTAL:
ATTACHMENT D: CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: FY 1991-92
1991-92
7,500,000
4,000,000
100,000
50,000
$11,650,000
~
(t-
I
~
ATTACHMENT E: CITY OF SAN DIEGO
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: FY 1991-92
PROJECT 1991-92
CIP 52-353.0, Eighth Ave. widening and $1,109,200
realignment, from "L" to Harbor Dr.
CIP 11-276.0, Beech Street Underdrain 134,000
Reconstruction
CIP 68-007.0, Traffic System Master 83,300
Control System Expansion
CIP 37-187.0, Underground Petroleum 770,000
Abatement Project (801 Market St.)
TOTAL: $2,096,500
THIS PAGE BLANK
301:> ..It)
30c.
&l./-5S"
ORDINANCE NO. ~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AMENDING VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS
OF SECTION 2.48.200 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE TO REQUIRE VOTING MEMBERS OF
THE MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY PLANNING
COMMITTEE TO BE RESIDENTS OF THE
MONTGOMERY AREA.
Whereas, the City Council formed the Montgomery Area Planning
Committee on August 16, 1985 by the adoption of Resolution No.
12097 by exercise of the authority granted in section 2.48.060 and
2.48.070 of the Municipal Code; and,
Whereas, the jurisdiction of the Montgomery Area Planning
Committee is now and always has been the territory of the former
Montgomery Fire Protection District as they existed immediately
prior to the annexation of said territory into the city of Chula
vista (circa December, 1985) ("Montgomery Area"); and
Whereas, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 2418 on November 20,
1990, the City Council transformed the Montgomery Area Planning
committee to committee whose existence was recognized by the Chula
vista Municipal Code, and made certain other structural changes to
the Committee; and,
Whereas, one of the changes made was to remove the requirement
that members of the Committee be residents of the Montgomery Area;
and,
Whereas, it is the desire of the Council to reimpose the
requirement that the voting members of the Montgomery Area Planning
Committee be residents of the Montgomery Area;
Now, therefore, the city Council of the City of Chula vista
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Subsection B ("Purpose of Intent") of section
2.48.200 ("Montgomery Area Planning Committee") of the Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:'
"B. Purpose and Intent.
It is the purpose and intent of the City Council in
1. The purpose of this addition is to define the territory
referred to herein as the "Montgomery Area."
montg4.wp
April 18, 1991
Revision to Montgomery Planning Committee
Page 1
30! -I
establishing the Montgomery Community Planning Committee
to create an advisory body which would serve as a
resource to advise and make recommendations to the city
Council and the city Manager on planning matters
affecting the area of the city which. immediate Iv prior
to its annexation to the city (December. 1985) was known
as the Montqomerv Fire Protection District. and commonly
known and referred to herein alternativelY as the
"Montgomery Community" or "Montgomery Area".
The purpose of the Committee is to focus community
energies and resources on said planning matters which, as
accomplished, will positively affect the physical,
social, and the economic life of the Montgomery community
and all of Chula vista."
SECTION 2. Clause (a) ("voting Members") of Subparagraph 2
("Designation of Members") of Subsection D ("Membership") of
section 2.48.200 ("Montgomery Area Planning Committee") of the
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"a. Voting Members.
The seven (7) voting Members shall be appointed by the
city Council from the qualified electors of the city in
accordance with the provisions of section 600, et seq. of the
Charter, ..hem BRall Be and from the residents of the city and
the Montaomerv Area.2 ana '.~e shall, ~hrou~heu~ their ~erm,
maiRtaiR their rcoiEicROY aHa cleetsl: Dtat1:l0. 3..
SECTION 3. Subsection G. ("Vacancies") of section 2.48.200
("Montgomery Area planning Committee") of the Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"G. vacancies.
Notwithstanding the term of Office to which a Member is
appointed, said Office shall be deemed vacant upon any of the
following events ("Event of Vacancy"):
1. The death or disability of said Member that renders
said Member incapable of performing the duties of his office.
2. This change requires residency in the Montgomery Area.
3. This was deleted because maintenance of residency and elector
status is be addressed under qualifications to hold office below.
montg4.wp
April 18, 1991
Revision to Montgomery Planning Committee
Page 2
30~-2..
2. The member's conviction of a felony or crime
involving moral turpitude.
3. The member's absence from three (3) regular,
consecuti ve meetings of the Committee, unless excused by
majority vote of the Committee expressed in its official
minutes.
4. The member has submitted a resignation which
resignation has been accepted by the City Council.
5. The member shall have failed. durina their term. to
maintain their residency or elector status.
5T~ The membership has been terminated by a three
affirmative votes of the city Council.
Upon the occurrence of an Event of Vacancy as hereinabove
listed, the City Council shall so declare the Office to be
vacant, and shall expeditiously take such steps as are
necessary to fill said vacancy."
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full
force and effect 30 days after its e ond rea 1 g and adoption.
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Presented by:
Robert Leiter,
Director of Planning
montg4.wp
April 18, 1991
Revision to Montgomery Planning Committee
Page 3
JOe. -~
TIllS PAGE BlANK
30e -tf
April 18, 1991
31b.
Sid Morris,
Committee
Deputy City Manage~
Analysis
TO:
FROM:
Legislative
SUBJECT: Legislative
I. Requires Council Action
SB 776 (Killea) - San Diego/Coronado Bridge: Tolls. This legislation
would authorize the City of Coronado to use tolls from the bridge for
congestion and pollution through subsidization of alternative forms of
transportation. Staff Recommendation: Support
II. Addressed bv LeQislative PrOQram thus Requires no Council Action.
Transmitted for Your Information Only.
SB 1155 (Bergeson) - Redevelopment: Special Supplemental Revenue. This
legislation proposes to reduce supplemental revenue to redevelopment
agencies. Staff Recommendation: Oppose
AB 315 (Friedman) - Redevelopment: Low and Moderate Income Housing. This
legislation proposes to increase the current 20% set aside for low and
moderate income housing to 40% and 50%. Staff recommendation: Oppose
AB 1865 (Houser) - Redevelopment: Sales and Used Tax. This legislation
would require redevelopment agencies to share 30% of any increases in
sales or used taxes generated from a project assisted by another agency.
Staff recommendation: Oppose
SCA 11 (Morgan) - General Obligation Bonds - This legislation would allow
approval of local General Obligation Bonds by a simple majority of voters,
rather than the 2/3rds extraordinary vote requirement. Staff
recommendation: Support
SB 82 (Kopp) - Property Tax: Revenue Increase to Cities by Closing
Loophole for Business Properties that Change Ownership. This legislation
would reform transfer of ownership statutes to provide for more frequent
reassessment of corporate and partnership property so that these sales are
treated more like sales of individuals residences. Staff recommendation:
Support.
SB 445 (Deddeh) - Cost Recovery for Removal of Asbestos in Public
buildings. This legislation would authorize any public entity to bring a
civil action against any manufacturer of asbestos containing products for
damages based upon the cost of removing or treating materials containing
asbestos in buildings or facilities owned by a public entity. Staff
recommendation: Support.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Iracsema Quilantan at 691-5031.
cc: Chuck Cole, Advocation, Inc.
31 b -- J
THIS PAGE BlANK
~I b ..J-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
Legislative No.
Author
Title
SB 776
K i 11 ea
San Diego/Coronado Bridge: Tolls
Sponsor
League Position
Re 1 ated Bill s
As Introduced
City of Coronado
None
N/A
March 7, 1991
As Amended
Status
Pending Senate Transportation Committee:
Heari ng - May 7, 1991
N/A
Backqround
This analysis is being transmitted to you in response to a written
communication from the City of Coronado requesting Chula Vista's support of SB
776 which will be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee on May 7, 1991
at 1:30 p.m. Under existing law tolls authorized to be collected for crossing
the San Diego/Coronado bridge and the proceeds of the tolls are to be used for
bridge operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement, as well as
improving approaches to the bridge.
SB 776 woul d:
Authorize toll s from the bridge to be used, in conjunction to the
purposes stated above, to relieve automobile related bridge congestion
and pollution through subsidization of alternative forms of
transportation incl uding ferry service and connecting mass transit
systems.
Delete an obsolete provision relating to a study to be completed by
July 1, 1989.
Impact
Th is propos a 1 has no di rect impact on the Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta. It woul d
improve the qual ity of 1 ife in Coronado and adjacent areas by authorizing
tolls from the bridge to be used for relieving bridge congestion and pollution
through subsidization of alternative forms of transportation.
Recommendation
That the City Council authorize staff to prepare a letter for Mayor's
signature in support of SB 776 to the City of Coronado and the appropri ate
legislative committees. SB 776 has been reviewed by the City of Chula Vista's
Trans it Coordi nator who concurs wi th staff's recommendat ion. Thi s measure is
not addressed by the legislative program, this requires Council action.
Sec. Requires Action
4/23/91
Support
Letter(s) Required
Yes--.L No_
'90 Leg Program
Date To Counc il
Action
WPC 3644A!0009Y
31 b. 3
TIllS PAGE BlANK
3Ib.'I
ill
Dwmfn)
APR - 5 /99/ ~
CITV OF CORONADO
C"CHYCOUNCll OFFICES
ULA VISTA. CA
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
1825 STRAND WAY
CORONADO, CA 92118
MARY HERRON
MAYOR
(619) 522-7322
April 3, 1991
Honorable Leonard Moore
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: SB 776 (KilIea) San Diel!o-Coronado Bridl!e: Tolls
Dear Mayor Pro Tern Moore:
The City Council of the City of Coronado has been diligently working to see
legislation, which would authorize tolls from the bridge to be used for relieving bridge
congestion and pollution through subsidization of alternative forms of transportation,
introduced.
This bill is a result of our own Unified Transportation Plan which stated speci ficall y to
request legislation to enable the use of toll revenues for funding of the UTP Alternative
Modes Program.
Existing law authorizes tolls to be collected for crossing the San Diego-Coronado
Bridge and the proceeds of the tolls to be used for bridge operation. maintenance,
rehabilitation and improvement, and improving approaches to the bridge.
In addition, this measure would authorized tolls from the bridge to relieve automobile-
related bridge congestion and pollution through the subsidization of alternative forms of
transportation, including, but not limited to, ferry service and connecting mass transit
systems.
We are extremely pleased in having the bill introduced and would like to have the
support from the City of Chula Vista. SB 776 will be heard in the Senate
Transportaion Committee on May 7, 1991 at 1:30 p.m.. Senator Bergeson and Senator
Killea both represent San Diego on the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee is
Senator Kopp. Please help with the passage of SB 776 by submitting letters of support
to both the Chairman of the Committee and our own Representatives.
31 D- 5
Coronado will continue to work for the passage of SB 776. If you have any questions
or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
IA1
~~/~lJ~\
Mary Hen'on
Mayor
<:
,11 ~,;~~~
all, .c,
PAGE 1
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 776
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Senators Killea, Bergeson, Craven, and Deddeh
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Alpert, Chacon, Frazee, Gotch,
and Hunter)
MARCH 7, 1991
An act to amend Section 30796.7 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating
to transportation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 776, as introduced, Killea. San Diego-Coronado Bridge: tolls.
Existing law authorizes tolls to be collected for crossing the San
Diego-Coronado Bridge and the proceeds of the tolls to be used for bridge
operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement, and improving
approaches to the bridge.
This bill would authorize tolls from the bridge to be used, in addition to
the purposes stated above, to relieve automobile-related bridge congestion and
pollution through subsidization of alternative forms of transportation,
including ferry service and connecting mass transit systems. The bill would
delete an obsolete provision regarding a study to be completed by July 1,
1986.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 30796.7 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to
read:
30796.7. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30101 or 30102, except for the
purposes of subdivisions (b) and (c), a toll may not be collected from any
person crossing the San Diego-Coronado Bridge after the bonds issued to
construct the bridge have been retired.
(h) The commission may continue to collect tolls for the purposes of bridge
operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and improvement and improving the
approaches to the bridge.
3J b..1
PAGE 2
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: 5B 776
BILL TEXT
(0) In addition to the purposes for which tolls may be collected pursuant
to subdivision (b), tolls may also be ee::ee~ed fer ~he p~rpeee ef
f~ftdiftg a e~~dYT ~e he eefte~e~ed hy ~he depar~Meft~T ef
~rafteper~a~ieft im~revemeft~e afta pre~rame ~e ai%evia~e ~ridge-reia~ed
~rafteper~aeieft pre~ieMeT ~he ee~ay shei% he eempieeea afta e~~mieeed
wi~h reeemmeftda~iefte ~e ~he eemmieeieft fte~ :a~er ~haft J~:y :T :986
used to relieve automobile related bridge conQestion and pollution
through subsidization of alternative forms of transportation
including, but not limited to, ferry service and connecting ~
transit systems .
tdt ~he eemmieeieft eha:: eefte~e~ a p~h:ie heariftg fer ~he
p~rpeee ef reeeiviftg iftp~~ frem ~he ei~y ef 8aft BiegeT ei~y ef
eerOftadOT Saft Siege Aeeeeiaeioft of 6everftMefteST aftd eehere eft eke
iee~e ef ~he :eve: ef ~he ~e::e ehargedT Ne~ :a~er ~haft Jaft~ary
%T %98TT ~he eemmieeioft eha:: eefteieer ~he p~h:ie iftp~~ aftd ~he
depar~mefte~e ee~dr reeemmefteaeiofts e~bmieeed p~re~afte eo subdivision
tet aftd deeermifte whee her or nee eo make aay revision ehae may be
fteeeeeary in eke bridge eoi% raeeST
~\~.r
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
Legislative No.
Author
Title
SB 1155
Bergeson
Redevelopment: Special supplemental
Revenue
Sponsor
League Position
Related Bills As Introduced
Oppose
AB 160, SB 2268 March 8, 1990
& SB 1780 (1990)
Status
As Amended
Pending in Senate Local Government Committee
BackQround
As a part of the State's long-term local government fiscal package (SB 794 -
1984), the Administration and the legislature repealed the Business Inventory
Tax and replaced it with the Supplemental Subventions in 1984. The acceptance
of the repeal by local government was based on the pledge of the legislature
to provide replacement revenue to redevelopment agencies via supplemental
subvention payments.
Notwithstanding this action, the Governor's administration and legislature
have made several attempts to break their commitment and cutback, and possibly
eliminate supplemental subvention payments to redevelopment agencies. The
loss of this revenue would severely impact Chula Vista and limit its ability
to meet debt service obligations.
Last year Chula Vista was listed in the "top losers" category which represents
13 redevelopment agencies which would have lost more than $1 million each as a
result of the State's budget deficit. Negotiations between the Governor and
the legislative leadership resulted in a 25 percent reduction in supplemental
subvention forcing the redevelopment agencies of Compton, Southgate and Chula
Vista into technical default and credit watch. At our request, Senators
Bergeson and Robbi ns immedi ate ly introduced correct i ve action (SB 2268 & SB
1780) addressing the serious problem affecting the credit rating of the
red eve 1 opment agenci es for the cities of Chul a Vi sta, Compton and Southgate.
As a result, Chul a Vi sta was exempted from the State budget cuts (AS 160,
Chapter 449 statutes of 1990) and credit scrutiny lifted.
'90 Leg Program
Date To Council
Action
Letter(s) Required
Yes-L No_
Sec.
HAl8
4/23/91
Dooose
WPC 3641A/0009Y
3Ib.~
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS CONT'D
Legislative No.
Title
Redevelopment: Special supplemental Revenue
SB 1155
Proposed Leqislation
SB 1155 (Bergeson) has been introduced to repeal the special supplemental
subvention program in its entirety. It appears that this Bill will be the
vehicl e for the Governor's admi ni strati on to reduce the suppl emental
subvention allocations to redevelopment agencies by 75 percent Statewide to
$9.6 million. The specifics of the formula are not yet available, but it is
the admini stration' s intent to amend them into SB 1155 once they have been
formulated.
As introduced, SB 1155 would:
Repeal the provisions that provide for these special subventions.
Advocation and staff have closely been monitoring this issue. Our strategy
has been to ask for a continuance on the special exemption for cities with
outstanding debt service obl igations as prescribed by SB 2268 (Bergeson) and
SB 1780 (Robbins), which were enacted in 1990. On March 29, 1991, a letter
was sent to Senator Bergeson requesting continued support of Supplemental
Subvent i on Revenues to fund debt servi ce obl i gat ions for the City of Chul a
Vista. A follow-up meeting with Senator Bergeson has been scheduled for
Tuesday, March 23, 1991 in Sacramento. Chuck Cole, Legi sl at i ve Advocate and
Sid Morris, Deputy City Manager, will meet with Senator Bergeson in an effort
to reach some agreement with respect to this issue.
Impact
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency currently receives $1.2 million in
supplemental subdivisions and a total debt service of $3,650,000 annually. A
State deficit estimated at $12.6 billion has placed supplemental subvention
revenues to redevelopment agencies in jeopardy.
Specifically in Chula Vista's case, debt service obligations in danger are as
follows:
In May 1986, Chula Vista sold 38 million in tax allocation bonds to
fi nance improvements in its Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment
Project Areas. The bonds extend to the year 2011 and have an annual
debt service of approximately 3.2 million.
Chul a Vi sta currently pays $450,000 i n annual debt servi ce for 1982
Parking Facility Certificates, both of which are critical to the
revitalization of Chula Vista's infrastructure and its revenue base.
The Redevelopment Agency has pledged both its incremental tax revenue
and i ts annual tax suppl ementa 1 subvention revenue as security for
these bond issues.
Even with the State Supplemental Subvention, the Redevelopment Agency is short
$150,000 of meeting its debt service requirement. If the State eliminates the
suppl ementa 1 subvention revenues as proposed, the Agency revenues woul d then
a \ ~ ..10
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS CONT'O
Legislative No.
Title
SB 1155
Redevelopment: Special supplemental Revenue
fall far short of its legal debt service obligations by over $1.1 million.
The Redevelopment Agency would then face financial hardship, potential default
on its bond obligations and credit scrutiny.
Recommendation
That the Legi slat i ve Commi ttee authori ze staff to prepare a 1 etter for the
Mayor's signature in opposition to SB 1155 (Bergeson) to be sent to the
members of the appropri ate 1 egi slat i ve commi ttee. SB 1155 is addressed bv
leqislative oroqram thus requires no Council action. SB 1155 has been
revi ewed by the Community Oeve 1 opment Oi rector, Fi nance Oi rector, and City's
legislative advocate which concur with staff's recommendation.
WPC 3641A
alb...ll
PAGE 1
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 1155
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Senator Bergeson
MARCH 8, 1991
An act to repeal Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 16110) of Part 1 of
Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code, relating to local revenue.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1155, as introduced, Bergeson. Special supplemental revenue.
Existing law provides special supplemental subventions to certain cities,
multicounty special districts, and redevelopment agencies which, without these
subventions, would have lost revenue because of the repeal of the former
personal property tax subvention programs.
This bill would repeal the provisions that provide for these special
subventions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 16110) of Part 1 of
Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code is repealed.
~\ b-l1.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
Legislative No.
Author
Title
AB 315
Friedman
Redevelopment: Low and Moderate Income
Housing
Sponsor
League Position
Related Bills As Introduced
Oppose
January 24, 1991
As Amended
Status
Pending Assembly Housing and Community Development
BackQround
Under the existing community redevelopment law, at least 20 percent of all tax
increment revenues must be used by the Agency for i ncreas i ng, improvi ng, and
preserving the community's supply of low and moderate income housing. This is
done to ensure affordable housing costs to persons and famil ies of specified
income 1 evel s unl ess the agency makes one of the fo 11 owi ng fi ndi ngs annually
be resolution:
1. That no need exists in the community to improve or increase the
supply of low and moderate income housing in a manner which would
benefit the project area and the finding is consistent with the
housing element of the community's general plan.
2. That some stated percentage 1 ess than 20 percent is suffi ci ent to
meet the housing needs of the community and that the finding is
consistent with the housing element of the community's general plan.
3.
That the
existing
including
community is making a
and projected low and
its share of the regional
substantial effort to meet its
moderate income housing needs,
housing needs.
AB 315 would:
Increase that amount of the tax increment revenues allocated for use
of low and moderate income housing to 40 percent of the tax increment
revenues.
For those communities which have not met their share of the housing
needs, the Bill would require 50 percent of the tax increment
revenues to be used for those purposes until the fair share
requirements are met.
See.
BICA)
4/23/91
Oppose
Letter(s) Required
Yes-L No_
'90 Leg Program
Date To Council
Action
WPC 3638A/0009Y
~Ib ..13
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS CONT'D
Legislative No.
Title
AB 315
Redevelopment: Low and Moderate Income
Housing
Delete the authority of an agency to certain findings which make
these requirements inapplicable.
Increase from 30 percent to 60 percent the amount of new or
rehabilitated dwelling units developed by a redevelopment agency
which are required to be available at affordable housing cost to
persons and families of low and moderate income.
Increase from 15 percent to 30 percent the amount of new or
rehabilitated dwelling units developed by other than the agency which
are requi red to be avail abl e at affordabl e hous i ng costs to persons
and families of low and moderate income.
Provide that, if after five years from the beginning of construction
of the housing units, those percentage are not met, the Agency shall
make a plan to meet those goals on an annual basis in addition to
making up the deficit.
Impose new dut i es on redevelopment agenci es re 1 at i ng to the
allocation of tax increment revenues.
Impose a State mandated local program.
Provide that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this
Bill contains costs mandated by the State, reimbursements for those
costs shall be made pursuant to those statutory procedures and if the
Statewide cost does not exceed $I ,000,000, shall be made from the
State's Mandates Claims Fund.
Impact
As proposed AB 315 will have serious impact on
remove local control over important policy area.
be opposed on the following basis:
By increasing the set aside by 150 percent (from 20 percent to 50
percent), significantly less funding will be available for commercial
redevelopment act i vi ty, whi ch produces the increased assessed
val uat ion in the project area, whi ch in turn produces the growth in
the 20 percent set as i de. Over the long term, we bel i eve that 50
percent of a smaller assessed value tax base will produce less money
for housi ng than 20 percent of a rapidly growi ng assessed value tax
base.
red eve 1 opment agenc i es and
Specifically AB 315 should
The increase of 20 percent to 50 percent will impact all project
areas immediately. No provision has been made to allow repayment of
indebtedness and contractual obligations first, or to complete
existing plans before any increase in the set aside amount.
~\b.l~
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS CONT'D
Legislative No.
Title
AB 315
Redevelopment: Low and Moderate Income
Housing
AB 315 also repeals the current law statutory waiver which permits an
agency to make a housing set aside of less than 20 percent when there
is no demonstrated need, i.e. if the agency (city) has already met
its share of the regi ona 1 need for low and moderate income hous i ng
units. Why shouldn't agency divert funds away from commercial
redevelopment to low income housing when there is no need for this
type of housing within the city?
AB 315 applies more severely to pre-lg]] project areas than to
project areas adopted after than date. It does this by making a debt
of the project (to be repaid by July 1, 1996) 40 percent or 50
percent of the tax increment which has been generated since the
1985-86 fiscal year. In effect, pre-1977 project areas will have to
go back six years while post-1977 project areas would begin setting
aside either 40 percent or 50 percent no sooner than January 1, 1992.
The amount of money already set as i de for hous i ng can already exceed
40 percent of the actual dollars available to an agency after pass
through of tax increments to other taxi ng ent it i es, since the 20
percent set aside is usually calculated on the "gross" tax increment
prior to pass throughs.
Recommendation
That the Legislative Committee authorize staff to prepare a letter for the
Mayor's signature in opposition to AB 315 to be sent to the appropriate
legislative committee. AB 315 is addressed bv the leqislative oroqram and
requires no Council action. The Community Development Director and Finance
Director have reviewed AB 315 and concur with staff's recommendation.
WPC 3638A
~\ b ./S
PAGE 1
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: AB 315
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Friedman
JANUARY 24, 1991
An act to amend Sections 33334.2, 33334.6, and 33413 of the Health and Safety
Code, relating to redevelopment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 315, as introduced, Friedman. Redevelopment: Low- and Moderate-Income
Housing Fund.
(1) Under the existing Community Redevelopment Law, not less than 20% of
all tax increment revenues which are allocated to a redevelopment agency are
required to be used by the agency for the purposes of increasing, improving,
and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing
available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of specified
income levels unless the agency makes certain annual findings. Existing law
requires at least 30% of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed by
an agency to be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families
of low or moderate income, of which not less than 50% are required to be
available to, and occupied by, very low income households. Existing law also
requires at least 15% of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed
within the project area by other than the agency to be available at affordable
housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income, of which not
less than 40% are required to be available to, and occupied by, very low
income households.
This bill would increase that amount of the tax increment revenues
allocated for use for 10w- and moderate income housing to 40% of the tax
increment revenues. Additionally, for those communities which have not met
their share of the housing needs, as specified, the bill would require 50% of
the tax increment revenues to be used for those purposes until the fair share
requirements are met. The bill would delete the authority of an agency to
certain findings which make these requirements inapplicable.
The bill would also increase from 30% to 60% the amount of new or
rehabilitated dwelling units developed by a redevelopment agency which are
required to be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of
~\ '0 .Iip
PAGE 2
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER. AB 315
BILL TEXT
low or moderate income and would increase from 15\ to 30\ the amount of new or
rehabilitated dwelling units developed by other than the agency which are
required to be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of
low or moderate income. The bill would also provide that, if after 5 years
from the beginning of construction of the housing units, those percentages are
not met, the agency shall promulgate a plan to meet these goals on an annual
basis in addition to making up the deficit. Because this bill would impose
new duties on redevelopment agencies relating to the allocation of tax
increment revenues, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement,
including the creation of a state Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of
mandates which do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for
claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement
for those costs shall be made pursuant to those statutory procedures and, if
the statewide cost does not exceed $1,000,000, shall be made from the State
Mandates Claims Fund.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program. yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS.
SECTION 1. Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to
read:
33334.2. (a) Not less than 29 40 percent of all taxes which are
allocated to the agency pursuant to Section 33670 shall be used by the agency
for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's
supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing
cost, as defined by Section 50052.5, to persons and families of low or
moderate income, as defined in Section 50093, and very low income households,
as defined in Section 50105 7 ~ft~ess efte ef ~he fe~~ewiftg fiftdiftgs is
made ann~a~~y BY reee~~~ien~
tit ~ha~ fte ftees exis~s ift ~he eeMM~fti~y ~e impreve er ifterease
~he e~pp~y ef ~ew- and medera~e-ineeme heaein~ in a manner whieh
we~~d Benefi~ ~he pre;ee~ area and ~ha~ ~hie findin~ ie eeneie~en~
wi~h ~he he~siftg e~emeft~ ef ~he eeMM~ftiey~e geftera~ p~aft req~ires
BY Ar~ie~e i9T6 teemmenein~ wi~h Bee~ien 65589t ef ehap~er 3 ef
Bivieien i ef ~i~~e T ef ~he 8everftMen~ eedeT
t2t ~ha~ eeme e~a~ed pereen~a~e ~eee ~han 29 pereen~ ef ~he
~axee whieh are a~~eea~ed ~e ~he a~eney p~re~an~ ~e Bee~ien 336T9
ie e~ffieien~ ~e mee~ ~he he~ein~ neede ef ~he eemm~ni~y and ~ha~
~hie findin~ ie eeneie~en~ wi~h ~he he~ein~ e~emen~ ef ~he
eemm~ni~y~e ~enera~ p~an required BY Ar~ie~e i9T6 teemmenein~ wi~h
3,\'0..17
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: AB 315
BILL TEXT
8ee~ieft 65588t ef ehep~er a ef Bivieieft i ef ~i~ie ~ ef ~he
8everftMeft~ eeaeT
tat ~he~ ~he eemm~fti~y ie mekift~ a e~be~aft~iai effer~ ~e mee~
i~e eKie~ift~ aftd pre;ee~ed he~eift~ fteedeT iftei~dift~ i~e ehare ef
~he re~ieftai he~eift~ fteedeT wi~h reepee~ ~e pereefte aftd famiiiee ef
iow aaa Medera~e ifteemey par~ie~iariy very iow ifteome fte~eeheideT as
ideft~ified ift ~he he~eift~ eiemeft~ ef ~he eemm~fti~y~e ~efterai piaft
re~ired by Ar~ieie iST6 teemmefteift~ wi~h 8ee~ieft 65588t ef ehap~er
a ef Bivieieft i ef ~i~ie ~ ef ~he 6everftMeft~ eedeT aftd ~ha~ ~hie
effer~T eefteie~ift~ ef diree~ fiftafteiai eeft~rib~~iefte ef ieeai f~ftde
~eed ~e iftereaee aftd impreve ~he e~ppiy ef he~eift~ afferdabie ~e
~ersefte aftd families of lew or medera~e ifteeme aftd very lew ineeme
he~eeheideT ie e~ivaieft~ ift impae~ ~e ~he f~ftde e~herwiee re~ired
~e be ee~ aeide p~re~aft~ ~e ~hie eee~ieftT fft addi~ieft ~e afty
e~her lees! rUftdST ~heee diree~ fiftftfteiai eeft~ribd~iefte may ifteldde
federai er e~a~e ~raft~e paid diree~iy ~e a eemm~fti~y aftd whieh ~he
eemm~fti~y hae ~he dieere~ieft ef ~eift~ fer ~he p~rpeeee fer whieh
mefteye ift ~he bew aftd Medera~e ffteeme He~eift~ P~ftd may be ~eedT
~he ie~ieia~ive bedy ehaii eefteider ~he fteed whieh eaft be
reasonably fereeeeft beeadse ef diepiaeemefte of persons aftd families
of lew or mederaee ineeme or very lew ifteeme hOdseholds from
wiehiftT er as;aeene eoy ehe pre;eee aresy beeadse of iftereaeed
empieymefte epperedftieiesy or beeSdse of any eeher direee or iftdireee
ree~i~ ef impiemeft~a~ieft ef ~he redeveiepmeft~ piaftT He fiftdift~
~ftder ~hie e~bdivieieft may be made ~ft~ii ~he eemm~fti~y hae previded
or eftsdred ehe avaiiabiliey of replaeemefte dweiiift~ dftiee as defifted
in Seeeieft 334~~T2 aftd ufteii ie hae eempiied wieh efte previsieas
ef Ar~ieie 9 teemmefteift~ wi~h Bee~ieft aa4i8tT
fft makift~ ~he de~ermifte~ieft ~ha~ e~her fiftafteiai eeft~rib~~iefte are
e~ivaieft~ ift impae~ p~re~eft~ ~e ~hie e~bdivieieft. ~he a~eftey ehaii
iftei~de eftiy ~heee fiftafteiai eeft~rib~~iefte whieh are diree~iy reia~ed
~e pre~rame er ae~ivi~iee a~~herized ~ftder e~bdivieieft tet ef ~hie
8ee~ieaT
tbt Wi~hift is daye feiiewift~ ~he makift~ ef a fiftdift~ ~ftder
8~8eivisiea tat, ~he a~eftey sha%% eefte ~he Bepar~meft~ e~ He~8ift~
aftd eemm~fti~y Beveiepmeft~ a eepy ef ~he fiftdift~T iftei~dift~ ~he
~ae~~a% ift~erma~ieft e~pper~iftg ~he ~ifteift~T
tet fft afty ii~i~a~ieft ~e ehaiieft~e er a~~aek e fiftdift~ made
~ftder para~raph titT t~tT er tat ef e~bdivieieft tat. ~he b~rdeft
ehaii be ~peft ~he a~eftey ~e ee~abiieh ~ha~ ~he fiftdift~ ie
e~pper~ed by e~be~aft~iai evideftee ift ii~h~ ef ~he eft~ire reee~d
befere ~he a~efteYT
tdt ~ If! community has not met its share of the housing
need for low and very low income households, as defined in Section
65584 of the Government Code, notwithstanding the first sentence of
this subdivision, 50 percent of all taxes shall be deposited into
the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund established pursuant to
Section 33334.3 and used for the purposes of increasing, improving,
and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income
housing available at affordable housing cost, as defined ~ Section
~\'o ..if
PAGE 3
PAGE 4
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: AB 315
BILL TEXT
50052.5, to persons and families of low or moderate income, ~
defined Section 50052.5, to persons and families of low ~ moderate
income, as defined until the fair share requirements ~ met.
1El Nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving any other
public entity or entity with the power of eminent domain of any legal
obligations for replacement or relocation housing arising out of its
activities.
tet
1Sl In carrying out the purpose of this section, the agency may
exercise any or all of its powers, including the following:
(1) Acquire real property or building sites subject to the provisions of
Section 33334.16.
(2) Improve real property or building sites with onsite or offsite
improvements, but only if the improvements directly and specifically improve
or increase the community's supply of low- or moderate-income housing.
(3) Donate real property to private or public persons or entities.
(4) Finance insurance premiums pursuant to Section 33136.
(5) Construct buildings or structures.
(6) Acquire buildings or structures.
(7) Rehabilitate buildings or structures.
(8) Provide subsidies to, or for the benefit of, very low income
households, as defined by Section 50105, lower income households, as defined
by section 50079.5, or persons and families of low or moderate income, as
defined by Section 50093, to the extent those households cannot obtain housing
at affordable costs on the open market. Housing units available on the open
market are those units developed without direct government subsidies.
(9) Develop plans, pay principal and interest on bonds, loans, advances, or
other indebtedness, or pay financing or carrying charges.
(10) Maintain the community's supply of mobilehomes.
(11) Preserve the availability to lower income households of affordable
public entities and which are threatened with imminent conversion to market
public entities and which are threatened with imminent conversion to market
rates.
tft ~he a~eftey may ~ee ~heee f~ftde ~e mee~T ~ft wheie er ~ft
par~T ~he repiaeemeae he~e*a~ prev*e*eae *a Seee*ea a34%3~ HeweverT
aeeh*a~ *" ~hie repiaeeMe"~ heueiag previeieae *a 8ee~iea 334i3T
HeweverT fte~hift~ ift ~hie eee~ieft ehaii 8e eefte~rued as iiMi~ift~ ift
afty way ~he re~iremeft~e ef ~ha~ eee~ieftT
t~t
~ The agency may use these funds inside or outside the project area.
The agency may only use these funds outside the project area upon a of the
agency and the legislative body that such use will be of benefit to the
project. The determination by the agency and the legislative body shall be
body shall be final and conclusive as to the issue of benefit to the project
area. The Legislature finds and declares that the provision of replacement
housing pursuant to Section 33413 is always of benefit to a project. Unless
the legislative body finds before the redevelopment plan is adopted, that the
provision of low- and moderate-income housing outside the project area will be
of benefit to the project, the project area shall include property suitable
for low- and moderate-income housing.
':l\b.. I~
PAGE 5
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: AB 315
BILL TEXT
tht
1!l The Legislature finds and declares that expenditures or obligations
incurred by the agency pursuant to this section shall constitute an
indebtedness of the project.
tit
1il The requirements of this section shall only apply to taxes allocated
to a redevelopment agency for which a final redevelopment plan is adopted on
or after January 1, 1977, or for any area which is added to a project by an
amendment to a redevelopment plan, which amendment is adopted on or after
~he effee~iYe sa~e ef ~hie eee~ieft January lL 1977. An agency may,
by resolution, elect to make all or part of the requirements of this section
applicable to any redevelopment project for which a redevelopment plan was
adopted prior to January 1, 1977, subject to any indebtedness incurred prior
to the election.
SEC. 2. Section 33334.6 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
33334.6. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that the provision of
housing is itself a fundamental purpose of the Community Redevelopment Law and
that a generally inadequate statewide supply of decent, safe, and sanitary
housing affordable to persons and families of low or moderate income, as
defined by Section 50093, threatens the accomplishment of the primary purposes
of the Community Redevelopment Law, including job creation, attracting new
private investments, and creating physical, economic, social, and
environmental conditions to remove and prevent the recurrence of blight. The
Legislature further finds and declares that the provision and improvement of
affordable housing, as provided by Section 33334.2, outside of redevelopment
project areas can be of direct benefit to those projects in assisting the
accomplishment of project objectives whether or not those redevelopment
projects provide for housing within the project area. The Legislature finds
and determines that the provision of affordable housing by redevelopment
agencies and the use of taxes allocated to the agency pursuant to subdivision
(b) of section 33670 is of statewide benefit and of particular benefit and
assistance to all local governmental agencies in the areas where the housing
is provided.
(b) This section is applicable to all project areas, or portions of area,
or portion of a project area, for which a resolution was adopted pursuant to
subdivision tit ~ of Section 33334.2 is subject to this section.
Project areas subject to this section which are merged prier ~eT er eft
er af~erT Jaft~ary %, %986T are subject to the requirements of both this
section and section 33487. The deposit of taxes into the Low and Moderate
Income Housing Fund in compliance with either this section or Section 33487
shall satisfy the requirements of both sections in the year those taxes are
deposited.
(c) Except as otherwise permitted by subdivisions (d) and (e), not less
than ~e 40 percent of the taxes allocated to the agency pursuant to
Section 33670 from project areas specified in subdivision (b) for the 1985-86
fiscal year and each succeeding fiscal year shall be deposited into the Low
and Moderate Income Housing Fund established pursuant to Section 33334.3 and
used for the purposes set forth in Section 33334.2 T ~ft%eee ~he a~eftey,
by reee%~~ieft, Makee efte ef ~he fiftsift~e seeeribes ift ~ara~ra~he
t%t ~e t3tT ifte%~eiYeT ef e~bsiyieieft tat ef See~ieft 33334T~T
a\~-ZO
PAGE 6
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER, AB 315
BILL TEXT
S~Bd~v~e~ene tBt and tet ef See~~en 33334TE app~y ~f an ageney
Makee any ef ~heee f~nd~ng. If ~ community has not met its
share of the housing need for low and very low income
households, as defined in Section 65584 of the Government Code,
notwithstanding the first sentence of this subdivision, 50 percent
of all taxes shall be deposited into the Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund established pursuant to section 33334.3 and used for
the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's
supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable
housing cost, !! defined ~ moderate-income housing available at
affordable housing cost, as defined ~ Section 50052.5, to persons
and families of low or moderate income, !! defined in Section
50093, and very low income households, as defined in section 50105,
until the fair share requirements ~ met.
(d) In any fiscal year, the agency may deposit less than the amount
required by subdivision (c) into the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund if
the agency finds that the difference between the amount deposited and the
amount required by subdivision (c) is necessary to make payments under
existing obligations of amounts due or required to be committed, set aside, or
reserved by the agency during that fiscal year and which are used by the
agency for that purpose. For purposes of this section, "existing obligations"
means the principal of, and interest on, loans, moneys advanced to, or
indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, aSBumed, or otherwise) incurred by the
agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, any redevelopment project
existing on, and created prior to January 1, 1986, and contained on the
statement of existing obligations adopted pursuant to subdivision (f).
Obligations incurred on or after January 1, 1986, shall be deemed existing
obligations for purposes of this section if the net proceeds are used to
refinance existing obligations contained on the statement.
(e) In each fiscal year prior to July 1, 1996, the agency may deposit less
than the amount required by subdivisions (c) and (d) into the Low and Moderate
Income Housing Fund if the agency finds that the deposit of less than the
amount required by those subdivisions is necessary in order to provide for the
orderly and timely completion of public and private projects, programs, or
activities approved by the agency prior to January 1, 1986, which are
contained on the statement of existing programs adopted pursuant to
subdivision (f). Approval of these projects, programs, and activities means
approval by the agency of written documents which demonstrate an intent to
implement a specific project, program, or activity and is not limited to final
approval of a specific project, program, or activity.
(f) Any agency which deposits less than the amount required by subdivision
(c) into the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund pursuant to subdivision (d)
or (e) shall adopt prior to September 1, 1986, by resolution, after a noticed
public hearing, a statement of existing obligations or a statement of existing
programs, or both.
(1) The agency shall prepare and submit the proposed statement to the
legislative body and to the Department of Housing and Community Development
prior to giving notice of the public hearing. Notice of the time and place of
the public hearing shall be transmitted to the Department of Housing and
~\ '0.. ~\
PAGE 7
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: AB 315
BILL TEXT
Community Development at least 15 days prior to the public hearing and notice
of the time and place of the public hearing shall be published in a newspaper
of general circulation in the community once a week for at least two
successive weeks prior to the public hearing. The legislative body shall
maintain a record of the public hearing.
(2) A copy of the resolution adopted by the agency, together with any
amendments to the statement of the agency, shall be transmitted to the
Department of Housing and Community Development within 10 days following
adoption of the resolution by the agency.
(3) A statement of existing obligations shall describe each existing
obligation and, based upon the best available information, as determined by
the agency, list the total amount of the existing obligation, the annual
payments required to be made by the agency pursuant to the existing
obligation, and the date the existing obligation will be discharged in full.
(4) A statement of existing programs shall list the specific public and
private projects, programs, or activities approved prior to January 1, 1986,
which are necessary for the orderly completion of the redevelopment plan as it
existed on January 1, 1986. No project, program, or activity shall be
included on the statement of existing programs unless written evidence of the
existence and approval of the project, program, or activity prior to January
1, 1986, is attached to the statement of existing programs.
(g) If, pursuant to subdivision (d) or (e), the agency deposits less than
%9 40 percent of the taxes allocated to the agency pursuant to Section
33670 in the 1985-86 fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year in the Low and
Moderate Income Housing Fund, the amount equal to the difference between %9
40 percent of the taxes allocated to the agency pursuant to Section 33670
for each affected project and the amount deposited that year shall constitute
a deficit of the project. The agency shall adopt a plan to eliminate the
deficit in subsequent years as determined by the agency.
(h) The obligations imposed by this section, including deficits, if any,
created under this section, are hereby declared to be an indebtedness of the
redevelopment project to which they relate, payable from taxes allocated to
the agency pursuant to Section 33670, and shall constitute an indebtedness of
the agency with respect to the redevelopment project until paid in full.
(i) In any litigation to challenge or attack a statement of existing
obligations, the decision by the agency after the public hearing to include an
existing obligation on the statement of existing obligations, or the decision
by the agency after the public hearing to include a project, program, or
activity on the statement of existing programs, the court shall uphold the
action of the agency unless the court finds that the agency has abused its
discretion. The Legislature finds and declares that this standard of review
is necessary in order to protect against the possible impairment of existing
obligations, programs, and activities because agencies with project areas
adopted prior to January 1, 1977, have incurred existing obligations and have
adopted projects, programs, and activities with the authority to receive and
pledge the entire allocation of funds authorized by Section 33670.
SEC. 3. Section 33413 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
33413. (a) Whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of low or
moderate income are destroyed or removed from the low- and moderate-income
housing market as part of a redevelopment project which is subject to a
~\b ..11.
PAGE 8
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: AB 315
BILL TEXT
written agreement with the agency or where financial assistance has been
provided by the agency, the agency shall, within four years of the destruction
or removal, rehabilitate, develop, or construct, or cause to be rehabilitated,
developed, or constructed, for rental or sale to persons and families of low
or moderate income, an equal number of replacement dwelling units which have
an equal or greater number of bedrooms as those destroyed or removed units at
affordable housing costs within the territorial jurisdiction of the agency.
When dwelling units are destroyed or removed after September 1, 1989, 75
percent of the replacement dwelling units shall replace dwelling units
available at affordable housing cost in the same income level of very low
income households, lower income households, and persons and families of low
and moderate income, as the persons displaced from those destroyed or removed
units.
(b) (1) At least 39 60 percent of all new or rehabilitated dwelling
units developed by an agency shall be available at affordable housing cost to
persons and families of low or moderate income. Not less than 50 percent of
the dwelling units required to be available at affordable housing cost to
persons and families of low or moderate income shall be available at
affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low income households.
(2) At least ~5 30 percent of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units
developed within the project area by public or private entities or persons
other than the agency shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons
and families of low or moderate income. Not less than 40 percent of the
dwelling units required to be available at affordable housing cost to persons
and families of low or moderate income shall be available at affordable
housing cost to very low income households.
(3) The requirements of this subdivision shall apply independently of the
requirements of subdivision (a) and in the aggregate to housing made available
pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively, and not to each individual
case of rehabilitation, development, or construction of dwelling units.
However, if, after five years from the beginning of construction of
the housing units, the percentages in paragraphs ill and ~ are
not met, the agency shall promulgate! plan to meet these goals
on an annual basis in addition to making ~ the deficit.
(c) The agency shall require that the aggregate number of replacement
dwelling units and other dwelling units rehabilitated, developed, or
constructed pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) remain available at affordable
housing cost to persons and families of low income, moderate income, and very
low income households, respectively, for the longest feasible time, as
determined by the agency, but for not less than the period of the land use
controls established in the redevelopment plan, except to the extent a longer
period of time may be required by other provisions of law. If land on which
those dwelling units are located is deleted from the project area, the agency
shall continue to require that those units remain affordable as specified in
the previous sentence. These requirements shall be made enforceable in the
same manner as provided in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.3.
(d) (1) This section applies only to redevelopment projects for which a
final redevelopment plan is adopted pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with
Section 33360) on or after January 1, 1976, and to areas which are added to a
project area by amendment to a final redevelopment plan adopted on or after
~\ b · 2. ~
PAGE 9
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: AB 315
BILL TEXT
January 1, 1976. In addition, subdivision (a) shall apply to any other
redevelopment project with respect to dwelling units destroyed or removed from
the low- and moderate-income housing market on or after January 1, 1996,
irrespective of the date of adoption of a final redevelopment plan or an
amendment to a final redevelopment plan adding areas to a project area.
Additionally, any agency may, by resolution, elect to make all or part of the
requirements of this section applicable to any redevelopment project of the
agency for which the final redevelopment plan was adopted prior to January 1,
1976.
(2) An agency may, by resolution, elect to require that whenever dwelling
units housing persons or families of low or moderate income are destroyed or
removed from the low- and moderate-income housing market as part of a
redevelopment project, the agency shall replace each dwelling unit with up to
two replacement dwelling units pursuant to subdivision (a).
(e) Except as otherwise authorized by law, this section does not authorize
an agency to operate a rental housing development beyond the period reasonably
necessary to sell or lease the housing development.
(f) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the agency may replace destroyed or
removed dwelling units with a fewer number of replacement dwelling units if
the replacement dwelling units meet both of the following criteria:
(1) The total number of bedrooms in the replacement dwelling units equal or
exceed the number of bedrooms in the destroyed or removed units. Destroyed or
removed units having one or no bedroom are deemed for this purpose to have one
bedroom.
(2) The replacement units are affordable to the same income level of
households as the destroyed or removed units.
(g) "Longest feasible time," as used in this section, includes, but is not
limited to, unlimited duration.
SEC. 4. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if the by the
state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those by the
state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs
shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4
of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the reimbursement
shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. Notwithstanding Section
17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified in this act, the
provisions of this act shall become operative on the specified in this act,
the provisions of this act shall become operative on the same date that the
act takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution.
~\~-~~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
Legislative No.
Author
Title
AB 1865
Hauser
Redevelopment: Sales and Use Tax
Sponsor
League Position
Related Bills As Introduced
Oppose
March 8, 1991
As Amended
Status
Pending Assembly Housing and Community Development
Backaround
Under exi st i ng community redevelopment 1 aw, a redevelopment agency is
authorized to conduct redevelopment activities within a project area to
eliminate certain blighted conditions.
AB 1865 would:
Require redevelopment agencies to "share" an assisting publ ic agency
(county, school, special district, etc.) 30 percent of any increases
in sales or use taxes generated from a project "assisted" by an
agency.
Impact
This Bill was introduced by the chairperson of the Assembly Housing and
Community Development Committee. The Bill will require redevelopment agencies
to share 30 percent of any increases in sales or use taxes generated from a
project "ass i sted" by an agency. The word "ass i sted" is not cl early defi ned
in the Bill.
This Bill has serious flaws and mandates significant administrative effort to
track sales tax collection by parcel, regardless of change of ownership or
use. The Bill appears to be an attempt to stop the "pirating" of large sales
tax producing businesses by one city at the expense of another.
Presuming that it applies to the city sales tax, AB 1865 would require
allocation in the following manner:
1) Sales taxes "historically" produced on the property or paid as done
in the past. "Historically" is defined as "the average allocation of
the three years previous to the redevelopment agency's activity."
'90 Leg Program
Date To Council
Action
Sec.
BIlA)
4/23/91
Oppose
Letter(s) Required
Yes-L No_
WPC 3637A/0009Y
3Ib..Z5
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS CONT'D
Legislative No.
Title
AB IB65
Redevelopment: Sales and Use Tax
2) Sales taxes above the historic base are allocated as follows:
a) 70 percent to the taxing entity (presuming or the redevelopment
agency) .
b) 30 percent to be evenly distributed to the cities and the county
in which the taxing entity is located and which have a per
capita income level below the Statewide average.
Recommendation
That the Legislative Committee authorize staff to prepare a letter for the
Mayor's signature in opposition to AB 1865 to be sent to members of the
appropriate committee. AB 1865 is addressed by the leQislative DrOQram. thus.
requires no Council action. Community Development and Finance have reviewed
AB 1865 (Hauser) and concur with staff's recommendation.
WPC 3637A
~\ b . lG.
PAGE 1
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: AB 1865
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Hauser
MARCH 8, 1991
An act to add Section 33680 to Article 6 (commencing with Section 33670) of
Chapter 6 of Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to
redevelopment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1865, as introduced, Hauser. Redevelopment: sales and use tax.
Under the existing Community Redevelopment Law, a redevelopment agency is
authorized to conduct redevelopment activities within a project area to
eliminated certain blighted conditions.
This bill would require, after any redevelopment agency provides assistance
to a property on which a retailer makes a sale upon which a sales or use tax
is generated or will be generated, the portion of taxes above the historical
base level to be allocated to the respective taxing agencies and to cities and
the county in which any taxing entity is contained according to a specified
formula. The bill would define the phrase "historical base level" for these
purposes. The bill would require each local government to provide written
notice of its intent to receive a portion of those taxes and would require
taxes received to be deposited in each locality's general fund. By imposing
new duties upon the local agency required to collect and allocate these taxes,
the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies
and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory
provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the
creation of a state Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do
not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose
statewide costs exceed $1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement
for those costs shall be made pursuant to those statutory procedures and, if
the statewide cost does not exceed $1,000,000, shall be made from the State
Mandates Claims Fund.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
~\ 'b .1.1
PAGE 2
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: AB 1865
BILL TEXT
state-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 33680 is added to Article 6 (commencing with Section
33670) of Chapter 6 of Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, to
read:
33680. (a) After any redevelopment agency provides assistance to a
property on which a retailer makes a sale upon which a sales or use tax is
generated or will be generated, the revenue received shall be allocated as
follows:
(1) That portion of taxes which had historically been produced on the
property shall be allocated to and when collected shall be paid to the
respective taxing agency or agencies.
(2) That portion of taxes above the historical base level shall be
allocated by the following formula:
(A) Seventy percent shall go the respective taxing entity.
(B) Thirty percent shall be evenly distributed to the cities and the county
in which the taxing entity is contained and which have a per capita income
level below the statewide average.
(b) The historical base tax allocation means the average allocation of
the three years previous to the redevelopment agency activity. The
legislative body shall certify, at the time it approves the redevelopment
agency expenditure, the historical base tax allocation.
(0) For the purpose of receiving a share of taxes pursuant to this section,
the local government shall provide written notice and verification to all
localities within the county. City and county eligibility shall be evaluated
as the income calculations are publicly made available a However, eligibility
shall not be reevaluated more than once a year.
(d) Taxes received pursuant to this section shall be deposited in each
locality's general fund.
(e) The city, county, city and county, or the redevelopment agency shall
allocate the tax revenues as specified in this section. Allocation shall be
made on a regular schedule consistent with the locality receiving its
allocation of tax revenues from the state.
SEC. 2. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated
by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those
costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of
Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the
claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000),
reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise
specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall become operative on
3l~,1J
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NDMBER: AB 1865
BILL TEXT
the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California
Constitution.
3\b..~'
PAGE 3
THIS PAGE BLANK
~ lb. !>o
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
Legislative No.
Author
Title
SCA 11
Morgan
General Obligation Bonds
Sponsor
League Position
Related Bills
As Introduced
Support
SCA 2 - 1990
Status
As Amended
Pending in the Senate Local Government Committee
Backoround
The California Constitution (Prop. 13) generally limits the maximum ad valorem
tax on real property to one percent of the assessed value. A rate in excess
of the one percent 1 imit is permitted only to pay the principle and interest
charges on indebtedness approved by the voters pri or to Jul y 1, 1978, and
bonded indebtedness incurred for acqui sit i on or improvement of real property
approved by a two thirds vote of the electorate on or after July 1, 1978.
Additionally, existing law (Article XVI, Section 18 of the California
Constitution) generally prohibits cities, counties and school districts
i ncurri ng any 1 i abil ity on indebtedness whi ch exceeds the annual income and
revenues of the ent i ty without a two thi rds popul ar vote. Moreover exi st i ng
law provides that special districts without property tax authority (generally
transit and financing districts) may issue revenue bonds financed by sales tax
with a majority vote. Special districts with property tax authority may issue
revenue bonds financed by increased property tax only with a two thirds vote.
SCA 11 woul d:
Allow approval of local general obligation bonds by a simple majority
of voters, rather than the current two thirds extraordinary vote
requ i rement.
Provide an exception from the property tax 1 imitation for property
taxes to pay the interest and redemption charges for bonded
indebtedness and provide authori ty for ci ties, counties, and speci a 1
districts to acquire real property or accompl ish a capital
improvement project, including the furnishing and equipping of these
facilities, with approval by a simple majority of voters beginning on
July 1, 1992.
4/23/91
SUDDort
Letter(s) Required
Yes--L No_
'90 Leg Program
Sec. B(l)
Date To Counc il
Action
WPC 3642A/0009Y
3Ib..3\
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS CONT'D
Legislative No.
Title
General Obligation Bonds
SCA 11
Imoact
Local agenci es are in desperate need of funds to repai r and expand 1 oca 1
infrastructure, i ncl udi ng school s, roads, 1 i brari es, parks, sewer and water
faci 1 it i es. SCA 11 woul d allow 1 oca 1 agenci es to issue short term general
obligation bonds without a two thirds vote requirement. This legislation is
long overdue and necessary to provide publ ic services at the local level.
Additionally, this measure would no more than give local agencies the same
opportunity for approval of bond issues that the state currently enjoys.
Re lated 1 egi sl at i on: SCA 2 (Leonard) - Local Government Bonds supported by
Council on August 21, 1990.
Recommendation
Staff has prepared a letter for the Mayor's signature in support of SCA 11 to
be sent to members of the appropriate legislative committee. SCA 11 is
addressed by the legislative program thus requires no Council action. The
Finance Director concurs with staff's recommendation.
WPC 3642A
'a\ \> . '!1.
PAGE 1
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER, SCA 11
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE
APRIL 1, 1991
INTRODUCED BY Senator Morgan
(Principal coauthor: Senator Presley)
FEBRUARY 19, 1991
Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 11 A resolution to propose to the people
of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by
amending Section 1 of Article XIIIA thereof, and by amending Section 18 of,
and adding Section 20 to, Article XVI thereof, relating to public finance.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SCA 11, as amended, Morgan. Bonded indebtedness.
(1) The California Constitution limits ad valorem property taxes to 1% of
the full cash value of the property, except for property taxes to pay the
interest and redemption charges either on indebtedness approved by the voters
prior to July 1, 1978, or on bonded indebtedness for the acquisition and
improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by 2/3 of the
voters voting on the proposition.
This measure would also provide an exception from the property tax
limitation for property taxes to pay the interest and redemption charges on
bonded indebtedness incurred by cities, counties, and special districts L
including school districts, for the acquisition of real property or
accomplishing a capital improvement project, including the furnishing and
equipping thereof, approved on or after July 1, 1992, by a majority of the
voters voting on the proposition. The measure would specify that the tax
would not be a special tax and would authorize the exemption from the tax of
certain senior citizen residences and open-space land.
(2) The California Constitution prohibits various local governmental
entities from incurring any indebtedness or liability that exceeds in any year
the income and revenue provided for that year without the assent of 2/3 of
the qualified electors of that entity, voting at an election to be held for
that purpose, except that the approval of only a majority of the voters is
required for the approval of general obligation bonds to repair, reconstruct,
or replace public school buildings determined to be structurally unsafe for
school use.
This measure would require, on or after July 1, 1992, with respect to
cities, counties, or special districts, including school districts, the
approval of only a majority of the voters of the district for the approval of
~\b-33
PAGE 2
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SCA 11
BILL TEXT
general obligation bonds for the acquisition of real property or accomplishing
a capital improvement project, including the furnishing and equipping thereof.
(3) The measure would make the changes described in (1) and (2) above
inoperative on December 31, 2010.
(4) Existing constitutional law generally prohibits the state from
incurring indebtedness or liability until a majority of the electorate voting
for the proposition approve the measure submitted.
This measure would prohibit the state from incurring a bonded indebtedness
resulting from an initiative measure without the assent of 2/3 of the
electors voting on the proposition.
Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. state-mandated
local program: no.
Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That the Legislature of
the State of California at its 1991-92 Regular Session, commencing on the
third day of December 1990, two-thirds of the members elected to each of the
two houses of the Legislature voting therefor, hereby proposes to the people
of the State of California that the Constitution of the state be amended as
follows:
First That Section 1 of Article XIIIA thereof is amended to read:
Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property
shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of that property.
The one percent (1%) tax shall be collected by the counties and apportioned
according to law to the districts within the counties.
(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad
valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption
charges on any of the following:
(1) Any indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978.
(2) Any bonded indebtedness, not subject to paragraph (3), for the
acquisition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978,
by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
(3) Any bonded indebtedness incurred by a city, county, or special district
L including ~ school district, for the acquisition of real property or
accomplishing a capital improvement project, including the furnishing and
a\~. ~"\
PAGE 3
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SCA 11
BILL TEXT
equipping thereof, approved on or after July 1, 1992, by a majority of the
votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
(A) Any ad valorem tax levied pursuant to this paragraph is not a special
tax within the meaning of this article.
(B) As provided by the Legislature, a city, county, or special district L
includinq ~ school district, may provide in the proposition for the
exemption from an ad valorem tax levied pursuant to this paragraph of one or
both of the following:
(i) Property that is both eligible for the homeowner's exemption under
subdivision (k) of Section 3 of Article XIII and the principal residence of a
person over the age of 55 years who is an owner of the property.
(ii) Land defined as open-space land for the purposes of Section 8 of
Article XIII.
(C) An election on a proposition authorizing an ad valorem tax pursuant to
this paragraph shall be held on a date that is concurrent with a statewide
primary or general election.
(D) This paragraph shall become inoperative on December 31, 2010.
Second That Section 18 of Article XVI thereof is amended to read:
SEC. 18. (a) No county, city, town, township, board of education, or
school district shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for
any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for that
year, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified electors thereof,
voting at an election to be held for that purpose, except that, with respect
to any such public entity which is authorized to incur indebtedness for public
school purposes, any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the
form of general obligation bonds for the purpose of repairing, reconstructing,
or replacing public school buildings determined, in the manner prescribed by
law, to be structurally unsafe for school use, shall be adopted upon the
approval of a majority of the qualified electors of the public entity voting
on the proposition at the election; nor unless, before or at the time of
incurring the indebtedness, provision shall be made for the collection of an
annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on the indebtedness as it falls due,
and also provision to constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the
principal thereof, on or before maturity, which shall not exceed forty years
from the time of contracting the indebtedness; provided, however, anything to
the contrary herein notwithstanding, when two or more propositions for
incurring any indebtedness or liability are submitted at the same election,
the votes cast for and against each proposition shall be counted separately,
and when two-thirds or a majority of the qualified electors, as the case may
be, voting on anyone of those propositions, vote in favor thereof, the
proposition shall be deemed adopted.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), on or after July 1, 1992, with respect
to any city, county, or special district, including ~ school district,
any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general
obligation bonds for the acquisition of real property or accomplishing a
capital improvement project, including the furnishing and equipping thereof,
shall be adopted upon the approval of a majority of the qualified electors of
the city, county, or special district L including ~ school district,
voting on the proposition at an election held for that purpose. This
subdivision shall become inoperative on December 31, 2010.
~\~.~S
PAGE 4
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SeA 11
BILL TEXT
Third That Section 20 is added to Article XVI thereof, to read:
Sec. 20. Notwithstanding Section 1 of this article, at an election to
determine whether the state should incur a bonded indebtedness, and the
proposed bonded indebtedness is the result of an initiative measure, the
indebtedness may not be incurred without the assent of two-thirds of the
qualified electors of the state voting on the proposition at the election.
~\ 'o..!(,p
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
Legislative No.
Author
Title
SB 82
Kopp
Property Tax: Revenue Increase to
Cities by Closing Loop Hole for
Business Properties that Change
Ownership
Sponsor
League Pos it i on
Rel ated Bi 11 s
As Introduced
Support
December 7, 1991
Status
As Amended
Pending in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee
March 13, 1991
BackQround
Proposition 13 placed into the California Constitution/.( a requirement that
property be reassessed to full market val ue whenever there is a "change in
ownership." However, the statutory law implementing this provision has
resulted in very di fferent treatment of busi ness property compared to how
residential property is reassessed when sold.
SB 82 would:
Provide that where a transfer of shares or other ownership interests
in a corporation, partnership or any other legal entity results in
the transfer of ownership interests representing individually or
cumulatively more than 50 percent of the ownership interests in that
entity, the transfer of shares shall be a change in ownership of real
property owned by the entity.
Require the Franchise Tax Board to include a specified question with
respect to change in ownership on tax revenue.
Require filing of a change in ownership with the Franchise Tax Board.
Apply provisions of the bill to transfers of shares or other
ownership interests of a corporation, partnership, or legal entity
occurring on or after March 1, 1975, for purpose of assessments to be
made commencing with the 1992-93 assessment year.
4/23/91
Support
Letter(s) Required
Yes....L No_
'90 Leg Program
Sec. B OJ a
Date To Council
Action
WPC 3643A/0009Y
~\ b . '31
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS CONT'D
Legislative No.
SB 82
Title
Property Tax: Revenue Increase to Cities by Closing
Loop Hole for Business Properties that Change
Ownership
Imoact
SB 82 would reform transfer of ownership statutes to provide for more frequent
reassessment of corporate and partnership property so that these sales are
treated more like sales of an individual's residence. As a result, it is
estimated that at least 1.0 billion in new property tax revenue will be added
for local government. The City's current share of property taxes Statewide is
13 percent; therefore, cities could expect new revenues from SB 82 of
132,390,000,000 million Statewide (individual cities share would depend on the
amount of busi ness property turnover and thei r current AB 8 all ocat i on of
property tax revenue).
Recommendation
That the Legi sl at i ve Commi ttee authori ze staff to prepare a 1 etter for the
Mayor's signature in support SB 82 which would be sent to members of the
appropri ate 1 egi sl at i ve committee. SB 82 has been revi ewed by the Fi nance
Director which concurs with staff's recommendation. Additionally, SB 82 is
consistent with the adopted legislative program, thus requires no Council
action.
~\ '10. "3 ~
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 82
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE
MARCH 13, 1991
INTRODUCED BY Senator Kopp
DECEMBER 7, 1990
Aft see eo amend Beeeioft 636% of ~he Reveft~e and ~axaeieft eOdeT
re%a~~ft~ ~e ~aXa~~eft7 ~e ~ake effee~ immed~a~e%Y7 ~ax %evYT An act
to amend Sections 64, 110, 480.1, and 480.2 of, and to add
section 480.25 to, the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to
property taxation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 82, as amended, Kopp. Sa%ee aftd ~ee ~ax~
eehee%-e~efteered ye~~h ~re~~e Property taxation:
exeZft~eiefte't'
chanqe in ownership
~he ex~e~~ft~ ea%~ferft~a Sa%ee aftd eee ~ax =aw exeM~~e freM ~he
eax im~eeed ey ease isw reed ~reduee8T noftaieeheiie bevera~e87 aftd
e~her ~aft~~b%e ~ereefta% ~re~er~y wh~eh are ee%d eft aft ~rre~~%ar er
ifteermieeefte basie by any fteft~refie erganizaeieftT 88 epeeified, er
afty ye~~h ~re~~ e~efteered by er aff~%~a~ed w~~h a q~a%~f~ed
eaueaeionsl ifteeieueieft ana whieh are made er predueed by members
ef ~he er~aft~Za~~eftT f~ def~ftee a ~a%~f~ed ed~ea~~efta% ~fte~~~~~~eft
ae aftY ~~b%~e eehee% er ee%%e~e7 ae e~ee~f~ed7 er afty ~r~va~e
eaueaeieftsi ifteeieueioft providing eaueaeieft fer kiftdergareeft eo grade
%ZT ifteiueiveT or eeiiege uftdergraduaee program, ease meeee ehe
re~~reMeft~e ef ~he S~e~e Be~ar~Meft~ ef Bd~ea~~eft7 ae e~ee~f~ed7 aftd
dees nee dieerimiftaee en ehe basis ef raeeT sex, ftseioftaiieYT er
reiigiol"'.":"
~hi8 bili would previde ease, fer purposes of ease exeM~e~eaT aa
eae~ey shaii aee be aeeMed ee d~8er~m~aaee ea ehe basis ef sex ia
~he eaee ef afty fteft~ref~~ ~r~ve~e eehee% wh~eh ~rad~~~efta%%y aftd
eeft~~ft~a%%y freM ~~e ee~ab%~ehMeft~7 hae had a ~e%~ey ef adM~~~~ft~
eaiy se~deaes ef eae eeXT
ee~aeiee aad e~eiee are a~eher~zed ~e ~mpeee ieeai eaiee aad ~ee
eaxee ~a eeafermiey wieh e~aee eaiee aad ~se eaxesT BxeMpe~eas
frem s~a~e eaiee aad ~ee eaxee eaae~ed by ~he ~e~ieia~~re are
a~eemae~eaily ~aeerperaeed ~aee ehe leeal eaxeeT
See~~eft ::38 ef ~he Reveft~e aftd ~axa~~eft eede ~rev~dee ~ha~ ~he
e~aee wiii rei~~ree ee~fteiee afta ei~iee fer reveft~e ieeeee ea~eed
!l\~. ~'l
PAGE 1
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 82
BILL TEXT
~y ~he eftaeemefte ei esiee aft~ ~ee eax exem~eiefteT
~ftia biii we~ia p~eyiae ~fte~ fte epp~ep~ie~ieft ia meae efta ~fte
aeeee afteii ftee ~eimb~~ae ieeei egefteiea fe~ aeiea efta ~ae eex
~eyeft~ea iea~ by eftem p~~a~efte ee ~ftia biiiT
~ftia biii we~ia eeke effee~ immeaieeeiy ea a ~ex ievYT
Existing provisions of the California Constitution, with certain
exceptions, place! limitation ~ ad valorem property taxes on real
property of 1% of the full cash value of that property. For
purposes of this limitation, full cash value is defined as the
assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax
bill under "full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of
that real property when purchased, newly constructed, ~ ! chanqe
in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment. Existing law
provides, except for specified exceptions with respect to change in
ownership upon control or transfer of ~ majority of ownership
interests, that the purchase or transfer of ownership interests in
! legal entity, such as corporate stock or partnership interests,
shall not be deemed to constitute ! transfer of the real property
of the legal entity. It requires the Franchise Tax Board, for
purposes of determining the applicability of those exceptions
establishing change of ownership of ~ entity's real property, to
include! specified question on tax returns for partnerships, banks,
and corporations, other than tax-exempt organizations. It also
requires the filing of ~ specified change in ownership statement
with the state Board of Equalization where certain of the
exceptions establishing chanqes in ownership apply.
This bill would recast those changes in ownership provisions and
would additionally provide that where ~ transfer of shares or other
ownership interests of ! corporation, partnership, ~ any other
legal entity results in the transfer of ownership interests
representing individually or cumulatively ~ than 50% of the
ownership interests in that entity, the transfer of shares ~ other
ownership interests shall be ! change in ownership of real property
owned ~ that entity. It would require the Franchise Tax Board to
include! specified question with respect to chanqe in ownership ~
tax returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations, other than
tax exempt organizations, for the purpose of determining the
applicability of the ~ change in ownership provision. It would
require the filing of ! specified change in ownership statement
with the board where the new change in ownership provisions apply.
It would ~ the provisions of the bill to transfers of shares
or other ownership interests of ~ corporation, partnership, or other
legal entity occurring on ~ after March h 1975, for purposes of
assessments to be made commencing with the 1992-93 assessment year.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
state-mandated local program: yea no
~\b.qo
PAGE 2
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 82
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
ef ~he Reve"~e ana
the Revenue and Taxation
- -
B8e~%eN iT Bee~~eft 636i
SECTION ~ Section 64 of
amended to read:
64. (a) ill Where ~ transfer of shares ~ other ownership
interests of ~ corporation, partnership, or any leqal entity results
in the transfer of ownership interests representing individually or
cumulatively ~ than 50 percent of the ownership interests in
that entity, that transfer of shares ~ other ownership interests
shall be ~ chanqe in ownership of real property owned ~ that
entity.
~ When ~ corporation, partnership, other leqal entity, or any
other person obtains control, as defined in Section 25105, in any
corporation, ~ obtains ! ma;ority ownership interest in any
partnership ~ other legal entity through the purchase or transfer
of corporate stock, partnership interest, ~ ownership interests in
other legal entities, that purchase or transfer of stock or other
interests shall be ~ change of ownership of property owned ~ the
corporation, partnership, or other leqal entity in which the
controlling interest is obtained.
ill ill If property is transferred ~ ~ after March h 1975,
to ~ legal entity in ~ transaction excluded from change in
ownership ~ paragraph ~ of subdivision 1!l of Section 62, then
the persons holdinq ownership interests in that leqal entity
immediately after the transfer shall be considered the "oriqinal
coowners." Whenever shares ~ other ownership interests representing
cumulatively ~ than 50 percent of the total interests in the
entity ~ transferred ~ any of the original coowners in one or
more transactions, ! change in ownership of that real property
owned ~ the legal entity shall have occurred, and the property
that ~ previously excluded from change in ownership pursuant to
paragraph ~ of subdivision 1!l of section 62 shall be
reappraised.
~ The date of reappraisal pursuant to this paragraph shall be
Code is
--
-al b · l.t)
PAGE 3
PAGE 4
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 82
BILL TEXT
the date of the
individually ~
in the entity.
~ ~ transfer of shares or other ownership interests that
results in ~ change in control of ~ corporation, partnership, or
any other legal entity is subject to reappraisal !! provided in
paragraph ~ in lieu of this paragraph.
1!l Except as provided in subdivision (h) of Section 61 and
s~eaivisiefts tet afta tat e~ ~his see~ieft paragraphs ill to illL
inclusive , the purchase or transfer of ownership interests in legal
entities, such as corporate stock or partnership interests, shall not be
deemed to constitute a transfer of the real property of the legal entity.
(b) Any corporate reorganization, where all of the corporations involved
are members of an affiliated group, and which qualifies as a reorganization
under Section 368 of the United States Internal Revenue Code and which is
accepted as a nontaxable event by similar California statutes, or any transfer
of real property among members of an affiliated group, or any reorganization
of farm credit institutions pursuant to the federal Farm Credit Act of 1971
(Public Law 92-181), as amended, shall not be a change of ownership. The
taxpayer shall furnish proof, under penalty of perjury, to the assessor that
the transfer meets the requirements of this subdivision.
For purposes of this subdivision "affiliated group" means one or more
chains of corporations connected through stock ownership with a common parent
corporation if:
(1) One hundred percent of the voting stock, exclusive of any share owned
by directors, of each of the corporations, except the parent corporation, is
owned by one or more of the other corporations t and ~
(2) The common parent corporation owns, directly, 100 percent of the voting
stock, exclusive of any shares owned by directors, of at least one of the
other corporations.
(c) When a eerpera~*en, par~nerehip, e~her ~e~a~ en~i~y er any
e~her pereen eb~aine een~re~, as defined in Bee~ien 25i85, in any
eerpera~ienT er eb~ains a ma;eri~y ewfterehip ifteereee ift afty
par~ftership er e~her ie~ai eft~i~y ~hre~~h ~he p~rehaee er ~rafts~er
ef eerpera~e eeeek, par~ftership ifteereee, er ewfterehip ifteereeee ift
e~her ie~ai eft~i~ieeT s~eh p~rehase er ~rafts~er e~ s~eh e~eek er
e~her ift~eres~ shaii ee a ehaft~e e~ ewftership e~ preper~y ewftea ey
~he eerpera~ieftT par~ftershipT er e~her ie~ai eft~i~y ift whieh ~he
eeftereiiiftg ifteereee ie ebeaiftedT
tat ~~ preper~y is ~rafts~errea eft er a~~er Mareh iT i9T5, ~e a
ie~ai eft~i~y ift a ~raftsae~ieft exei~aea ~reM ehaft~e ift ewftership ey
para~raph t~t e~ e~eaivieieft tat e~ See~ieft 6~T ~heft ~he persefts
heidift~ ewfterehip ifteere8~e ift s~eh ie~ai efteiey immediaeeiy afeer
ehe eraftefer ehaii be eefteidered ~he ~eri~inai eeewnereT~ Wheftever
ehares er eeher ewfterehip ifteereeee repreeefteift~ e~m~iaeiveiy mere
~haft 59 pereeft~ e~ ~he ~e~ai ift~eree~e ift ~he eft~i~y are
erafteferred by afty ef ehe eri~iftai eeewftere ift efte er mere
eraftsaeeiefteT a ehaft~e in ewfterehip ef ehae reai preperey ewfted by
~he ie~ai eft~i~y shaii have eee~rreaT afta ~he preper~y whieh wae
previe~siy exei~aea ~reM ehaft~e ift ewfterehip ~ftaer ~he previeiefts e~
transfer of the ownership
cumulatively ~ than 50
interest representing
percent of the interests
~l C .. ~ 7..
PAGE 5
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 82
BILL TEXT
para~rapft t2t 8~ subdivisi8ft tat 8~ Seeei8ft 62 afta:: be
reapprao:aedT
!he da~e e~ reeppreiee~ ehe~~ be ~he de~e e~ ~he
~he ewfterehip O:ft~eree~ repreeeft~O:ft~ iftdo:vo:due~~y er
~haft 59 pe~eeft~ of ~fte ifteereeee in ehe efteieYT
A eraftefer ef sharee or eeher ownership ifteereeee whieh ree~iee
in a ehaft~e in eefterei ef a eerperaeieftT parefterehipT or any eeher
ie~ai efteiey is e~8;eee eo reappraisal as previaea in e~bdivieieft
tet reefter ~heft efto:e eubdo:vo:eo:eftT
tet In order to assist in the determination of
ownership has occurred under e~bdivieiefte tet aftd
, the Franchise Tax Board shall include a question
following form on returns for partnerships L banks
(except tax-exempt organizations):
If the corporation (or partnership) owns real property in California, has
cumulatively more than 50 percent of the voting stock (or more than 50 percent
of total interest in both partnership capital and partnership profits) (1)
been transferred by the corporation (or partnership) since March 1, 1975, or
(2) been acquired by another legal entity or person during the year? (See
instructions. )
If the entity answers "yes" to (1) or (2) in the above question, then the
Franchise Tax Board shall furnish the names and addresses of that entity and
of the stock or partnership ownership interest transferees to the state Board
of Equalization.
SEC. ~ Section 110 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended
to read:
--
110. (a) Except as is otherwise provided in Section 110.1, "full cash
value" or "fair market value" means the amount of cash or its equivalent
for which property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market under
conditions in which neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the
exigencies of the other and both wo:eft kftewied~e the buyer and seller
~ aware of all of the uses and purposes to which the property is adapted
and for which it is capable of being used adapted and of the enforceable
restrictions upon those uses and purposes.
(b) For purposes of determining the "full cash value" or "fair market
value" of real property, other than possessory interests, being appraised upon
a purchase, "full cash value" or "fair market value" shall be the purchase
price paid in the transaction unless it is established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the real property would not have transferred for that
purchase price in an open market transaction. The purchase price shall,
however, be rebuttably presumed to be the "full cash value" or "fair market
value" if the terms of the transaction were negotiated at arms length between
a knowledgeable transferor and transferee neither of which could take
advantage of the exigencies of the other. "Purchase price," as used in this
section, means the total consideration provided by the purchaser or on the
purchaser's behalf, valued in money, whether paid in money or otherwise. If a
single transaction results in a change in ownership of more than one parcel of
real property, the purchase price shall be allocated among those parcels and
other assets, if any, transferred based on the relative fair market value of
each.
~rafte~er e~
eu",,,ie~o:veiy
Mere
whether a change of
tdt subdivision 1!l
in substantially the
L and corporations
~\b-4~
PAGE 6
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 82
BILL TEXT
(0) For real property, other than possessory interests, the change of
ownership statement required pursuant to Section 480, 480.1, er 480.2, or
480.25, or the preliminary change of ownership statement required pursuant
to Section 480.4, shall give any information as the board shall prescribe
relative to whether the terms of the transaction were negotiated at "arms
length". In the event that the transaction includes property other than real
property, the change in ownership statement shall give information as the
board shall prescribe disclosing the portion of the purchase price which is
allocable to all elements of the transaction. If the taxpayer fails to
provide the prescribed information, the rebuttable presumption provided by
subdivision (b) shall not apply.
SEC. ~ Section 480.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is
amended to read:
--
480.1. (a) Whenever there is a change in control of any corporation,
partnership, or other legal entity, as defined in paragraph ~ of
subdivision tet 1!l of section 64, a signed change in ownership statement
as provided for in subdivision (b), shall be filed by the person or legal
entity acquiring ownership control of such corporation, partnership, or other
legal entity with the board at its office in Sacramento. The statement shall
list all counties in which the corporation, partnership, or legal entity owns
real property.
(b) The change in ownership statement as required pursuant to subdivision
(a), shall be declared to be true under penalty of perjury and shall give such
information relative to the ownership control acquisition transaction as the
board shall prescribe after consultation with the California Assessors'
Association. The information shall include, but not be limited to, a
description of the property owned by the corporation, partnership, or other
legal entity, the parties to the transaction, and the date of the ownership
control acquisition. The change in ownership statement shall not include any
question which is not germane to the assessment function. The statement shall
contain a notice that is printed, with the title at least l2-point boldface
type and the body in at least 8-point boldface type, in the following form:
"Important Notice"
"The law requires any person or legal entity acquiring ownership control in
any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity owning real property in
California subject to local property taxation to complete and file a change in
ownership statement with the State Board of Equalization at its office in
Sacramento. The change in ownership statement must be filed within 45 days
from the date of the change in control of a corporation, partnership, or other
legal entity. The law further requires that a change in ownership statement
be completed and filed whenever a written request is made therefor by the
State Board of Equalization, regardless of whether a change in control of the
legal entity has occurred. The failure to file a change in ownership
statement within 45 days from the date of a written request by the State Board
of Equalization results in a penalty of 10 percent of the taxes applicable to
the new base year value reflecting the change in control of the real property
owned by the corporation, partnership, or legal entity (or 10 percent of the
current year's taxes on that property if no change in control occurred). This
~\b .f.I~
PAGE 7
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 82
BILL TEXT
penalty will be added to the assessment roll and shall be collected like any
other delinquent property taxes, and be subject to the same penalties for
nonpayment."
(0) In the case of a corporation, the change in ownership statement shall
be signed either by an officer of the corporation or an employee or agent who
has been designated in writing by the board of directors to sign such
statements on behalf of the corporation. In the case of a partnership or
other legal entity, the statement shall be signed by an officer, partner, or
an employee or agent who has been designated in writing by the partnership or
legal entity.
(d) No person or entity acting for or on behalf of the parties to a
transfer of real property shall incur liability for the consequences of
assistance rendered to the transferee in preparation of any change in
ownership statement, and no action may be brought or maintained against any
such person or entity as a result of such assistance.
Nothing in this section shall create a duty, either directly or by
implication, that such assistance be rendered by any person or entity acting
for or on behalf of parties to a transfer of real property.
(e) The board or assessors may inspect any and all records and documents of
a corporation, partnership or legal entity to ascertain whether a change in
control as defined in paragraph ~ of subdivision tet l!l of Section
64 has occurred. The corporation, partnership, or legal entity shall upon
request, make such documents available to the board during normal business
hours.
SEC. 4. Section 480.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:
480.2. (a) Whenever there is a change in ownership of any corporation,
partnership, or other legal entity, as defined in paragraph 111 of
subdivision tet l!l of Section 64, a signed change in ownership statement
as provided in subdivision (b) shall be filed by such corporation,
partnership, or other legal entity with the board at its office in Sacramento.
The statement shall list all counties in which the corporation, partnership,
or legal entity owns real property.
(b) The change in ownership statement required pursuant to subdivision (a)
shall be declared to be true and under penalty of perjury and shall give such
information relative to the ownership interest acquisition transaction as the
board shall prescribe after consultation with the California Assessors'
Association. The information shall include, but not be limited to, a
description of the property owned by the corporation, partnership, or other
legal entity, the parties to the transaction, the date of the ownership
interest acquisition, and a listing of the "original coowners" of the
corporation, partnership, or other legal entity prior to the transaction. The
change in ownership statement shall not include any question which is not
germane to the assessment function. The statement shall contain a notice that
is printed, with the title in at least 12-point boldface type and the body in
at least 8-point boldface type, in the following form:
"Important Notice"
!l\ b ..'"\ S
PAGE 8
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 82
BILL TEXT
"The law requires any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity
owning real property in California subject to local property taxation and
transferring shares or other ownership interest in such legal entity which
constitute a change in ownership pursuant to subdivision (d) of section 64 of
the Revenue and Taxation Code to complete and file a change in ownership
statement with the State Board of Equalization at its office in Sacramento.
The change in ownership statement must be filed within 45 days from the date
that shares or other ownership interests representing cumulatively more than
50 percent of the total control or ownership interests in the entity are
transferred by any of the original coowners in one or more transactions. The
law further requires that a change in ownership statement be completed and
filed whenever a written request is made therefor by the State Board of
Equalization, regardless of whether a change in ownership of the legal entity
has occurred. The failure to file a change in ownership statement within 4S
days from the date of a written request by the Board of Equalization results
in a penalty of 10 percent of the taxes applicable to the new base year value
reflecting the change in ownership of the real property owned by the
corporation, partnership, or legal entity (or 10 percent of the current year's
taxes on that real property if no change in ownership occurred). This penalty
will be added to the assessment roll and shall be collected like any other
delinquent property taxes, and be subject to the same penalties for
nonpayment...
(c) In the case of a corporation, the change in ownership statement shall
be signed either by an officer of the corporation or an employee or agent who
has been designated in writing by the board of directors to sign such
statements on behalf of the corporation. In the case of a partnership or
other legal entity, the statement shall be signed by an officer, partner, or
an employee or agent who has been designated in writing by the partnership or
legal entity.
(d) No person or entity acting for or on behalf of the parties to a
transfer of real property shall incur liability for the consequences of
assistance rendered to the transferee in preparation of any change in
ownership statement, and no action may be brought or maintained against any
such person or entity as a result of such assistance.
Nothing in this section shall create a duty, either directly or by
implication, that such assistance be rendered by any person or entity acting
for or on behalf of parties to a transfer of real property.
(e) The board or assessors may inspect any and all records and documents of
a corporation, partnership or legal entity to ascertain whether a change in
ownership as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 64 has occurred. The
corporation, partnership, or legal entity shall upon request, make such
documents available to the board during normal business hours.
SEC. ~ Section 480.25 is added to the Revenue and Taxation
Code, to read:
480.25. l!l Whenever there is ~ change in ownership of any
corporation, partnership, or other legal entity, as defined in
paragraph ill of subdivision l!l of Section 64, ~ siqned change in
ownership statement as provided for in subdivision iE1L shall be
3\ \0..4 (p
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 82
BILL TEXT
or other leqal entity with
The statement shall list
- --
partnership, or legal entity
filed ~ the corporation, partnership,
the board at its office in Sacramento.
---- -
all counties in which the corporation,
owns real property.
~ The change in ownership statement ~ required pursuant to
subdivision i!lL shall be declared to be true under penalty of
perjury and shall give that information relative to the ownership
control acquisition transaction !! the board shall prescribe after
consultation with the California Assessors' Association. The
information shall include, but not be limited to, ~ description of
the property owned ~ the corporation, partnership, or other legal
entity, and the date upon which ~ than 50 percent of ownership
interests ~ individually or cumulatively transferred. The change
in ownership statement shall not include any question that is not
germane to the assessment function. The statement shall contain a
notice that is printed, with the title at least 12-point boldface
~ and the body in at least 8-point boldface ~ in the
following form:
"Important Notice"
"The law requires any person ~ leqal entity acquirinq ownership
control in any corporation, partnership, ~ other legal entity
owning real property in California subject to local property
taxation to complete and file ! change in ownership statement with
the State Board of Egualization at its office in Sacramento. The
chanqe in ownership statement must be filed within 45 days from
the date of the change in ownership or control of ! corporation,
partnership, ~ other legal entity. The law further reguires that
~ change in ownership statement be completed and filed whenever ~
written request is made therefor ~ the state Board of
Equalization, reqardless of whether ! chanqe in ownership or control
of the legal entity has occurred. The failure to file ~ change
in ownership statement within 45 days from the date of ~ written
request ~ the State Board of Equalization results in ~ penalty of
10 percent of the taxes applicable to the ~ base year value
reflecting the chanqe in ownership or control of the real property
owned ~ the corporation, partnership, or legal entity (or 10
percent of the current year's taxes on that property if no change
in ownership or control occurred). This penalty will be added to
the assessment roll and shall be collected like any other
delinguent property taxes, and be subject to the same penalties for
nonpayment."
1El In the ~ of ~ corporation, the change in ownership
statement shall be signed either ~ ~ officer of the corporation
~ an employee ~ agent who has been designated in writing ~ the
board of directors to sign those statements 2n behalf of the
corporation. In the ~ of ~ partnership ~ other legal entity,
the statement shall be signed ~ an officer, partner, or an
~\\, ..~1
PAGE 9
PAGE 10
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER, SB 82
BILL TEXT
employee ~ aqent who has been designated in writing ~ the
partnership ~ legal entity.
~ No person or entity acting for or ~ behalf of the parties
to ~ transfer of real property shall incur liability for the
consequences of assistance rendered to the transferee in preparation
of any change in ownership statement, and no action may be brought
~ maintained aqainst any such person ~ entity as ! result of
that assistance.
Nothing in this section shall create ~ duty, either directly or
~ implication, that such assistance be rendered ~ any person or
entity acting for ~ on behalf of parties to ~ transfer of real
property.
1!l The board ~ assessors may inspect any and all records and
documents of ~ corporation, partnership, or legal entity to
ascertain whether ~ change in ownership as defined in paragraph 1!l
of subdivision ~ of Section 64 has occurred. The corporation,
partnership, ~ legal entity shall upon request, make those
documents available to the board during normal business hours.
SEC. ~ The provisions of this act shall ~ to transfers of
shares ~ other ownership interests of ! corporation, partnership,
or ~ legal entity occurring on or after March h 1975, for
purposes of assessments to be made commencing with the 1992-93
assessment year and thereafter.
~axa~ieft eede ~8 ameaded ~e read~
636%T tat Afty er~aft~za~~eft i~e~ed er deeer~Bed ~ft e~Bd~v~e~eft
tBt ~e a eefte~Mer aftd ehaii fte~ Be eefte~dered a re~a~ier w~~h~ft
~he prev~e~efte ef ~h~e par~T ef feed pred~e~eT fteftaieehei~e
Bevera~eeT er e~her ~aft~~Bie pereeftai preper~y Made er pred~eed BY
Members of ~he er~aft~za~ieft providedT howeverT ~ha~ ~he
er~aftizaeieft~e eAiee are made eft aft irreg~%ar or ifteermieeefte essie,
aftd ~ha~ ~he er~aft~za~~eft~e pref~~e freM ~heee eaiee are ~eed
exei~e~veiy ~ft f~r~heraftee ef ~he p~rpeeee ef ~he er~aft~Za~~eftT
t8t Per purposes ef ehie seeeiOftT AergaftizaeioftA ifte%udee any of
~he feiiew~ft~..
tit Afty fteftpref~~ er~aft~za~~eft wh~eh Mee~e aii ef ~he feiiew~ft~
eofte.ieiolUIi1"
tAt ~he er~aft~za~~eft ~~ai~f~ee fer ~ax-exeMp~ e~a~~e ~ftder See~~eft
S9%tet ef ~he %ft~erftai Reveft~e eedeT
tBt ~he ergaftizaeieft~e primary purpose is eo provide a supervised
pre~raM ef eeMpe~~~~ve eper~e fer ye~~hT er ~e preMe~e ~eed
eieizeftship in yeUeftT
tat ~he ergsftizaeioft does nee dieerimiftsee eft ehe basis of raeeT
sex, ftaeiOft4iieYT or reiigioftT
t2t tAt Afty ye~~h ~re~p epefteered BY er aff~i~a~ed w~~h a
~~ai~f~ed ed~ea~~eftai ~fte~~~~~~eftT ~ftei~d~ft~T B~~ fte~ i~M~~ed ~eT afty
e~~deft~ ae~~v~~y ei~BT a~hie~~e ~re~PT er M~e~eai ~re~pT
tBt Per p~rpeeee ef ~h~e eee~~eftT A~~ai~f~ed ed~ea~~eftai
iftseieueioftA means any ef ehe fo%%owiftg1"
t~t Afty p~Bi~e eieMeft~arYT eeeeftdarYT er veea~~eftai-~eehft~eai
eeheei prev~d~ft~ ed~ea~~eft fer k~ftder~ar~eftT ~radee % ~e i2T
~\'e .4'
PAGE 11
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 82
BILL TEXT
*fte~~eiVeT and ee%%e~e ~ftder~rad~a~e pre~raMeT or any par~ ~fteree~T
epe~a~ed 8Y e~a~e e~ ieeai geve~ftmeft~T
tiit Any fteftprefi~ priva~e ed~ea~ieftai ifte~i~~~ieft previdift~
ed~ea~ieft fer kiftde~gar~eftT gradee % ~e iZT ifte%~eiveT aftd ee%%ege
~ftder~rad~a~e pre~raMeT or any par~ ~hereefT ehse meee. efte
requ~remeft~. of efte Sesee Beparemefte ef Ba~eaeieft fer a .ehee~T
ap~iva~e ed~ea~ieftai ifte~i~~~ieftA Meafte afty eft~i~y ~~evidiftg edaea~ieft
whieh .seier!.. efte requiremeftee ef sese. aftd ioeai i4W8 pereaiftiftg
eo privaee ed~eaeiefta% ifteeie~eieft. in effeee eft oaft~ary %T %9997
aftd whieh dees nee dieerimiftaee eft efte easi. of raee7 sex,
fta~ieftaii~YT e~ ~eiigieftT Pe~ ~~~~eeee ef ~he ~~eeediftg eeft~efteeT
aft eft~i~y ehaii fte~ 8e deeMed ~e diee~iMifta~e eft ~he 8aeie ef eex
ift ~he eaee ef afty fteft~~efi~ ~~iva~e eeheei whieh ~~adi~ieftaiiy aftd
eeft~iftaaiiy f~eM i~e ee~a8iiehMeft~T hae had a ~eiiey ef adMi~~iftg
eftiy e~~deft~e ef efte seXT
tat bi~~%e beagaeT Be88Y SexT Bey Seea~eT ea8 Seea~sT 8i~i
8ee~e.T eampfireT %fteT7 ~e~ftg Meft~. ehrieeiaft A.eeeiaeieftT Ye~ftg
Women.. ehrieeiaft A..eeiaeioftT P~e~re Parmer. of AmerieaT P~e~re
Hememakers ef Ameriea, 4-H ei~beT Bi.erib~eive Bd~eaeieft ei~b. of
AMe~ieaT Pa~a~e Baeifteee beade~e ef AMe~ieaT Veea~ieftai fftdae~~iai
eia8e ef AMe~ieaT eeiiegia~e Yeaftg Pa~Me~eT Beye~ eia8eT 8i~ie~
ei~~eT 8peeiai eiympiesT ~fteTT AMerieaft Ye~~h Seeeer er~aftiza~ieftT
eaiiferftia Ye~~h 8eeeer Aeseeia~ieftT Ner~h7 eaiiferftia Ye~~h 8eeeer
Aeeeeia~ieftT Sea~hT aftd Pe~ Wa~fte~ fee~8aiiT
tet Per purposes of ~his eee~ieft7 Airre~~iar er ift~ermi~~eft~A
means aeeeeiaeed direeeiy wieh a pareie~iar eVefteT e~eh as fairsT
~aiae7 parades, eee~e-a-ram8e7 gameST and similar aeeivieiesT ~hae
~e~M ifteiadee ~ef~eehMeft~ e~aftde e~ bee~he ~ha~ a~e a~iiized a~
eehed~ied eveftes of organized ieag~eeT e~e dees nee iftei~de
e~e~ef~eft~ e~ Me8iie ~e~aii ea~ie~e whieh e~difta~iiy ~e~i~e ieeai
b~eiftees iieeftSeST
aBeT iT Neewieheesftdiftg 8eeeioft ~i3e of ehe Reveft~e and ~axaeieft eede, no
apprepriaeioft is made by ehie see aftd ehe eeaee shall ftee reimb~ree any lees!
ageftey fer aay sales and ~ee eax reveft~ee lese by ie under ehie aeeT
SBeT aT ~hie ae~ ~~ev~dee fe~ a ~ax ievy wi~hift ~he Meaftiftg ef A~~ieie fV
ef ehe eefteeie~eieft and shall go iftee immediaee effeeeT
~\o..l\1
THIS PAGE BLANK
~ \\0.. So
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
Legislat,ve No.
Author
T,tle
SB 445
Deddeh
Cost Recovery for Removal of Asbestos
in Public Buildings
Sponsor
League Position
Related Bills
As Introduced
City of San Diego
Support
SB 2748
Status
As Amended
Pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing Date:
Background
Exi sti ng 1 aw provi des statutory 1 imi tati ons and sets forth the time for the
commencement of any ci vil acti on for injury or illness based on exposure to
asbestos. SB 445 would establish a parallel statute for property cases by
allowing governmental entities three years from the time asbestos in their
bui 1 di ngs becomes a s i gnifi cant health hazard to bri ng acti on agai nst the
manufacturers for abatement.
Impact
SB 445 is i denti cal to SB 2748 introduced by Senator Deddeh, supported by
Council and vetoed by the Governor last year. This year's Bill SB 445, would
address the probl em of cost recovery of asbestos abatement in government
buildings. Thousands of government buildings throughout California are filled
with asbestos which was put into the buildings in the 1960's and 1970's. With
the passage of time, asbestos is beginning to be released into the air,
creating huge costs for surveys, monitoring and removal. Eventually, all the
asbestos will have to be removed, permanently stored in toxic dumps, and the
cost will be borne by California tax payers. SB 445 would allow public
agencies to bring civil action to pay for cost of removal and storage against
the manufacturers who sold the asbestos (i.e., within three years after it is
di scovered to be a health hazard). Under exi sti n~ 1 aw manufacturers are
protected by a three year property statute of limitat,on and that statute time
limit begins to run when the asbestos was first put in. This measure applies
to publ ic buildings only and is needed to assist local entities to recovery
the cost incurred by asbestos removal.
'90 Leg Program
Date To Counc,l
Act, on
Letter's) Required
Sec.
N/A
4/23/91
Support
Yes X No
WPC 3640A/0009Y
'a.\b . t;1
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS CONT'D
Legislative No.
AB 445
Title
Cost Recovery for Removal of Asbestos in Public
Buildings
Recommendation
That the Legi sl ative Committee authori ze staff to prepare a 1 etter for the
Mayor's signature in support of SB 445 to be sent to members of the
appropriate legislative committee. SB 445 is identical to SB 2748 supported
by the City Council last year thus requiring no Council action. The Building
and Construction Superintendent has reviewed SB 445 and is in agreement with
staff's recommendation.
WPC 3640A
~\ b . t;2..,
PAGE 1
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 445
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Senator Deddeh
(Principal coauthor: Senator Bergeson)
(Coauthors: Senators Craven and Killea
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Alpert, Bentley, Chacon,
Gotch, Hunter, and Peace)
FEBRUARY 21, 1991
An act to add Section 340.7 to the Code of Civil Procedure,relating to
statutes of limitation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 445, as introduced, Deddeh. Statutes of limitation: action by state.
asbestos.
Existing law provides that the statutory limitations on the time for
bringing actions apply to actions brought in the name of the state or county
or for the benefit of the state or county. Existing law sets forth the time
for the commencement of any civil action for injury or illness based upon
exposure to asbestos. Existing law also provides that the time for
commencement of an action for relief not otherwise specified is within 4 years
after the cause of action has accrued.
This bill would authorize any public entity to bring a civil action against
any manufacturer of asbestos-containing products for damages based upon the
cost of removing or treating materials containing asbestos in buildings or
facilities owned by the public entity, at any time, but in no event later than
3 years from the date the entity knew or reasonably should have known that the
product posed a significant health hazard, as defined, for the occupants of a
building.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
'3' b- li3
PAGE 2
Display 1991-1992 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER. SB 445
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS.
SECTION 1. Section 340.7 is added to the Code of Civil Procedure, to read:
340.7. (a) A civil action brought by any public entity against any
manufacturer of aSbestos-containing products for damages based upon the cost
of removing or treating materials containing asbestos that are located within
any building or facility owned by the public entity may be commenced at any
time, but in no event later than three years from the date the entity knew or
reasonably should have known that the asbestos material posed a significant
health hazard for the occupants of the building. The trier of fact shall
consider the effect of information provided by all sources in determining the
state of the entity's knowledge.
(b) "Significant health hazard" for purposes of this section means a threat
to human health which is not remote in time and not insubstantial in degree.
~\\O..~4