HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1992/09/01
'" declare under penalty of perjury that I ant
employed by the City of Chula Vista in thi
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at
Tuesday, September 1, 1992the pUbl~r~es BUilding and at City H,ell on.. Council Chambers
4:00 p.m. DATED, ;,:I,~ 5"- SIGNED {;,/ 0 ;;I'~ 'Public Services Building
Regular Meeting of the City of Chula Vista City Council
CAlL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CAlL:
Councilmembers Horton _, Malcolm _' Moore _, Rindone _' and Mayor
Nader _
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Special presentation thanking the City for its participation in the "Sunset Cinema" event
scheduled for 8/27/92 and 8/28/92 by Andy Friedenberg, Executive Director of the Visual
Arts Foundation. (Administration)
b. Presentation to Council of recycling achievement awards for City programs presented by
Athena Bradley, Conservation Coordinator. (Administration)
c. Proclaiming October, 1992 as "ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM MONTH:
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 16)
The staff recommendntions regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the
Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the publk or City staff requests
that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please [ill 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 recommendntion; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff
recommendntion.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items and Boards and
Commission Recommendntions. Items pulled by the publk will be the first items of business.
5. WRITfEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
AMENDING SECTIONS 19.14.030, 19.34.020, AND 19.34.030 OF THE
MUNIOPAL CODE RELATING TO THE SALE OF ALCOHOUC BEVERAGES
IN THE COMMEROAL-NEIGHBORHOOD (C-N) ZONE (second reading and
adoption) . On 4/21/92, Council directed staff to return with a proposed
ordinance outlining an application procedure for alcohol sales in the C.N
zone. The procedure would require approval by the City and input by the
Police Department, with approval being subsequently placed on the consent
calendar for Council action. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on
second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning)
6.
ORDINANCE 2526
Agenda
-2-
September 1, 1992
7. ORDINANCE 2527 APPROVING PCZ-92-A: PREZONING TO P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY
(PCZ-92-A) AND TIlE P-C DISTRICT REGULATION AMENDMENTS FOR
TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN
(second readin~ and adoption) - The development proposal calls for a
private, gate-guarded community involving a maximum of 350 single
family lots, plus two private recreation areas, two community purpose
facility sites, and over 20 acres of open space on 112 acres. The
unincorporated property is located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon
Road directly east of Otay Lakes Lodge Mobile Home Park and directly
south of EastLake Shores. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on
second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning)
8. ORDINANCE 2528 AMENDING CHAPTER 5.20 AND SECTION 5.07.030 OF TIlE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CARDROOMS (second readin~ and
adoption) - On 7/21/92, Council conducted a public hearing regarding a
series of proposed amendments to Section 5.20 of the Municipal Code, the
Cardroom ordinance. Pursuant to said public hearing, staff was directed
to prepare for further consideration six specific modifications to the
Cardroom ordinance. On 8/25/92, Council considered and amended
Ordinance 2528 at its first reading. Staff recommends Council place
ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Chief of Police)
9.A RESOLUTION 16792 APPROVING CONTINUATION OF PUBUC OUfREACH CAMPAIGN IN
SUPPORT OF TIlE MANDATORY RECYCUNG ORDINANCE AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS TIlEREFOR - Last Spring, staff hired a temporary,
part-time intern to assist in the initial implementation of the mandatory
enforcement program. Although participation in the residential curbside
recycling program has increased significantly, over 250 enforcement rags
have been left on residential trash receptacles. To assist with continued
outreach on recycling as well as to assist with promotion and enforcement
for additional phases of mandatory recycling, staff requests continued
funding of an intern for twelve hours a week through June 1993 and
additional promotional material development funding. Staff recommends
approval of the resolutions. (Administration) 4/5th's vore required.
B. RESOLUTION 16793 AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 BUDGET TO ADD A TEMPORARY
POSITION IN UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE IN TIlE WASTE MANAGEMENT
AND RECYCUNG UNIT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS TIlEREFOR - 4/5th's
vore required.
10. RESOLUTION 16794 APPROVING SDG&E RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA
FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING TOWER - The Fire Department's new
training tower, located on Paseo Ranchero in the Rancho del Rey
community, is currently under construction. The facility's driveway crosses
an SDG&E easement. This resolution will approve a right-of-way use
agreement intended to ensure SDG&E access to the said easement. The
agreement is patterned after similar documents executed by the City. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Fire Chief)
Agenda
-3-
September 1, 1992
11. RESOLUTION 16795 APPROVING AND AUTIlORIZING EXECUTION OF THE FIRST AMENDED
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT WITH JOELEN ENrERPRISES
FOR THE NEGOTIATION OF A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR A PROPOSED GOLF RESORT HOTEL . In June 1990, the
City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for development of City-owned
property adjacent to the Municipal Golf Course. On 4/23/91, Council
directed staff to prepare an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with
Joelen Enterprises for development of a golf resort hotel. Council also
requested Joelen Enterprises to prepare a market feasibility study to submit
with the proposed ENA. The original deadline of 120 days for these two
items was extended by Council to November 1991. On 11/26/91, a
Preliminary Market Feasibility Study was accepted by Council and an ENA
was approved. The ENA was for a period of 120 days (through 4/8/92)
with the City Manager authorized to extend by 60 days. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Community Development)
12. RESOLUTION 16796 APPROVING THE HOME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND AUTIlORIZING
ITS SUBMITTAL TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT - The City will receive $748,000 of HOME funds from the
federal government, and the Redevelopment Agency has allocated an
additional $2,000 to the program. The HOME program description must
include the estimated use of HOME funds for a variety of housing activities
which benefit low-income households. In its HOME program description,
the City is targeting new construction of rental and for-sale housing,
acquisition of rental housing for very-low income households, and home
ownership opportunities. With only a few exceptions, the City may amend
its HOME program description without HUD approval, if the City later finds
that it is necessary to do so. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Community Development)
13. RESOLUTION 16797 FORGMNG A LOAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBUC STREET IN
THE VIONI'IY OF BRANDYWINE AVENUE AND OTAY VALLEY ROAD IN
THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECf AREA CONTINGENT UPON
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICf - On 10/28/86, Council approved an agreement
with Weriden Development Company and Mrs. Helen Cushman for the
construction of Shinohara Lane to provide access to a parcel owned by Mrs.
Cushman. Said property is zoned for industrial development. The
agreement stipulated that Weriden Development Company construct the
street and that the developer and Mrs. Cushman each pay for one-half of
the cost of the street ($57,000 each). The street has been constructed; and
Cardon-Meadow Development Corporation, successors to the Weriden
Development Company, has paid its half of the cost to the City. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development
Director and Director of Public Works)
14. RESOLUTION 16798 APPROVING THE O'IY OF CHULA VISTA'S UPDATE OF FEDERAL
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAPS - The Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1973 required the use of functional highway classification to update and
modify the Federal-Aid highway systems. This legislative requirement is
still effective today and is part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act OSTEA) of 1991. The functional classification of roads in
Chula Vista has not been updated for a considerable period of time. The
normal procedure is for the City to request CalTrans to change the
functional classification as part of an ongoing process or to add new roads
to the system as they are built. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works)
Agenda
-4-
September 1, 1992
15. RESOLUTION 16799 AMENDING SCHEDULE III OF TI-IE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 10.52.280 TO PROHIBIT PARING AT ALL TIMES ON PORTIONS
OF MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE AND NORTJ-J FOURTJ-J AVENUE - In order
to minimize traffic hazards and congestion, and to allow for the installation
of a right turn lane on North Fourth Avenue and bicycle lanes on Medical
Center Drive, parking prohibitions on these streets should be authorized by
resolution. A review of trial traffic regulations initiated by the City
Engineer under the authority of the Municipal Code show that these
regulations are operating effectively and should be made permanent. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
16. RESOLUTION 16800 APPROVING TI-IE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF BONITA ROAD AND A
PORTION OF OTAY LAKES ROAD TO CONDUCT TI-IE BONITAFEST
PARADE - The Bonitafest Committee and its sponsoring organization, the
Bonita Business and Professional Association (BBP A), is requesting
permission to conduct the Bonitafest event on Saturday, 9/26/92. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks & Recreation)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBJJC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items hove been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak
to any item, please ft1I 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 staff recommendation; complete the pink form
to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individuaL
None submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the Council's
jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the City Council from
taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a
subjec~ please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communkations Form" available in the lobby
and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address
for record purposes and follow up action. Your lime is limited to three minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are erpected 10 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 Ihe altemative. Those who wish to speak, please ful out
a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior 10 the meeting. Public
comments are limited to five minutes.
None submitted.
Agenda
-5-
September 1, 1992
ITEMS PULLED FROM TIlE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items whU:h have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda
items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to /hilse pulled by CounciImembers. Public
comments are limited to five minutes per individuaL
OTIIER BUSINESS
17. O'IY MANAGER'S REPORT(S)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
18. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
19. COUNOL COMMENTS
Councilwoman Horton:
a. Forming a local enterprize zone in the Southwest Project Area.
Councilman Malcolm:
b. A letter of opposition from the Mayor to Governor Wilson regarding cruise ships with
gambling being prohibited from stopping at more than one city port.
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(a) - Settlement of Otay Valley
Lawsuit - Siroonian vs. City of Chula Vista
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. Otay
Municipal Water Disttict.
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on September
8, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the
City Council Meeting.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
DATE:
August 28, 1992
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council.
John D. Goss, ci ty Manager'~Yi ~ ~\
Athena Lee Bradley, Conservation Coordinator
VIA:
FROM:
RE:
Recycling Achievement Awards Presentation
The city of Chula vista recently received two awards for its
comprehensive recycling efforts. Staff accepted these awards on
behalf of the city and would now like to present them to city
Council.
The California Resource Recovery Association (C.R.R.A.) selected
Chula vista for its outstanding Government Leadership Award.
C.R.R.A. is the only statewide recycling organization in
California; its membership is comprised of public sector employees,
waste haulers, industry representatives and various environmental
organizations.
Chula vista was also the recipient of the California Department of
Conservation Recycling Merit Award for outstanding recycling
achievement in the public sector. Both awards reflect the City's
leadership in developing comprehensive recycling and waste
reduction programs, including: citywide curbside recycling for all
single-family residents; the Business Recycling Outreach Project,
for development of commercial and industrial recycling; Recycling
Education proj ect and other outreach efforts; Home Composting
Project; and, establishing mandatory recycling for residents and
businesses.
t/b "I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEMk
MEETING DATE 9/01/92
ITEM ~ITLE: Proclamation - Proclaiming the Month of October 1992 as
"ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM MONTH"
SUBMITTED BY:
Mayor Tim Nad~~f
(4/STBS VOTE: YES NO xx
- -
The proclamation declaring the month of October 1992 as "ENVIRONMENTAL
FORUM MONTH" will be presented by Mayor Nader to Mr. Terrill Burdick,
Assistant Coordinator of Environmental Forums '92.
Ljc-J
n , ~,~ ~
-"'------------
\"
,
,
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 27, 1992
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manage~
City Council Meeting of September I, 1992
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council
meeting of Tuesday, September I, 1992. There are no Written Communications on
this agenda.
GK:mab
COUNcn AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
Item k'1;
Meeting Date~~ ft:L
Public Hearing: Amendment to the Municipal Code,
PCA-92-03 - Consideration of an amendment to the
Municipal Code to require a conditional use permit for O~
sales of alcoholic beverages in the CoN zone - City ~d~
~~O
OriHnance ~ 1$ ""t. Adopting P~
~ de CO~O
Director of Planning / ~-c >>>'i).
City Manager &~Io (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoJl)
R'" Council Referral No. 2626
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
On April 21, 1992, in consideration of a report on alcohol sales facilities in CoN
Neighborhood Commercial zones, the City Council directed staff to return with a
proposed ordinance outlining an application procedure for alcohol sales in the CoN
zone which would require approval by the City and input by the Police Department,
with approval being subsequently placed on the consent calendar for the Council's
next regularly scheduled meeting. In response to this direction, a draft Code
amendment was prepared.
This item was continued from the City Council meeting of August 25, 1992, at the
request of the City Attorney in order to refine the proposed amendment language to
clarifY what factors would be considered in determining whether or not an
"overconcentrated" condition exists. Although the language has been modified
somewhat, its substance has not changed, and thus we do not believe it is necessary
to return the amendment to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed
amendment is exempt from environmental review as a minor alteration in land use,
in accordance with Section 15305 Class 5 of the CEQA guidelines, or Class 5F of the
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt PCA-92-03.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On July 22, 1992, the Planning
Commission voted 4-2 to recommend that Council adopt the ordinance.
jJr~ ?- /
Page 2, lte~
Meeting Date ~ :;0.2.
DISCUSSION:
Concern about alcohol sales in the CoN zone was raised by Council in conjunction
with a zoning text amendment and conditional use permit application by Texaco to
redevelop an existing service station at 1498 Melrose Avenue by adding a car wash
and mini-market with sales of beer and wine. Several surrounding business owners
and residents expressed opposition to Texaco's proposal based in part on what they
perceived as an over-concentration of alcoholic sales facilities and the resulting
impact on crime in the area. The City Council called the Texaco application forward
on appeal and, at the applicant's request, delayed the matter until after the
resolution of the alcohol issue.
The earlier staff report on the alcohol sales issue favored continued reliance on the
review procedures of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (please see
attached for a copy of the April 21, 1992, report to Council). A local process, however,
would provide an additional degree of oversight and control which is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the C-N zone to provide for convenience goods and services
within residential neighborhoods in a mAnner which is compatible and
complementary to the surrounding residents.
The proposed ordinance provides for a Zoning Administrator conditional use permit
with a public hearing which provides notification of residents located within 300' of
the project for all new alcohol sales facilities in the CoN zone. In addition to the
normal findings required for a CUP, and in consultation with the Police Department,
the Zoning Administrator would also be required to find that the facility would not
. result in an overconcentration of such facilities in the neighborhood. The City
Council would be informed of the Zoning Administrator's decision, and the Council
or other interested party, could appeal the matter directly to the City Council for
public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT: Undetermined. There is no compensation proposed for the staff
time and public hearing costs associated with Council initiated appeals.
WPC 1': \HOME\PLANNING\0422p
~ ?-tA
,-
ATTACHMENT
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
..
Item
Meeting Dlt, ./21/92
-ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
.
PCM.gZ.14: Alcohol Slles Flcilities in C-N Zones
Director of Pllnning
Chief of Police
REYIEVED BY:
City Mlnlger
(4/Sths Yote: Y's~o-1-)
touncil Referral No. 1A!1
.
On Februlry II, 1992, Council directed the Pllnning Deplrtment, with
assistlnce from the Police Department and input from the Stlte Department of
'Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), to prepare I report and r,colllllendat ion on
the number of alcohol sales facilities that should be allowed within CoN
(Neighborhood Commercial) zones. Some concern has Ilso been expressed with
concurrent sales of 9asoline and Ilcohol, particularly within the C.N zone.
This report Iddresses both issues.
RECOftIENDATION: That Council not Idopt any local standards with respect to
the concentration or concurrent sales of alcohol, but rlther continue to rely
on the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control process Ind procedures
to regulate the establishment of Ilcohol sales flcilities in the C.N zone.
JOARDS/COItIISSIONS RECOItIENDATION: The Council directed that the report be
returned for its consideration prior to consideration by the Planning
COlllllission.
DISCUSSION:
These issues came to the Council's attention because of neighborbood
opposition to I pending conditional use permit application by Texaco to
redevelop In existing service station by Idding I car wash Ind mini.market
(with alcohol sales) at the northwest corner of Orange and Melrose Avenue.
The opposit ion centers around traffic issues and concern with I perceived
over.concentration of alcohol sales facilities in what is thought to be I high
crime area. Council has called the Texaco Ipplicltion forward on appeal and
will hear the matter following resolution of the issues discussed in this
report.
The C-N zone presently permits liquor stores (off.sale) IS I .atter of right,
but prohibits on-slle flcilities such IS blrs and cocktail lounges. A
restlurant with on,slle liquor requires a conditionll use permit. The slle of
gasoline is not permitted IS a matter of right in any zone, but requires I
conditionll use permit in all commercial or industrial zones, including the
C-N zone. A car wash is allowed by conditionll use permit in the C.N zone IS
. result of . recently Ipproved ordinlnce.
Texaco was required to fil. for I conditionll use permit because of its
proposal to redevelop the property (modification of an existing conditional
use), Ind Idd a clr wash. As noted Ibove, I mini.market with or without
liquor sales is presently permitted IS I matter of rjght Ind would not have
independently required I CUP.
~~-J
,
.
'Ige 2. Itell
Meeting Oat. ./21/92
Ov.r.~ant@ntrlt1on of liouor flc1'1t1~s in the C.N ~on.
Stat. law .akes the issuance of I license for premises to engage in the sale
of Ilcoholic beverages the function of ABC. not cities. The Stat.'s control
of the field, however, is not exclusive of 111 City interests. A City .ay
prohibit Ilcohol slles in I particular zone, or .ay require I conditional use
permit. and the ABC is obligated to honor these local zoning provisions. In
addition to a complete ban within I zone, I valid zonini ordinance could allow
off-sale facilities subject to legitimate "police power requirements, such as
reasonable anti-concentration provisions similar to those applicable to "adult
usis" (distance requirements from residential, school, park. church,
playground, or other such uses).
,
A r.presentative of ABC .et with staff to describe its licensing process. The
ABC evaluates a Hcense app11catlon based upon the lIoral character of the
applicant, general locatlonal factors such IS zoning, and Rule 61.3 which
involves the issue of "over-concentration" in "high crime areas." The
applicant may not be a felon or a habitual drunk. Police officers and liquor
wholesalers are also prohibited from holding a Hcense. Additionally, the
source of funds for the proposed facility is investigated to ensure that the
Ictual owner is not one of the above.
The app11cant is instructed to contact the City Planning Department, obtain
information as to the specific zoning at the premises, as well as City
requirements for alcohol sales in that zone, and report the information back
to the ABC. If the City requires a conditional use permit for the sale of
alcoholic beverages, the ABC Immediately suspends investigation of the license
application until provided proof that the CUP has been granted. If the City
does not permit alcohol sales in that zone, ABC would strictly adhere to the
City's requirements and deny the application.
ABC also has its own locational criteria. These provide that off-sale
premises shall not be located closer than 200 ft. to a residence, church,
school or playground. If the applicant can cite reasons of public convenience
and necessity and no adverse impact on the neighborhood, the requirement may
be .odlfied. ABC exercises its discretion so"that a lic.nse to sell alcohol
will not be grant.d within 100 ft. of I sensitive land us. if .a
reSident/property owner objects. Hate: notices of the license application
are .al'ed by the applicant (and confirmed by affidavit to ABC) to all
properties within SOO ft. of the site, and these property owners are given 30
days within which to protest the issuance of the license.
A spec tal circumstance exists when an application falls within a "Rule 61.3"
area. These areas exhibit what ABC defines as an over-concentration of
alcohol sales facilities combined with a high crime rate. The area of
atasurement is the census tract. An over-conc.ntrltion of lic.nses (this is
figured separately for on-sale and off-salt facilities) occurs when the ratio
of licenses to population for the census tract exceeds the ratio for the
County IS a whole. A high crime rate census tract is one which exhibits a
crime rat. 2~ or greater than the average crime rate for the City as a whole.
fl-Jf ~ -1
-
.
'Ige 3. Itell
Meeting Date ./21/91
A copy of .11 appl1cations is forwarded to the Pol1ce Department and City
Council (vii the City Clerk) for review and comment. If a license application
is within I Rule 61.3 area (the over-concentration Ind high cri.. rate
statistics are predetermined Ind on file at ABC for use in scr.ening
applications). the ABC will .lert local authorities. This is done by notation
on the application. IS well IS by a follow-up telephone call to the Police
Department to .nsur. that these particular Ippl1cations Ir. not overlooked Ind
thus receive the Ippropriate scrutiny.
A Rrotest by local authorities w111 result in an investigation by ABC. This
'includes I ~eeting with the Police Department to determine if the issue(s) can
be resolved by way of ABC-imposed condItions on the license. Examples of such
conditions could be I limItation on hours or I restriction on the size of
Ilcohol containers (see Ittached ~emo Ind example protest letter from the
Police Department).
If the issue(s) cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of local luthorities,
ABC w111 deny the application for, the license, 'Ind the Ipplicant is entitled
to an administratIve hearing. Bued on the evidence, the hearing officer
could recommend that ABC either issue or deny the permit. , According to the
Police Department, however, I license would likely not be issued over its
protest.
{he site at Orange and Melrose Avenues is within I census tract where the
optimum number of licenses is eIght and the number of licenses already issued
is eight. Therefore, the issuance of I license to Texaco would exceed the
optimum number and result in an .over-concentrated" condition. However, the
Irea is not I high crime area, and consequently does not fall under Rule 61.3
(whIch involves over-concentratIon ~ a high crime rate). Although the City
could still Object and force a hearing as noted earlier. the Police Department
reports that it does not foresee a problem with the issuance of I license to
the Texaco mini-market, and it does not recommend that the City protest
license issuance in this case.
In conclusion, the City would appear to have three options with respect to
alcohol ..les in the CoN zone: (1) totally prohibit Ilcohol ..les in the
lone, which would raise the issue of creating I significant number of
nonconforming alcohol sales facilities which presently exist in CoN lones; (2)
require . conditional use permit Ind Inalyze each Ipplication on a
case-by-case buis, or (3) continue to rely on the existing ABC process Ind
procedures.
The staff recommendation is to continue to rely on the 'ABC proc.ss. There
does not appear to be a problem with Ilcohol sales in the CoN lone. Alcohol
is . convenience item which is normally Ivaillble in all convenience .arkets,
.nd convenience markets .re the ~ainstay of the CoN lone. Also, the ABC
process involves notice Ind opportunity for input/objection from the
surrounding neighbors IS well as from the City Council Ind Police Department.
An .nalysis of concentration of facilities and crime rate is Ilso part of the
ABC process to assist the Police Department in identifying potenthl problem
locations. '
...-
~,,?
.
.
.
'age 4. Ite.
Neeting Oat. ./21/92
~antupr.nt 11'.1 Df .'eoho' and Glso'ine
The issue of concurr.nt sales of alcohol and gasoline has been raised by many
localities sinc. the advent of the mini-market in the mid 1570's. Although it
is probably fair to say that the vast majority of alcohol purchases are made
in conjunction with an automobile trip .. whether that be to the grocery
store, liquor store. or mini-market .. to some observers there appears to be
-something inherentlyunsett11ng about purchasing liquor and gas at the lime
ti... .
Thi City Attorney reports that attempts by municipaliti.s to control or
prohibit the concurrent 111. of liquor and gaso11ne result.d. in 19B7, in a
'.Ilelll State lalll (Business and Professions Code Section 23750.5) which makes it
clear that a local ordinance totally prohibiting the concurrent sal. of beer
and wine for off-premise consumption and motor vehicle fuel. where those uses
are otherwise lawful in the same zone, is prohibited by State law.
The City Attorney further reports that the law would not prohibit a city from
requiring a conditional use permit for concurrent Illes if the standard by
which the conditional use permit is granted, denied or conditioned constitutes
an appropriate health, safety. or general welfare standard, and the ordinance
contains specified due process provisions. Thus, if the denial or conditional
approval of a conditional use permit is based on some articulated health,
IIfety or general welfare standard other than a blanket prohibition against
concurrent sale. the ordinance could survive legal challenge.
Although the City could therefore adopt a conditional use permit process to
address the Issue of concurrent sales on a case-by-case basis, according to
both the Police Department and ABC, there is no dlscernable connection between
the concurrent sale of alcohol and gasoline and the incidence of driving under
the influence, traffic accidents, or any other health or safety issue. As
noted above, the purchase of alcohol is generally associated with an
automobile trip, and the purchase of !Iasollne is only incidental to the
process .
In conclusion, the staff recolllllendation is not to pursue a conditional use
permit process for concurrent sales. Any potential problem with respect to
alcohol sales, whether it be in an independent or concurrent sales context,
appears to be adequately addressed through the existing ABC process.
fISCAl IMPACT: Hone.
IIPC 0231 p
.
~t-~
---.---- -..---'
EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 21. 1992
28. REPORT - PCM-92014: ALCOHOL SALES PAOU1lES IN NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCAl. (c.N) ZONES. On 2111192, Council directed the Planning Deparunent, with assistance from
the Police Deparunent and input from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), to prepare
a repon and recommendation on the number of alcohol sales facUities that should be allowed within a c.N
zone. Some concern has also been expressed with concurrent sales of psoline and alcohol, particularly
within a CoN zone. Therepon addresses both issues. Staff recommends Council not adopt any local
standards with respect to the concentration or concurrent sales of alcohol, but continue to rely on the State
Deparunent of Alcoholic Beverage Control process to regulate the establishment of alcohol sales facilities
in the c.N zone. (Director of Planning)
Mayor Nader returned at 7:16 p.m.
MonON: (Nader) to forward the item to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation..
Motion died for lack of second.
Councilman Malcolm stated he had some problems with too many alcoholic beverage sale locations. He
thought a more proper procedure might be for Council to receive a copy of a new application in their
Council packet so they would have a chance to review it to determine whether or not any action should be
taken. He would rather see an ordinance that would allow Council to deny gas stations or additional fast
service stores from locating where there were already too many, if Council deemed it appropriate.
Mayor Nader stated that at the minimum. he would want input from the Police Deparunent.
Councilman Malcolm responded that the Police Department and Administration were already involved.
Councilman Rindone said he had 'a concern with the proposal because that was getting the policy making
function of the Council into the administration of the City. He thought what they should do was set policy
but not place themselves where they were administratively reviewing cenain segments of the City when It
reached a cenain threshold. He said it needed to be established by policy and reponed to Council by stalf.
Councilman Malcolm pointed out that he was just referring to the CoN zone.
Coilncilwoman Grasser Honon felt that the staff repon pretty much addressed Council's concerns.
Councilman Malcolm responded that he did not want to wait until the surrounding neighborhood had a
problem, but to look into the future and be proactive venus reactive. '
MSUC ~ader/Malcolm) to refer to sta!f' to dewlop an ordinance to bring before CouncIl far IleariDa and
consideration which would provide that when there is an application to sell alcohol in c.N lODe, It would
be wbject to approval of the City and specifically of the Police Depanment and that wch approvals would
be placed on the Consent Calendar of the following City Council meeting.
.
~-r ~-?
UNOFFICIAL MENUTES
EXCERPI' FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTI.S OF 7121192
ITEM 3:
PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-92-03 - CONSIDERATION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE A
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT FOR SALES OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES IN THE C-N ZONE - City Initiated
Senior Planner Griffin stated that in response to the City Council's request, staff was proposing
an ordinance which would require a Zoning Administrator conditional use permit with public
hearings for all such facilities. In addition to the normal findings required for a conditional use
permit, the ordinance would also require the Zoning Administrator to find that any additional
facility would not result in an over concentration of alcohol sales in a particular area. The
ordinance would allow the Zoning Administrator's decision to be appealed directly to the City
Council. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission endorse the ordinance as shown in
Exhibit A to the staff report.
Commissioner Decker asked if a decision of the Zoning Administrator could be appealed to the
Planning Commission if desired by the applicant. Senior Planner answered that the intent was
to have the appeal process go directly from the Zoning Administrator to the City Council. It
would not be an option of the applicant to appeal to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Decker asked that the wording on page 3-7 of the ordinance be changed from
"may" to "shall". Assistant City Attorney Rudolf explained that the applicant was not being
required to appeal; it was the intent of the ordinance for the decision of the Zoning
Administrator to be final unless appealed to the Council. Commissioner Decker concluded then
that the applicant could appeal to the Planning Commission if desired. Assistant Attorney
Rudolf stated that the intent was to not allow an appeal directly to the Planning Commission and
give a double review.
Senior Planner Griffm concurred that the language caused it to appear optional, and it could be
clarified. Mr. Griffm said that if the Commission wished, the language could be clarified.
Commissioner Martin, referencing page 3-6, was concerned with the paragraph stating "there
was no disceT7UJble connection between the concurrent sale of alcohol and gasoline and the
incidents of driving under the i1!f1uence...." At a Planning Commissioners' meeting in
Monterey, they had been told the opposite. Commissioner Martin was interested in how the
Police Department had been asked about this. Mr. Griffin answered that the Police Department
and ABC's point was that there was no coMection between the fact that alcohol was available
at a mini-market which also sold gasoline and the incidents of driving under the influence.
Commissioner Martin was concerned with that logic. In answer to Mr. Martin's query, Mr.
Griffin said the question and issue was discussed very directly with the Police Department, and
they said there was no coMection.
Chair Casillas said he, too, was concerned with that language and had met with the Chief of
Police and two Lieutenants. After a discussion with them, he was satisfied that the Police
jU ~-fr
Department would review applications for licenses thoroughly, the statistics in the area, and the
concentration of licenses in a particular area. He supported the proposal.
Commissioner Tuchscher felt the ABC was doing a good job, and this was redundant. He saw
a real bottleneck in the system in that before the ABC would investigate whether a license would
be allowed, the applicant would have to have a CUP in hand. That would mean a considerable
amount of time and money spent in going through the process of getting a CUP before even
applying to the ABC. He felt a tremendous amount of time would be added to the process, and
another layer of bureaucracy. He did not support the ordinance.
Chair Casillas explained that the process the Police Department would go through was essentially
the process the ABC would go through. If the Police Department of the City felt it may not be
appropriate for the ABC to grant the license, they would register their comment. Chair Ca.i11a.
felt that in all likelihood the ABC would not grant the license.
Commissioner Fuller asked if that was not part of the ABC process-they work with the Police
Department in this. She reiterated the options listed in the staff report, one of which was to
continue to rely on the ABC process. Commissioner Tuchscher, reading from the staff report,
said the ABC process involved notice and opportunity for input/objection from the surrounding
neighbors as well as the City Council and Police Department. He hoped they would do that,
and felt very comfortable that the ABC would listen to the City and, if there was an objection,
to not grant the license.
Senior Planner Griffin clarified that the report referred to was background information which
had previously been sent to Council. It was Council's direction to prepare an ordinance, and
staff's recommendation at this time was to adopt an ordinance as shown in Exhibit A. Mr.
Griffin believed Council's feeling was that the Zoning Administrator process with the public
hearing would allow a locally based hearing for the surrounding residents which would be more
personal, more customized.
Chair Casillas felt the ABC could use any assistance the community could give them, since they
were cutting back in personnel. Commissioner Tuchscher said he understood it was taking the
ABC as much as six months to issue a license and the applicant is in a holding pattern. If we
required a CUP process prior to that, Mr. Tuchscher felt there would be another three or four
months added. Senior Planner Griffin said the Zoning Administrator process would probably
be finalized within one month. If it was appealed on, it could add an additional three weeks to
a month. If the Zoning Administrator's decision was not appealed, it would be about a one-
month process. Commissioner Tuchscher did not feel the ordinance was necessary; he felt input
was important; that if the Council was not currently noticed with regard to ABC applicant, they
should be; that the Police Department should take the notices seriously. He did not feel the
system needed more layers.
Commissioner Martin believed it was not smart to sell alcohol and gasoline at the same time.
He did not have a problem with the layers of bureaucracy.
~ &.-<}
In re.....,onse to Commissioner Decker's previous question, beginning with "The decision of the
Zoning Administrator may be appealed," Assistant City Attorney Rudolf suggested the following
(as underlined): "The decision o/the Zoning Administrator may be appealed.. SUl:h appeal WJll
. ll&. directly to the City Council rather than to the Planning Commission, and must be filed within
10 tkrys qfter the decision is filed with the City Cleric." Mr. Rudolf felt that would clarify the
ambiguity Mr. Decker found.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Norm Ross, 380 Parkway, Chula Vista 91910 said he had been through the process of applying
for a beer and wine license. He concurred with Commissioner Tuchscher that it took six to nine
months to get a license of any type, and that the ABC does a thorough job. Mr. Ross said that
if he understood the proposed ordinance correctly, everyone would need a conditional use permit
to sell liquor in a CoN zone, including restaurants, etc. that did not sell gasoline. He felt that
would be unfair. He suggested the Commission simply state that liquor and gasoline could not
be sold at the same time.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MSC (DeckerIFuUer) 4-2 (Comml~~loners Carson and Tuchscber voted alainst) to
recommend that the City Council accept the amendment to the Municipal Code as
published in Exhibit A, and as amended by the City Attorney.
~ ~-It/
RESOLUTION NO. PCA-92-03
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE
ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 19.14.030,
19.34.020 AND 19.34.030 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1992, after consideration of a report on
alcohol sales facilities in CoN Neighborhood Commercial zones (ref:
PCM-92-I4), the City Council directed staff to return with an ordinance
establishing an application procedure for alcohol sales in the CoN zone, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing
on said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at
least ten days prior to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised,
namely 7:00 p.m., July 22, 1992, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the
amendments are exempt from environmental review as a minor alteration in land
use, in accordance with Section 15305 Class 5 of the CEQA Guidelines, or Class
SF of the City of Chu1a Vista Environmental Procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED AT THE
HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends the adoption of amendments to
Title 19 of the Municipal Code as listed in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 22nd day of July 1992, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Fuller, Casillas, Decker and Martin
NOES: Commissioners Carson and Tuchscher
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
~ rl:"~~
N cy Ri ey, Setret y
WPC 0427p
~ ,,-//
Exhibit A
Chapter 19.34
C-N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE
19.34.020 Permitted uses
I. 1.1tfUer S~ere (,se)[a,a, eft 8a1e ePlly) I
19.34.030 Conditional uses.
~ Establishments contained in the list of ~ermitted uses above.
but which include the sale of alcoholic beveraaes for off-site
use or consunrotion. in aecordance with the nrocedures in
Section 19.14.0~O:
~ Liauor store (n8ckaae. off sale onlv\. in accordance with the
nrocedures in Section 19.14.030.
Chapter 19.14
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, CONDITIONAL USES AND VARIANCES
19.14.030 Zoning administrator-Actions authorized without public
hearing.
A. Conditional use permit: The zoning administrator shall be
empowered to issue conditional use permits, as defined herein,
in the following circumstances:
~ Establishments that include the sale of alcoholic
beveraaes for off-site use or consu1!\Dtion. located in the
C-N zone. The zonina administrator shall hold a ~ublic
hearina in accordance with Sections 19.14.060-19.14.090
UDon aivina notice thereof in accordance with Sections
19.12.070-19.12.080. A conditional use nermit shall not
be aranted unless the Zonina Administrator finds. based
on substantial evidence in view of the whole record. that
all of the facts reauired bv Section 19.14.080 exist. and
'that annroval of t.he nermit. will not r8sult in an
overconcentration of such facilit.ies in the neiahborhood.
The Police Denartment shall ~estifv at t.he hearina
reaardina the overconcentration issue. The cit.y Council
shall be informed of the decision on each such nermit by
the city Clerk when the decision is filed in accordance
with Section 19.14.090. The decision of t.he Zonina
Administrator maY be Annealed. Such anneal .hall be
direct Iv to the city Council. rather than the Plannina
Commission. and must be filed within ten days after the
decision is filed with the city Clerk. as nrovided in
Section 19.14.100. If annealed within the time limit.
~ ~-/:;.,
.0
said 8l:)Deal shall be con
conducted bv the City cou~~~~~edini~ A lJublic htearina
other anneals Dursuant to Sect! he same manner as
19.14.130. e~ce'Ot that the Counci ons 19.14.120 and
writ~en find1nas reauired of t 1 must make the same
here1n. in order to arant the n:~i~~nina Administrator
~ J, -'1.3
"
.'
TInS PAGE BlANK
~ ~-)r
,
tJ~ v
~,.~ f\l\l
OiO\ \~ (}.fJt'V ORDINANCE NIJ. ,25;.P O\\O~
ft \ "..00'"
~~y~ ~or
~r ~ ~t'I
'it" ~ (J AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ~HUL ~ AMENDING
pc SECTIONS 19.14.030, 19.34.020 AND . . 0 OF THE CHULA
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELA TO THE SALE OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON THE C-N ZONE
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1992, after consideration of a report on alcohol sales facilities
in C-N Neighborhood Commercial zones (ref. PCM-92-14), the City Council directed staff to
return with an ordinance establishing an application procedure for alcohol sales in the C-N zone;
and
WHEREAS, the amendments provide for a Zoning Administrator conditional use permit
with a public hearing for all new alcohol sales facilities in the C-N zone; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the normal findings required for a conditional use permit, and
in consultation with the Police Department, the amendments would require the Zoning
Administrator to find that the facility would not result in an overconcentration of such facilities
in the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the amendments provide that the City Council would be informed of the
Zoning Administrator's decision, and the Council or other interested party, could appeal the
permit directly to the City Council for public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the amendments
are exempt from environmental review as a minor alteration in land use, in accordance with
Section 15305 Class 5 of the CEQA Guidelines, or Class 5F of the City of Chula Vista
Environmental Review Procedures.
THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as
follows:
SECTION I: That Section 19.14.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Chapter 19.14
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, CONDmONAL USES AND VARIANCES
19.14.030 Zoning administrator-Actions authorized without public hearing.
The zoning administrator is authorized to consider and to approve, disapprove or modify
applications on the following subjects, and/or issue the following required permits without setting
the matter for a public hearing:
'-I
Ordinance No. __
Page 2
1.
Where the use to be permitted does not involve the cons
building or other substantial structural improvements
question.
ction of a new
the property in
A. Conditional use permit: The zoning administrator shall be empow
conditional use permits, as defined herein, in the following circums
2.
Where the use requiring the permit would
building and does not involve substantial rem
use of an existing
. g thereof.
3.
For signs, as defined herein, and tempo
herein.
as limited
4.
The zoning administrator is authorized
or modify applications for conditio
circuses. The zoning administrator s
in the manner provided herein.
consider and to approve, deny,
use permits for carnivals and
set the matter for public hearing
5. Churches.
~
~ J,-/(,
COUNCIL AGENDA F'&'ATEMENT
Item..rli 7
MeetlDl Date 8/25/92
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCZ-92-A AND PCM-91-07: Consideration of
Prezoning, General Development Plan and P-C
District Regulation Amendments, SPA Plan and
Public Facilities Financing Plan, Air Quality
Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan
for Telegraph Canyon Estates - Baldwin Vista
Associates ...\
r\'\\O\'
ORDINANCE ~ '5~ { Approving PCZ-92-A: PrezoIl!Q.i)tli'-'?9c
Planned Community (PCZ-92-A) and the P-C Dis~ iteg\JJ.ation
Amendments for the Telegraph Canyon Es~e~~Onal Planning
Area (SPA) Plan S"-CO~
RESOLurlON 11..1'-' Approving PCM-91-07: Approving and
imposing amendments and conditions on the Telegraph Canyon
Estates General Development Plan Amendment, Sectional Planning
Area Plan (SPA), Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) , Water
Conservation Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan, CEQA Findings,
Mitigation Monitoring Program, Statement of Overriding
Considerations and making the necessary findings (reference PCM-
91-07)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning /lit
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (OJ; (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X 1
f.J
Baldwin Vista Associates has submitted a development proposal for 112 acres of
presently unincorporated property located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road
directly east of Otay Lakes Lodge mobile home park and directly south of EastLake
Shores. The proposal calis for a maximum of 350 single family lots, plus two private
recreation areas, two Community Purpose Facility (CPF) sites, and over 20 acres of open
space.
The request is for approval of a prezoning to P-C Planned Community, an amendment to
the EastLake I General Development Plan and P-C District Regulations to include the
Telegraph Canyon Estates property, and a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Public
Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP), Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation
Plan. Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for Telegraph Canyon
Estates, EIR-91-05, is the preceding item on the agenda.
~?-I
Page 2. Item
lileetIDC Date 8 2
A public forum was held at EastLake ElementaIy School on June 18, 1992, to Inform
area residents about the project and City processing requirements. Ten residents
attended the forum.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the ordinance and resolution approving PCZ-
92-A and PCM-91-07.
BOARDS/COllrlMlSSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On August 12, 1992, the Planning
Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that Counell approve PCZ-92-A and PCM-91-071n
accordance with the staff recommended conditions of approval, which Include the
requirement that the project be seIVed by public rather than private streets.
"
DISCUSSION:
Exlstine: site conditions
The site consists of 112 vacant, unincorporated acres bounded by mobile homes, single
family dwellings and an Otay Water District water tank site to the west, single family
dwellings to the norlh, proposed State Route 125 to the east, and future residential In
Otay Ranch to the south. PrImary access to the property Is provided by Telegraph
Canyon Road. Two additional access points are prOvided by streets which stub Into the
norlhwest corner of the property: Gotham Street provides access from College Estates
to the west, and Creekwood Drive provides access from EastLake Shores to the norlh.
The property generally slopes from norlh to south, and consists of two gently sloping
knolls separated by a natural swale In the central portion of the site. Three major
easements extend across the property. A 20 ft. wide water easement extends southerly
from the water tank along the westerly boundary. A 120 ft. wide County Water Authority
easement extends diagonally from the norlhwest through the central portion of the site,
and a 120 ft. wide SDG&E easement extends along the easterly boundary. The Telegraph
Canyon drainage channel adjoins the southerly boundary of the site.
The Chula Vista General Plan designates the property for Low-Medium Residential (3-6
dwelling units per gross acre).
Development proposal
The proposal Is for a private, gate-guarded community containing a maximum of 350
single family lots, and two private recreation areas. Two CPF sites are also proposed.
Three residential lot sizes are proposed. The largest lots, representing approximately 50%
of the residential land area and conforming to the City's basic R-1-7Iot standards, are
located In the norlherly portion of the site adjacent to the existing single family homes
In EastLake Shores and College Estates. Smaller lots are located In the southwestern
portion of the property adjacent to the mobilehome park. An In~rmedlate size lot Is
~ 7-,4
P8~e S, Ite~ 7
~ Meetm, Date 8/~ ft/9 ?-
provided in the eastern portion of the site adjacent to proposed State Route 125 and the
TCR corridor. The following table summarizes the lot sizes for the project.
I AREA . OF LOTS AVG. SIZE MIN. SIZE
North 146 8,350 sq. ft. 60 x 100
Southeast 87 6,790 sq. ft. 50 x 100
Southwest 117 5,685 sq. ft. 45 x 112
The EastLake I P-C District Regulations and Residential Design Guidelines are intended
to regulate the development of the lots and the design of the dwellings.
PrimaIy access to the project will be provided by way of a signalized intersection with
Telegraph Canyon Road. A bridge-like structure over the drainage channel, decorative
walls and landscaping, and a turn-around with enriched paving would lead to the gated
entIy to the project. Additional access will be provided at the northwest comer of the
property, wherein Gotham and Creekwood would be extended to intersect as public
streets, just east of which would be a second gated entIy to the project.
The balance of the private Interior streets follow the basic form of the property In a
curvilinear pattern. All of the streets have been designed to meet City standards for
public streets with the exception of the main north-south spine 'street. This street
provides additional width for planted parkways (rather than standard monolithic curb
and sidewalk) and an 8 ft. rather than 5 ft. sidewalk along the westerly side to serve as
a public pedestrian trail from College Estates/EastLake to Telegraph Canyon Road. A
public easement would be established In order to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to use
this street and sidewalk/trail.
Gradinl!. ooen soace and recreation
Grading follows the dominant natural land forms with curvilinear streets and terraced
lots. Interior slopes vary from 2:1 to 4:1 and are generally 30 ft. or less In height. Two
stoI)' homes will largely obscure these slopes from public view.
A significant scenic corridor, which varies In depth from 200 ft. to 660 ft. at the central
swale, is retained along Telegraph Canyon Road. Grading is min1mized In the corridor,
and that which does occur is contoured with slope ratios which vary from 2: 1 to 6: 1. The
units along the scenic corridor will Incorporate one and two stOI)' elements. variable
setbacks and varied and detailed architectural treatment In order to enhance the view
from Telegraph Canyon Road.
In addition to the scenic corridor, open space areas will be maintained along the westerly
and easterly boundaries of the property and along the County Water Authority easement
~ 7-.3
Page 4, Item~ 7
lIeetm, Date~)h,-
which runs diagonally through the site. Over nine acres along the easterly boundaIy of
the property will be reserved to accommodate proposed State Route 125. Two private
recreation areas are also proposed. A 0.7 acre recreation center in the central portion of
property a<ijacent to the CWA easement will contain a pool. spa, changing room and
landscaping. A 1.5 acre site at the northeast corner of the site will contain multi-purpose
courts and a parking area. The following table summarizes the open space and
recreation areas. .
AREA ACRES
TCR Scenic Corridor 20.8
125 Reservation (temporaxy) 9.4
CWA Easement 3.1
Recreation Center 0.7
Multi-purpose Courts 1.5
In addition to the 8 ft. wide Sidewalk/pedestrian trail along the westerly side of the main
spine street, an additional 5 ft. wide decomposed granite trail separate from the sidewalk
will be established along the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road. Post and rail fencing
will separate the trail from the sidewalk.
Protect interface/seoaration
The project will be buffered from adjoining residential areas by a combination of grade
differences. landscaped open spaces and solid walls. Grading along the northerly
boundaIy will lower the property an average of 20 ft. below the existing homes in
EastLake Shores, thereby preserving views for the majority of those homes (the slope
height varies from 45 ft. on the eastern edge to 6 ft. adjacent to the necessaIy street
connection at the westerly edge).
The property sits above the homes to the west. Grading will retain a height differential
of 8-12 ft. above the homes in College Estates. and 10-30 ft. above the mobUe homes in
Otay Lakes Lodge. These height differentials, along with permanent landscape buffers,
the 20 ft. wide Otay Water District easement. and solid walls. will provide the separation
along the westerly boundaIy of the project.
Affordable housine:
Generally. projects consisting entirely of single famUy detached housing are not as
conducive to provision of housing for low and moderate income households as are
projects containing a mix of residential densities. The proposal for Telegraph Canyon
~~?-t
Page 5. Item
MeetiDI Date 8 92
7
'Jf/'7~
Estates Is to meet the affordable housing requirement off-site through a land set aside,
an off-site project or an in-lieu contribution. ThIs Is consistent with the CIt;}T'S recently
adopted Housing Element. and the project proponent is currently working with the City
Housing Coordinator to determine which alternative is most appropriate in this case. The
SPA Plan calls for an agreement to be reached prior to approval of a tentative map.
Water Conservation Plan
The Telegraph Canyon Estates Water Conservation Plan is summarized in the SPA Plan
(Page 11-86) and Is enclosed with this report. The Plan states that the expected water
demand for the 350 dwellings is 190,432 gallons per day, plus 92,463 gallons per day of
reclaimed water to irrigate open space areas. However, the Water District reports that
there Is no schedule for when the volume of reclaimed water available would be adequate
to serve the project. The conservation measures recommended for Implementation,
including ultra low flow toilets and showerheads, faucet aerators, water conservation
guide, drought tolerant plants. and efficient irrigation systems, are expected to save
approximately 35,000 gallons per day.
Consistent with the City's approach on prior projects, staff is recommending that the
developer commit to participate in any off-site mitigation program adopted by the City
designed to offset all or a portion of their new water demand. Said program may require
one or more of the following:
. Compliance with a regional water use offset program, to be administered by
the San Diego County Water Authority.
. Compliance with a local administered water use offset program (such
program may be administered by the City, water district, or a combination
of both);
. Implementation of specific water use offset measures for this project, If
neither a regional or locally-administered water use offset program Is in
place prior to Issuance of building permits for any portion of this project.
In the event that a City-approved water offset policy is not in effect at the time building
permits are Issued. the requirements should be met through Implementation of specific
water offset measures for this project, with the level of offsets and specific measures to
be approved by the City. It should be noted that the City's Environmental Resource
Manager is currently working with several City Departments, as well as the Interagency
Water Task Force to develop a recommended water offset program.
Air Quality Improvement Plan
The CIty's Growth Management Ordinance requires that projects of 50 units or greater
provide an AIr Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP). The AQIP for Telegraph Canyon Estates
Is summarized on Page 11-89 of the SPA Plan and Is enclosed with this report.
JJ+8';:::~ 70
Page 6.lt~ 7
!4eetlDt Date Sf; 2 ~ft2-
Although most significant air quality measures are those policies and regulations
established at the broadest geographic level, I.e., State, Federal or Regional programs,
measures Implemented on a City or project level can have a positive Impact. AIr quality
mitigation In the Telegraph Canyon Estates AQIP focuSes on strategies and measures
avaJlable to residential development projects. These Include measures taken during
construction such as dust control, scheduling and emission standards for construction
trips and equipment. and other measures related to the energy efficiency of the resulting
homes. such as energy conservation measures which exceed present standards. and pre-
plumbing of homes to facilitate passive solar collectors.
'.
A new Regional AIr Quality Plan Is currently under development by SANDAG and the
APCD. This plan will focus on mobile source emissions. The principal measure under
consideration Is a mandatory trip reduction plan for all significant trip generators. Any
land use provisions of the adopted plan will ultimately be the responsibility of the City.
As a condition of approval of the tentative map. the project design shall be reviewed to
ensure that any required measures of the new Regional AIr Quality Plan can be
accommodated by the existing project design. In addition, at the recommendation of the
Transit Coordinator. a transit stop has been Incorporated Into the SPA Plan In the vicinity
of the project entry on Telegraph Canyon Road. FInally, the CIty's Environmental
Resource Manager Is currently working with several City departments to develop an AIr
Quality Improvement and Energy Conservation Program to be applied to all development
projects. which would Implement the regional air quality plan. as well as new State
energy requirements. Compliance with this program will be evaluated at the tentative
map stage.
Public Facilities Ftnanclnl! Plan
.A Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) Is required by the City's Growth Management
Program to ensure that phased development Is consistent with the overall goals and
policies of the General Plan and Growth Management Program. and to ensure that
development of the project will not adversely Impact the quality of life threshold
standards. The PFFP Identifies financing mechanisms for all public facilities required by
the project. and also contains an analysis of the fiscal Impacts the project will have on
public agencies. The Telegraph Canyon Estates PFFP Is enclosed with this report.
All of the facilities projected to be required for the project will be provided by subdivision
exactions or the payment of Impact fees. Funding for school faciUtles will be provided by
the formation of a Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) District. The district would Include
this project as well as Salt Creek Ranch.
The fiscal analysis for Telegraph Canyon Estates covers a period of 15 years, four of
which depict the development phase of the project. and eleven years which depict the
Impact of the completed project. For the City of Chula Vista. revenues are expected to
exceed expenditures In every year of the analysis. for an accumulated net fiscal balance
for the 15 year period of $827.043lf private streets are utilized In the project. or
1l1.~ 7~?
,.
/7
Page 7, Ite~
Meeting Date 8'J' 2 0/'/'7 :;J-
$454,718 If public streets are required. The estimated average annual net fiscallmpact
on other local public agencies is as follows:
Otay Water District
Chula Vista ElementaIy School District
Sweetwater Union High School District
- $ 676
- $5,000
$2,960
The negative fiscal Impacts projected for the Otay Water District and Chula Vista
ElementaIy School District represent only a fraction of the expected revenues and cost
associated with the project, and any minor change in the assumptions or parameters
used in the analysis could change the net fiscal loss into a fiscal gain. Spec1ftcally, the
Otay Water District reports that rates would be adjusted as needed to balance revenues
and expenditures. And with respect to the Chula Vista City School District, as noted
earlier the project will be included within a Mello-Roos District in order to fund required
school facilities. (NOTE: The projected loss for both the Otay Water District and CVESD
represent operational costs for which the developer Is not responsible.)
General Plan conslstencv
The gross project density Is 3.1 dwelling units per acre. The net residential density,
which includes the residential lots, private recreation areas and interior streets and open
space, Is 4.3 dwelling units per acre. This figure Is below the 4.5 du/ ac mid-point for the
Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ ac) designation. Staffhas concluded that this proposed
density Is consistent with Section 6.2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
("Establishing Residential Densities Within the Range"), which requires consideration of:
1) compatibility with existing and proposed surrounding land use patterns: 2) sensitive
response to the physical characteristics of the site: and 3) achievement of a variety of
. housing types. Other specific Issues with respect to General Plan consistency are
discussed under separate heading, i.e., land form preservation and grading, compatibility
with surrounding development, scenic corridor enhancement, affordable housing, and so
on.
PrIvate versus Dublic streets
The staff position with respect to private streets and gate-guarded projects, Is that they
should only be used in Isolated circumstances where they do not interrupt the intended
or expected circulation pattern or the normal flow of traffic. This limits the use of private
streets to higher density projects, or smaller, Isolated single family developments with a
single access point and which otherwise do not tie into the surrounding circulation
network. An adclitlonal consideration Is the fact that the per unit costs for the
maintenance of private streets in a larger, lower-density project, often become prohibitive,
and pressure mounts to either defer maintenance and/or petition the City to take over
the streets and assume the maintenance.
The Telegraph Canyon Estates project Is a larger, lower density single family development
which will have a signalized intersection with Telegraph Canyon Road, and which will
~~~-r- 7~ ?
pagep.lt~7
Meetm, D'.,e 89 2 'f ~J.
'/ f' J-
extend and tie Into streets from both College Estates and EastLake Shores. We do not
believe these ctrcumstances support the establishment of a private gate-guarded
community at this location. A recommended condition of approval would require public
rather than private streets to serve the project. Coupled with this recommendation Is a
requirement that the main north-south spine street be cul-de-saced at Its northerly
terminus In order to require a more ctrcuitous route and therefore slow through-traffic
using this street.
.
The applicant, Baldwin Vista Associates. has indicated that they have reconsidered the
Issue of private versus public streets following the Planning Commission heartng, and
have now determined not to oppose the requirement for public streets. In anticipation
of this recommendation. the EIR, PFFP and traffic consultants were asked to prepare
alternative analyses based on a public street system. The respective analyses indicate
that the conversion to public streets will maintain all applicable thresholds, and would
result In no other adverse Impacts or required mitigation measures. The conversion to
public streets with the City assuming maintenance responsibility would reduce the
expected fiscal benefit of the project to the City by $372,325. but would retain a positive
net fiscal benefit of $454,718 over the 15 year period of analysis.
Communltv Duroose facllltv sites
The project Identifies a total of 1.5 acres to be reserved for Community Purpose Facilities
(CPF) consisting of two sites at the northwest and northeast Intersection of Gotham Street
and Creekwood Drive. The total acreage Is consistent with the Municipal Code
requirement that SPA Plans provide for 1.39 acres ofland per 1,000 population for CPF
uses. However, It Is not believed that the size, configuration or location of the sites Is
consistent with the Intent of the ordinance to provide accessible and usable CPF sites
compatible with adjacent uses.
A large part of the problem in this case Is that the CPF requirement was anticipated to
be applied to much larger scale developments. Such developments provide the
opportunity for larger and thus more usable CPF sites which can be located on major
streets, and which can be more easily buffered from incompatible land uses. The size
and location of the Telegraph Canyon Estates project does not provide the opportunity
to meet these goals In the most desirable fashion.
Alternative means to meet the CPF requirement on-site would be to combine the CPF
acreage into a single, more usable site located at either the project entry off Telegraph
Canyon Road or. assuming public streets, adjacent to the central recreation area. The
preferred alternative in the judgment of staff and the applicant Is to meet the CPF
requirement off-site in coI1lunctlon with the developer's first phase of Otay Ranch. ThIs
would provide the opportunity to create a larger. more appropriately located site
consistent with the intent of the ordinance. A recommended condition of approval allows
the developer to attempt to reach an agreement acceptable to the City regarding an off-
site alternative. or If such an agreement cannot be reached, would require the CPF
acreage to be relocated on-site. .
~ 7-<;(
Page 9. Item~ 7
Meetm, Dat;~ql, I.
;/I/? ;-
The CPF sites presently shown on the SPA Plan can be replatted Into additional single
family lots provided the total yield does not exceed the 350 lot maximum established by
the Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Public Facilities and Financing Plan estimates the project would
have a net fiscal balance to the City of $827,043 with private streets, or a net fiscal
balance of $454,718 with public streets as recommended by staff.
Attachments:
Sectional Planning Area Plan
Public Facilities FInancing Plan
Air Quality Improvement Plan
Water Conservation Plan
.'
WPC 0432P!A.113
~7-1
"
"
TInS PAGE BLANK
l~ 7-/0
CI
~\~ V t"'<;\o~
t- ~\I ~o ~oo
< i-~ ~ tor-V ORDINANCE NO. 2527 tl-<;;.~O\~G f>'
. " 't)' 4 \': S<;;.CO~O
IN" e 'J;
l ~~ ~(I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY
tJ" ~ COUNCIL APPROVING THE PREZONING TO P-C
PLANNED COMMUNITY (PCZ-92-A) AND THE P-C
DISTRICT REGULATION AMENDMENTS FOR THE
TELEGRAPH CANYON ESTATES SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA (SPA) PLAN
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this ordinance consists of
112.4 acres of presently unincorporated property located on the north side of Telegraph
Canyon Road directly east of Otay Lakes Lodge mobile home pari< and directly south of
EastLake Shores (Exhibit 4 of the Sectional Planning Area Plan); and,
WHEREAS, the project involves a prezoning to P-C Planned Community, an
amendment to the EastLake I General Development Plan and P-C District Regulations
to include the Telegraph Canyon Estates property therein, and a Sectional Planning Area
Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water
Conservation Plan involving a maximum of 350 single family lots, plus two private
recreation areas, two Community Purpose Facility sites, and over 20 acres of open space;
and,
WHEREAS, the above referenced plans and documents are incorporated herein
by reference, and the overall project as described in the Final Environmental Impact
Report, EIR-91-05, shall be developed in accordance with the description therein or as
modified by the conditions of approval, and that to the extent the project describes the
measures which will mitigate environmental impacts, the applicant shall implement those
measures contemporaneously with the project; and,
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the Telegraph Canyon Estates SPA Plan, the City
staff and Baldwin Vista Associates have concurred on the Planned Community (P-C)
District Regulation amendments for the project, a copy of which is on file in the office of
the City Cieri< as Document No. PCM-91-07; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has by Resolution No. 16767 certified that the Final
Environmental Impact Report, EIR-91-05, was prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Review
procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and has further certified that the information
contained therein has been reviewed and considered by them; and,
WHEREAS, the recitals and resolutions ofthe City Council contained in Resolution
No. 16767 certifying EIR-91-05 are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; and,
WPC F:\homo'4>laMlng\12.Q2
7-/
Ordinance No. 2527
Page 2
WHEREAS, a pu Iic hearing was held before the Planning Commission on the
Telegraph Canyon Estat s Sectional Planning Area Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan,
Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan on August 12, 1992; and,
,
,
The City Council of t . e City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
1. PLANNING CO MISSION RECORD
the second reading of this ordinance, the City Council adopted
Telegraph Canyon Estates Sectional Planning Area Plan,
Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation
WHEREAS, priort
a resolution approving t
Public Facilities Financin
Plan.
The proceedings efore the Planning Commission consisting of a
public hearing on t e Draft Environmental Impact Report on July 22,
1992, and certificati n of the Final Environmental Impact Report and
the recommendation for approval of the Sectional Planning Area
Plan, Public Facilities inancing Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan
and Water Conservatio Plan on August 12, 1992, and the minutes
and resolutions therefro are hereby incorporated into the record of
this proceeding.
2. EIR COMPLIANCE WITH C
The City Council of the City Chula Vista has reviewed and
considered EIR-91-05, the enviro ental impacts therein identified
for this project, the Candidate QA Findings, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, and the State men f Overriding Considerations.
The City Council by certifying EIR-91-0 , as found that it has been
prepared in accordance with the requir ents of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State EI Guidelines, and the
environmental procedures of the City of Chula ista.
3. P-C ZONE FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed prezonl to P-C
Planned Community is consistent with the City of Chul Yista
General Plan, and public necessity, convenience, the gen I
welfare, and good zoning practice support the prezoning to P-C
Planned Community.
WPC F:\horno\plam1ng112.92
~ 7~/.2,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 8"
SUBMITTED BY
Meeting Date 09/02/92 :"\\o~
~>,;J. 8"" 1>.OOrr
Ordinance amending Sections 5.20 ":ll4,.1~\6fthe
Chula Vista Municipal Code, the Cardroom O~~e~and Master
Tax Schedule, Second Reading. rO~O
St.-v
Chief of Police ~~v.
City ManagerJ(,\ ~.' ~.~\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-->
. (Referral Numbers 2599 and 2632)
On August 25, 1992, Council placed on First Reading an amended version of Cardroom
Ordinance and Master Tax Schedule revision Alternative 3 (as described in the staff report
received by Council on that date). The attached Cardroom Ordinance and Master Tax Schedule
revisions reflect Council direction provided in response to tbe referenced staff report.
ITEM TITLE
REVIEWED BY
RECOMMENDATION: Place Ordinance on Second Reading for Adoption.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None
DISCUSSION:
The attached Ordinance reflects an amended version of staff's "Alternative 3", as presented in
the subject staff report dated 8/25/92. Council amendments to Alternative 3 included:
~ A maximum per player, per hand charge of $.375.
~ A continuation of the prohibition upon offering jackpots.
~ A quarterly Cardroom Table Tax of $1,500/licensed table.
Therefore, the full effect of the Ordinance recommended to be placed on Second Reading is to:
~ Allow all the games currently declared legal in California by tbe state Attorney General
except pai-gow, Super Pan, California 22 and pangiungue.
~ Increase the Quarterly Cardroom Table Tax to $1,500/licensed table.
~ Limit any form of consolidation of card room licenses to a maximum of two licenses.
~ Provide that no charge in excess of $.375 per player, per hand be charged.
~ Extend permitted hours of operations to 9:00 A.M. until 1:00 A.M.
~ More clearly articulate tbe conditions under which a card room license may be revoked
including the failure to notify the city of a change/transfer in ownership.
~ Increase the maximum allowable number of card tables to twelve.
~ Require card room operators to provide the City with House Rules for any game played.
~ Modify associated card room interior signage requirements.
~ Correct miscellaneous anachronisms contained in the existing Cardroom Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT: Under the current licensing scenario, fourteen (14) licensed tables,
General fund revenues will increase $78,960 to a total of $84,000
annually. Each additional table licensed will increase General Fund
revenues $6,000 annually.
g--/
~~
CHAPTER 5.20 AND SECTION 5.07.030 OF THE CHULA
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CARDROOMS
, ,. i l.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
5.20.060,
5.20.200
Code are
SECTION I: That sections 5.20.030, 5.20.035,
5.20.110, 5.20.120, 5.20.160, 5.20.180,
and 5.20.210 of Chapter 5.20 of the Chula vista
hereby amended to read as follows:
5.20.040,
5.20.190,
Municipal
5.20.030 License-Number permitted and transferability.
The number of licenses authorized for issuance under the
provisions of this chapter shall be limited, based upon the
population of the city as shown upon the population certified by
the state Department of Finance. The number so authorized shall be
one per forty thousand residents or any fraction thereof. All such
licenses shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter; provided, however, those persons holding a license to
conduct cardroom operation upon the effective date of this section
may continue to hold such licenses subject to the revocation
provisions set forth in this chapter. Any license issued pursuant
to this chapter may be transferred upon the approval of the chief
of police to a person meeting all of the requirements for the
initial issuance of such a cardroom license, subject to the
ratification of the City Council which approval may be withheld in
the sole discretion of the Chief of Police and which ratification
may be withheld in the sole discretion of the City Council, and
such approval and ratification may, but is not required to, be
based entirely or in part on the assessment by the Chief of Police
or, as applicable, the city council, of the character of the
proposed licensee, or when, in the opinion of the approving or
ratifying entity, there appears to be good cause why such person
should not operate a cardroom; provided, however, that with the
exception of those licenses which have been issued prior to the
effective date of the ordinance set forth in this section and
Section 5.20.040, no license may be so transferred unless the
holder thereof has been operating a cardroom for three years at a
fixed location in the city. For the purposes of this section, it
shall be deemed to be a transfer of a license requiring approval of
the Chief of Police and ratification by the City Council if a
shareholder of a corporate licensee transfers any shares in the
corporate licensee. It shall also be deemed to be a transfer of a
license requiring approval of the Chief of Police and ratification
by the City Council if a partner of a partnership licensee
transfers all or any portion of his or her partnership interest.
5.20.035 Consolidation-permitted.
1
~"I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item Cf
Meeting Date09/0l/92
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution I" 7fe2.. Approving Continuation of
Public Outreach Campaign in Support of the
Mandatory Recycling Ordinance and
Appropriating Funds Therefor.
Resolution I~ 79:3 Amending FY 1992-93 Budget
to Add a Temporary Position in Unclassified
Service in the Waste Management and Recycling
Unit and Appropriating Funds Therefor.
SUBMITTED BY:
Conservation coor~nator Au3
Ci ty Manage::.);, ~1~~1( 4/ Sths Vote: Yes-1LNo_)
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In April, 1990 the City Council adopted a policy on integrated
waste management that describes the City'S commitment to recycling
and states that the City will actively promote the dissemination of
recycling information to the citizens of the City as well as
provide incentives to encourage participation in recycling
programs.
In order to meet the AB 939 mandate and the County's prohibition on
landfilling designated recyclables, City Council adopted a
mandatory recycling ordinance in January, 1992 (CYMC Ch. 8.25). It
is the policy of the City that enforcement of mandatory recycling
place primary ,emphasis on promotional material development that
clearly explains the need to recycle, compost and otherwise reduce
our waste disposal at landfills.
This report describes a recommended use of the County of San Diego
Tonnage Grant revenues (awarded to Chula Vista) to fund the
continued employment of a temporary, part-time intern to assist
with development and distribution of promotional materials and
other outreach for enforcement of the mandatory recycling
ordinance. It is also proposed that revenues be used for layout
and printing of promotional materials.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve the resolution for continuation of public outreach
campaign in support of the mandatory recycling ordinance and
appropriating funds therefor.
2. Approve the resolution amending FY '92-93 budget to add a
temporary, part-time intern position in the unclassified
service and appropriating funds.
f-j
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At its August 24th 1992 meeting,
the Resource Conservation Committee adopted a motion to recommend
to City Council approval of the resolutions. The motion was
approved 5:1; the dissenting member felt that the position should
be filled through volunteers.
DISCUSSION:
Last Spring, staff hired a temporary, part-time intern to assist in
the initial implementation phases of the mandatory recycling
enforcement program (May-August). The intern's responsibilities
included: assisting in answering citizen inquiries; conducting
general public outreach; working with code enforcement officers to
develop an appropriate data entry program to track ordinance
violators; assistance in enforcement through dissemination of
recycling information to ordinance violators and assisting code
enforcement officers and the Conservation Coordinator in the field.
In the quarter following implementation of the mandatory ordinance
(i.e., April, May, June 1992), it is documented that the tonnage
from the Single-Family Curbside Recycling Program increased by 187
tons over the previous quarter. Average participation rate had
risen from approximately 60 percent to over 75 percent. This
dramatic increase is principally due to increased outreach
conducted for the mandatory recycling implementation program and,
of course, the participation efforts of the citizens of Chula
Vista.
From July 27 through August 14th, over 350 enforcement tags (about
100 per week) were left on residential trash receptacles in an
effort to inform residents about the need to recycle and the
mandatory recycling ordinance. The intern hired under the initial
implementation program has continued to provide information to
residents receiving these tags, and speaks directly to the
residents when possible. In some instances, residents simply had
not heard about the mandatory ordinance through any of the outreach
previously conducted, which included a doorhanger distributed door-
to-door to single-family residents, participation in community
events, and media announcements.
After a personal visit from the intern is made, if the resident
still does not participate in recycling, a general letter
describing the importance of recycling, AB 939 and the County's
mandatory recycling ordinance will be mailed. This additional
outreach is an effort by staff to gain voluntary participation in
recycling as directed by Council.
Enforcement of the ordinance for individuals that continue to
violate the ordinance after repeated contact by staff will occur in
accordance with Council Policy. This involves the mailing of two
warning letters for compliance, following up with letters from the
Ci ty Attorney's office and potential prosecution for continued
violations. Prosecution is definitely an unwanted and last resort
2
9-,).
option. The proposed intern will assist in communicating with
ordinance violators according to this process.
Additionally, it is proposed that the intern assist the
Conservation Coordinator and Public Information coordinator in
developing and implementing innovative promotional materials and
methods to assist residential source reduction and recycling
efforts. The outreach will include specifically targeting minority
and senior residents. Duties would also include assisting with
special projects such as telephone book recycling and Christmas
tree recycling.
In addition to continuing to conduct outreach for residential
recycling and mandatory recycling enforcement, it is proposed that
the intern assist in continued recycling outreach to school
children. The Recycling Education Project begun last winter is
gaining momentum. In addition to school assemblies and classroom
presentations, staff has participated in two Science Discovery Days
(an additional one is scheduled for this September) and will be
holding two teacher in-services this fall.
Under the mandatory ordinance timeline, demolition and construction
industry recycling will be required by October, yard waste
collection will be implemented sometime around the new year and
multi-family and commercial recycling in July 1993. The intern
would provide assistance in developing and distributing
informational materials and enforcement for these programs as well.
Currently, the Conservation Coordinator's workload does not allow
for the time needed to carry out the duties of the proposed intern.
The Conservation Coordinator is developing additional programs to
be implemented under the mandatory ordinance, participating in the
two programs funded through grants (as the City "match" for the
grants and overall coordinator), participating in special projects,
including Coastal Awareness Days and Bay Clean-up and other ongoing
projects, including monitoring the Curbside Recycling Program.
In addition, although two other intern positions currently exist in
the Environmental Management Unit, they are assigned to other
special projects. One grant program, the Business Recycling
Outreach Project, is funding an intern to work specifically on
developing materials for commercial and industrial recycling and
assisting businesses in establishing recycling programs. This
includes offices, demolition and construction industry businesses
and restaurants. The other grant program, the Household Hazardous
Waste Reduction, Alternatives and Disposal Education Project ("RAD"
Project), has allowed for the hiring of an intern to work solely on
promoting aspects of this project. This includes working with the
School Districts to include toxics awareness education through
teacher in-service trainings, classroom presentations and
assemblies; additional outreach will be conducted with adults.
At this time, the workload of the Code Enforcement officers does
not allow for the full undertaking of enforcement of the mandatory
3
9-3
ordinance.
Enforcement
recycling.
Nor would it be possible or appropriate for Code
staff to participate in the outreach required for
As Council is aware, the City is currently rece~v~ng tonnage grants
from the County amounting to $7.75 per ton for every ton of
recycled materials diverted from the residential wastestream. The
County specifically created this grant program for use in
enforcement of mandatory recycling. To date, the City has received
$23,326 from this program and will receive an additional $9,500 for
the fourth quarter (fiscal year). It is proposed that monies from
these grants be used to cover the salary and benefits for the
intern, mileage and initial promotional material development.
FISCAL IMPACT: The full cost for continuation of the public
outreach campaign in support of the mandatory recycling ordinance
is estimated at $4,600, proposed to be appropriated from the
Tonnage Grant monies. The cost of the temporary, part-time intern
(12 hours per week for nine months) is estimated at $3,905.
Mileage reimbursement for intern related tasks would total $296
(1140 miles @ .26). The cost for design and printing of initial
promotional materials is estimated at $400.
4
9~'I
RESOLUTION NO.
I~ 79:L.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC
OUTREACH CAMPAIGN IN SUPPORT OF THE MANDATORY
RECYCLING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR
WHEREAS, in April, 1990, the City Council adopted a
policy on integrated waste management that describes the City'S
commitment to recycling and states that the City will actively
promote the dissemination of recycling information to the citizens
of the City as well as provide incentives to encourage
participation in recycling programs; and
WHEREAS, in order to meet the AB 939 mandate and the
County's prohibition on landfilling designated recyclables, the
City Council adopted a mandatory recycling ordinance in January,
1992; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the city that enforcement of
mandatory recycling place primary emphasis on promotional material
development that clearly explains the need to recycle, compost and
otherwise reduce our waste disposal at landfills.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve continuation of the
public outreach campaign in support of mandatory recycling.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $695 is hereby
appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the Waste
Management Tonnage Grant revenues in Fund 270 and appropriates $295
to Account 270-2701-5225, $200 to Account 270-2701-5201 and $200 to
Account 270-2701-5212.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Athena Bradley, Conservation
Coordinator
~ ~J
D. Richard Rudo
City Attorney
P:\home\attomey\recycle
9..1- /
RESOLUTION NO.
1& 793
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING FY 1992-93 BUDGET TO ADD
A TEMPORARY POSITION IN UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE
IN THE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING UNIT AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
WHEREAS, last spring, staff hired a temporary, part-time
intern to assist in the initial implementation phases of the
mandatory recycling enforcement program (May-August); and
WHEREAS, the intern's responsibilities include: assist in
answering citizen inquiries; conduct general public outreach; work
with code enforcement officers to develop an appropriate data entry
program to track ordinance violators; assistance in enforcement
through dissemination of recycling information to ordinance
violators and assist code enforcement officers and the Conservation
Coordinator in the field; and
WHEREAS, additionally, it is proposed that the intern
assist the Conservation Coordinator and Public Information
Coordinator in developing and implementing innovative promotional
materials and methods to assist residential source reduction and
recycling efforts; and
WHEREAS, the City is currently receiving tonnage grants
from the County amount to $7.75 per ton for every ton of recycled
materials diverted from the residential wastestream and it is
proposed that monies from these grants be used to cover the salary
and benefits for the intern, mileage and initial promotional
material development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby amend FY 1992-93 budget to add
a temporary position in the Unclassified Service in the Waste
Management and Recycling unit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $3,905 is hereby
appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the Waste
Management Tonnage Grant revenues in Fund 270 and appropriates
$3,712 to Account 270-2701-5105 and $193 to Account 270-2701-5143.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~-u
istant
Athena Bradley, Conservation
coordinator
D. Richard Rudol
city Attorney
F: \hcme\attomey\recyclel
915'1
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
I~
Meeting Date 9/2/92
ITEM TITLE Resolution /b 79'1- Approving SDG&E Right-of-Way Use
Agreement -- Chula Vista Fire Department Training Tower.
SUBMITTED BY Fire Chief~
REVIEWED BY City Manager J~\ \>I;J tJ,~f\ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-K)
The Fire Department's new training tower, located on Paseo Ranchero in the Rancho del Rey
community, is currently under construction. The facility's drive way crosses an SDG&E
easement. This Resolution will approve a right-of-way use agreement intended to ensure
SDG&E access to the said easement. The agreement is patterned after similar documents
executed by the City.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None
DISCUSSION:
The Fire Department's new trallllllg tower has been erected and, barring unforeseen
circumstances, will be operational in the near future. Located on Paseo Ranchero in the Rancho
del Rey community, it is anticipated that Fire Station #4 will eventually be relocated to this same
site in order to maximize the delivery efficiency of future fire protection and emergency medical
services.
4:'1101' .stIfNNE(j
The training tower and drive way were sited (see Exhibit "A") to accommodate the construction
of the training tower and the new fire station. The current drive way siting eliminates any need
to demolish or modify the drive way in order to build the new fire station. As currently sited,
the drive way crosses a SDG&E easement at its terminus to Paseo Ranchero (Exhibit A provides
a graphic depiction of the easement). Therefore, SDG&E requires that the City enter into the
subject agreement in order to ensure access to their facilities in the area. Staff believes that, as
described above, the benefits of the drive way's current siting outweigh any deleterious effects
of the SDG&E easement. The agreement was patterned after similar right-of-way use
agreements entered into by the City with SDG&E. Attorneys from SDG&E and the City
Attorney have reviewed and approved this agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None with this action.
1&-1 f4-1.
RESOLUTION NO.
If, 79'1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SDG&E RIGHT-OF-WAY USE
AGREEMENT FOR THE CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
TRAINING TOWER
WHEREAS, the Fire Department's new training tower,
located on Pas eo Ranchero in the Rancho del Rey community, is
currently under construction; and
WHEREAS, the facility's driveway crosses an SDG&E
easement; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to approve a right-of-way use
agreement intended to ensure SDG&E access to said easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve a Right-of-Way Use
Agreement with SDG&E for the Chula vista Fire Department Training
Tower, 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.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Sam Lopez, Fire Chief
D. Richard Rud
City Attorney
P; \home\attomey\traintow
/~:3 /10-1
..
,
Recording requested by
San Diego Gas & Electric
When recorded mail to:
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
P. O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
Attn: T. W. Nebel EB 601
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Transfer Tax
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of
, 1992, by
and between SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ("Grantor"), and CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, a Municipal Corporation, ("Grantee") and with
reference to the following facts:
A. Grantor is the owner of that certain Easement ("Grantor's
Easement") shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by reference
made a part hereof, and recorded March 9, 1960 at File/Page No.
48825 of Official Records for the County of San Diego, State of
California. SDG&E R/W #45230.
B. Grantee is the owner of the real property commonly
described as Lot I of city of Chula vista Tract No. 88-1 in the
City of Chula vista in said County of San Diego, according to Map
thereof No. 12341, recorded March 28, 1989, and filed in the office
of the County Recorder'of said county of San Diego.
[RWCHULA.d30]
1
/t?:5
C. Grantee desires permission to use Grantor's easement in
the following manner: to construct, maintain and use for ingress
and egress to the proposed new training tower on the adjacent
property, and asphalt and concrete driveway as shown in the cross-
hatched area of Exhibit A (Grantee's Improvements).
D. Grantee acknowledges and represents that it is the
underlying fee owner of the property and to use Grantor's Easement
in the above-mentioned manner is inconsistent with, or a burden on,
the rights of Grantor which, absent Grantor's permission, could not
be exercised.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein
made, the parties agree as follows:
1. Grantor shall permit Grantee to use Grantor's Easement in
the manner described in Paragraph "c" above at the locations and
configurations shown or described in said Exhibit "A".
2. This permission may be withdrawn in whole or in part by
Grantor for the following reasons:
a. At anytime Grantor exercises the right to utilize
Grantor's Easement in accordance with California Public
utilities commission General Order 69C, which gives Grantor
the right to revoke any license granted in its properties in
whole or in part whenever in the interest of its patrons or
consumers it shall appear necessary or desirable to do so. In
the event permission is withdrawn, Grantor agrees to use
reasonable efforts to minimize, so far as practicable, any
relocation or restoration expenses to be incurred by Grantee;
[RWCHULA.d30J
2
It? - ~
however, Grantee agrees that any such decision made by Grantor
shall be at Grantor's sole and exclusive discretion,
especially if such decision is based upon or involves matters
of a technical nature, particularly within Grantor's
expertise.
b. At any time Grantee fails or refuses to comply with
the terms herein, if Grantee constructs improvements other
than those described herein as shown on Exhibit "A", or if
Grantee's Improvements or the method used by Grantee in the
construction and installation of said improvements is deter-
mined to be in violation of any federal, state, city, county
or other governmental entities, laws, ordinances, or regula-
tions, including regulations of the Public utilities Commis-
sion for the state of California.
3. If permission is withdrawn for either of the above
reasons, Grantee agrees to remove or alter those improvements as
requested by Grantor within thirty (30) days after receipt of
written notice, and to restore the ground and area to Grantor's
satisfaction and as near as possible to its original condition and
appearance prior to Grantee's installation of Grantee's Improve-
ments. Such removal, restoration or alteration shall be at the
sole cost and expense of Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove,
restore or alter within sixty (60) days after notice, Grantor shall
have the right to remove or alter Grantee I s Improvements and
restore the area at the sole expense and risk of Grantee (except
that Grantor shall be solely responsible for injury or damage
[RWCHULA.d30]
3
/tJ~7
resulting from its own negligence or wanton misconduct), which
expense Grantee agrees to pay to Grantor upon demand. Grantee may
request additional time, and if determined to be reasonable,
Grantor may grant such time.
4. The rights, privileges and obligations created by this
Agreement shall benefit and bind all present and future parties
having any right, title or interest to, any portion of Grantor's
Easement or the land described in paragraph "B" above. The term
"Grantee" as used in this Agreement shall include any and all
successors in interest and assigns of Grantee. Grantee agrees to
give Grantor notice pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the names and
addresses of any such successors and assigns. Grantor shall not be
obligated to notify any such successors and assigns other than
those whose names and addresses are furnished pursuant to this
Paragraph.
s. This Agreement does not in any way alter Grantor's
Easement or the rights of Grantor with respect to the use,
maintenance or repair of Grantor's Easement. Grantor shall not be
responsible for damage to Grantee's Improvements resulting from
normal operation, construction and maintenance of Grantor's
facilities and Grantee hereby expressly assumes all risks related
thereto; provided, however, that the foregoing does not release
Grantor from any liability it may have for damages arising from its
own negligence or wanton misconduct.
[RWCHULA.d30]
4
/tJ-~
6. Grantee agrees to pay all costs for the construction,
installation, maintenance, and repair and removal of Grantee's
Improvements.
7. Grantee agrees to comply promptly with any reasonable
request(s) of Grantor made to protect Grantor's facilities, or the
public, including but not limited to, barricades and grounding of
metallic fences.
8. Grantor and Grantee shall comply with all applicable laws
and regulations of local, state and federal governments and their
agencies.
9. Grantee agrees to assume all risks, including risks of an
extra hazardous nature, of loss, damage, and injury to persons or
property in any manner arising from Grantee's use of Grantor's
Easement. Grantee agrees to indemnify, save, and hold Grantor
harmless from and against any and all demands, claims, suits, costs
of defense, witness fees, liabilities, loss, costs, obligations or
other expenses incurred or resulting in any manner from (i) the
construction, maintenance, use, state of repair or presence of
Grantee's Improvements, (ii) injury(ies) to or death of any
person(s) in any manner arising from Grantee's use of Grantor's
Easement or (i i i) the damage or destruction of or to property,
whether real or personal, in any manner arising from Grantee's use
of Grantor's Easement; provided, however, that Grantee shall not
indemnify Grantor against any injury, loss of life, or damage which
is caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Grantor.
[RWCHULA.d30]
5
/0-/
10. Insurance: Grantee shall, at its own expense, secure and
maintain in effect during the life of this Agreement insurance
coverages as described herein, in amounts not less than the minimum
limits specified, to protect Grantor and Grantee from claims or
liabilities in any way arising out of Grantee's use of Grantor's
Easement: (a) Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's
Liability Insurance in accordance with statutory requirem~nts and
limits, including u.s. Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' compensa-
tion Act coverage, where applicable, (b) Comprehensive General
Liability Insurance to include products-completed operations and
contractual liability coverage for liability assumed by Grantee
under this Agreement, and automobile liability insurance, with
limits of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence for bodily
injury and property damage combined. Such liability insurance
described in (b) above shall name Grantor as an additional insured.
certificates of insurance evidencing the coverages and provisions
required in (a) and (b) above shall be furnished to Grantor prior
to any use of Grantor's Easement by Grantee and shall provide that
written notice be given to Grantor at least thirty (30) days prior
to cancellation or reduction of any coverage. Grantee agrees, at
the request of Grantor, to increase the limits of insurance to meet
the reasonable limits then required by Grantor for a similar Grant
of this type. The provision of this paragraph shall not in any way
limit any of Grantee's' other obligations or liabilities under this
Agreement.
[RWCHULA.d30]
6
/~'I()
11. Grantee agrees to keep Grantor I s Easement free from
weeds, waste and the accumulation of flammable materials. Grantee
agrees not to reside or allow any residence, temporary or other-
wise, on Grantor's Easement.
12. In the event that either party commences legal action
against the other by reason of an alleged breach of this Agreement,
the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover court costs and
attorney fees as set by the court, including those of appeal.
"prevailing Party" means the party in whose favor final judgement
is rendered.
13. All notices required in this Agreement shall be deemed
given when made in writing and deposited in the united states mail,
certified and postage prepaid, addressed to Grantee at the address
below or to successors and assigns whose names and addresses are
furnished to Grantor pursuant to Paragraph 4, above.
To Grantor:
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
Post Office Box 1831
San Diego, California 92112
Attention: Land Services Department
To Grantee:
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
14. This Right-of-Way Use Agreement contains the entire
agreement between Grantor and Grantee respecting the transactions
contemplated hereby and all prior or contemporaneous agreements,
understandings, representations and statements, oral or written,
are merged herein.
[RWCHULA.d30]
7
/{)-I/
15. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision
hereof shall not affect the validity of any other provision hereof.
This Agreement is entered into between the parties hereto at
San Diego, California, as of the date set forth at the beginning
hereof.
GRANTOR:
GRANTEE:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO.,
California corporation
CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a Municipal corporation
By:
~..% ~~ /~ ---13y:
David R. Guebert, Sup visor
Land Management Section
Land Services Department
Tim Nader, Mayor
City of Chula vista
~us, M NO'tl\1tlt.to
$lGNAiUln.:s f.; :t: PRor~R fO~M
f\lC'r\~lE5 U-'
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Date:
Sketch:
R/W #:
A. P. #:
TWN
~~~'~
~A
fr,rTJ;,Ti At!;. U
4-39-92
45230
642-391-06
[RWCHULA.d30]
8
)0-/.2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss
On rl&</~~ /~ /992. , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Publi in and for said state, personally appeared Alan s.
Berrier personally known to me to be the person who executed the
within instrument as Acting Land Management Supervisor, Land
Services Department, on behalf of San Diego Gas & Electric Company,
the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such
corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws
or a resolution of its Board of Directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
"gn.t=e ~ :i~/-I.~,
"'" --~~..... ~
. ....,:.""'~ OfFICIAL SeAL
:~. ,"'\ LINDA F. VICTORiA
~ '~iS b . .: NOTAAY PUellC-VALlFnr~N!;\
~, .' ~ SAN OIEG'J GOUNi-Y
, MY COMMISSION E^PiRrS
"w...' MAY 19,1995
167'13
:'~
N
\
\
\
-< \
_.A~~ (2.-
~'0''; . O.~
v.~ 1-<5)
\ h(l +1>. co'O 0
tj.qO I~ '.?'P 0 .,;.;'
~ ~t>.
~_q__(pO ?-!,)
. .
,~
.~
\
\
\
,/
--'\ \
---
\ \
\
'\\ \
% \
~ \
~ \
..." \
~ \
f \
'1:- . \ ~
S' \ \
\.. \
r---)
\
\
.>
--
A :f,~
':t ~~
~~
~'t-
~
~~@
\ "
<::>",
/~
/~~ \
/ ----Y ~):%, \
----- \ ~~\ \
\ \ 'i- //--> / ~ /
\ /~ h .~J)
V~ /~ ~~~
~/ ~/~
~@/
fJ~
~~~ EXHIBIT "A"
~ ~ /t?-IL/
'""
- \
\ ----
--- ,.
.;'
-
,/
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item \ l
Meeting Date 09/01/92
ITEM TITLE: Resolution It" "'lC\5 approving and authorizing execution of the First
Amended Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Joelen Enterprises for the
negotiation of a Disposition and Development Agreement for a proposed
golf resort hotel
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director e-S .
REVIEWED BY: City Manager,,1t ~U:fil (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X)
BACKGROUND: In June 1990, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
development of City-owned property adjacent to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. On
April 23, 1991, Council directed staff to prepare an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA)
with Joelen Enterprises for development of a golf resort hotel. Council also requested Joelen
Enterprises to prepare a market feasibility study to submit with the proposed ENA. The original
deadline of 120 days for these two items was extended by Council to November 1991. On
November 26, 1991, a Preliminary Market Feasibility Study was accepted by Council and an
ENA was approved. The ENA was for a period of 120 days (through April 8, 1992) with the
City Manager authorized to extend by 60 days.
On June 2, 1992 Council extended the ENA for an additional 180 days (through November
1992). At that time, staff indicated that the need for an EIR was being evaluated. Subsequently,
staff has determined that an EIR is required. In light of the increased costs of an EIR, as well
as risks relating to carrying the project over to a potentially new set of decision makers lacking
the historical continuity, Councilman Malcolm proposed on August 25 that the city provide
certain financial assurances to the developer to allow this economic development project to
proceed (See August 21 Memo, Exhibit A). On August 25, Council approved Councilman
Malcolm's recommendation that the developer be eligible for reimbursement of costs up to
$114,220 should the project not be approved and directed that the ENA be amended accordingly
and brought back on September I, 1992.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution authorizing the First Amended
ENA providing for reimbursement of EIR and project related costs up to $114,220 in the event
the proposed hotel project is not approved by the city, and revising the ENA to reflect current
project status and timeframes.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
Project Schedule: The existing ENA calls for certain tasks to be completed by dates outlined
in the "First Amendment to the ENA" (see Exhibit B). In accordance with the Amendment's
}J-V
Page 2, Item I \
Meeting Date 09/01192
stipulation that "The timeframes specified represent reasonable estimates of feasible completion
dates, but may be revised upon city staff authorization to reflect changing needs" and based
upon the since identified need for an EIR, the Project Schedule has been revised. Exhibit C
shows the current, expedited schedule which reflects the EIR, GP A, Rewne and Design Review
approval time frames. The proposed "First Amended ENA" has been revised to reflect the
current project schedule and required performance benchmarks (see Section III.D., pages 6-8).
Reimbursement of Costs: The $114,220 reimbursement "cap" is based upon the following
estimated costs:
EIR Contract
EIR Processing Fees
Architect & Engineering
$ 66,220.00
$ 8,000.00
$ 40.000.00
TOTAL
$114,220.00
The Amended ENA provides that in the event Joelen Enterprises meets the agreed upon
performance time frames and presents a DDA and project to Council in conformance with the
terms of the ENA, and that Council rejects the Project, Joelen Enterprises will be reimbursed
for documented project related costs up to $114, 220 (see Section VIII, page 11).
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately $600,000.00
to $1 Million in total annual revenues to the city. The Amended ENA provides for a
reimbursement of up to $114, 220 to the developer for project related costs in the event that they
comply with the terms of the ENA but the project is not approved by the City. Sources of funds
for this reimbursement have not been identified.
Exhibits:
A: Councilman Malcolm's August 21 Memo
B: First Amendment to the ENA (June 1992)
C: Current Project Schedule
D: Original ENA executed December 10, 1991
NOr oSttlf,.JN ~b
II
II
..
AI-~
RESOLUTION
/1;7'3'
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE FIRST AMENDED EXCLUSIVE
NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND JOELEN ENTERPRISES FOR HOTEL DEVELOPMENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council issued an RFP for development of City-owned
property adjacent to the municipal golf course in June, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, on November 26, 1991, the City Council approved an Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Joelen Enterprises to negotiate a Disposition and
Development Agreement for the development of a golf resort hotel; and,
WHEREAS, the First Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement has been
prepared providing for the reimbursement to the developer of up to $114,220 in documented
project-related costs in the event that the developer complies with the terms of the Amended
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and the project is rejected by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby approve and authorize the proposed First Amended Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Joelen Enterprises for hotel
development.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
~~~
\1cLR ~
D. Richard Rudolf
Assistant City Attorney
Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary and
Community Development Director
11-3/11- If
First Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Between
City of Chula Vista and
Joelen Enterprises for Hotel Development
This aareement ("Aareement") A(lREEUEN'l' is entered into -4:Me
Seotember 1. 1992 ~ for the purposes of reference only, and
effective as of the date last executed by the parties, by and
between the city of Chula Vista, California, a political sub-
division of the State of California, ("City"), and Joelen Enter-
prises, a California General Partnership, whose general partners,
and their addresses, are set forth in IB below and incorporated
herein by reference ("Developer").
This Aareement is made with reference to the followina facts:
Whereas. the ci tv and Develooer entered into an aareement
("Oriainal Aareement") entitled "Exclusive Neaotiatina Aareement
Between city of Chula vista and Joelen Enterorises for Hotel
Develooment". executed as of November 26. 1991 bY citv: and.
Whereas. on or about June 2. 1992. the oarties extended the
Initial Neaotiatina Period. as therein defined. to November. 1992
bv the first amendment to said Oriainal Aareement ("First
Amendment") entitled "First Amendment to Exclusive Neaotiatina
Aareement Between City of chula vista and Joelen Enterorises for
Hotel Develooment"; and,
Whereas, the parties now desire to revise their contractual
relationship again but to restate their entire agreement in a
single document which will supersede and replace the Original
Agreement as amended;
NOW. THEREFORE. THE CITY AND DEVELOPER HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. Parties
A. Nature and Offices of the Developer
Developer is Joelen Enterprises, a California General
Partnership. The principal office of the Developer for
purposes of this Agreement is:
4000 Coronado Bay Road
Coronado, CA 92118
1.
Developer's Representatives.
j oelen1. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 1
//f
Developer has designated the following person or
persons who will negotiate the Disposition and
Development Agreement with the City and who will
engage in the activities necessary to determine the
feasibility of the development of the Site:
Josef and Lenore citron
B. City's Offices and Representatives.
The principal office of City for purposes of this
Agreement is:
Community Development Department
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, California 91910
(619) 691-5047
1. City's Representatives.
city has designated the following person or persons
who will negotiate the Disposition and Development
Agreement with the Developer and who will engage in
the activities necessary to determine the
feasibility of the development of the Site:
Chris Salomone, Community Development Director
II. Definitions and References
A. site:
The property which is the subject matter of this
Agreement is approximately 7~ acres of land identified
as follows:
1.
a oortion of San Diego County Assessor Parcel No.
568-420-14, Owned by the city of Chula Vista,
consistina of aooroximatelv 3j: acres in a
confiauration shown on the attached Exhibit B
("City Parcel")
4+-6 acres of land owned by the city of Chula vista
and leased to American Golf Corporation for
purposes of operating the restaurant. banauet
facilitv and oro shoo at the Chula vista Municipal
Golf Course ("Celf Se1:irse Restaurant Parcel") in
the confiauration shown on the attached Exhibit B.
ana. leEjallr Eieseril3eEl as eet ferth iPl Euhihi-t B.
2.
j oelenI. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 2
I/-~
B. Project:
The Project as used herein shall be referred to as the
development of the site with a 200-250 room hotel and
associated golf shop, restaurant. banauet and meetina
facilities. swimmina pool. tennis courts. visitor
commercial and retail floor area ("Project").
III. Negotiations
A. Negotiation Period
The term of this Agreement commenced under the Oriainal
Aareement on December 10. 1991 and shall conclude on No-
vember 30. 1992 ("Neaotiatina Period") unless otherwise
extended bv the parties in writina. BRall lee 129
eaIsruiar days fram 'tae dat.e i't! is 8IJpre..'I!ea aRa eneeu.t.eEl
BY set-a parties ('the "IRi'tisl !Ieget.iatiefl Paries"). At.
'the. eRa af 'the. IRitial }r&~etiatieR PerieEi, 'the Enesl:i:ki-Je
DirE-at-eE', 8ft sehalf af 'Efte City, is a1:lt.herizeEl 'ke eut.epul
'the. term af this ~,reemeRt fer up te aft adEiit.ieflal 180
days (the tlEut.eRaeEl lJeEJstiat.isR Paries") if at t.he efts ef
the IRitial lJeEJe~iat.ieR Pariee. the par~iea have Rat. yet
eRt.ered iflte a Dispesit.ieft aRB De.:elep1t\&flt. AgresmeRt., 'tae
city hae flat. &l!ereioe.d it.a right. t.e t.ermiRat.e as kere.iR
previEles, aRe. the Exe.e~ti~e Bireeter has det.ermiRed t.hat
tRers is a reass1\alaly lilEeliBseEl tha'E 'ERe Beveleper ......ill
aeJree 't6 t.e:rma .~.hiea 'ERe Cit.~. staff will se asle 'E8
reeemmeftB 'Ee tae Ci~y.
B. Duty of Staff and Developer to Negotiate DDA
During the "Negotiation Period" as herein defined, Staff
of the City ("staff") and Developer shall negotiate
diligently and in good faith to prepare a "project
definition" for CEQA purposes, to determine project
feasibility and to prepare an implementation plan,
including an agreement ("Disposition and Development
Agreement", or alternatively "DDA") implementing the
"project" to present to the City for city Council
consideration and approval, as they deem appropriate,
after appropriate CEQA review, which DDA shall, among
other things, address the basic issues and requirements
listed below.
The items listed below shall be negotiated in good faith
between Staff of the City and Developer. Failure by the
developer to negotiate towards the resolution of these
items shall constitute breach of good faith negotiations.
j oelen!. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 3
//- ?
~ Restaurant Parcel Control.
The DDA shall commit the Developer to obtain site
control sufficient to permit the construction and
occupancy of the proiect over and upon the
Restaurant Parcel. which meets the development
ob;ectives as delineated in Number B. 3 below. and
makes the further duties of the parties contained
in the DDA continaent upon same;
~ city Parcel Lease Agreement
A lease agreement which commits the Developer to
lease the city Parcel from the city; eemmi~s the
De~eleper ~e lease ~he Gelf Oearee Rea~a~raR~
Pal"eel fram t.he Sit.}- BRa/eE" ~eriea:a G:elf
Cerpsra'tiefl (tf}dfl.srieap\ Calf'" SF 'ts et.herwiee eRt.er
iRte Sri afJreemePl'E t,.-it.h 'Efte Gi'ty 81ui,'er Amerieafl
Celf Geurse ~hieh meets t.he ae~elepmeR'E eBjeeti~ea
aa seli:Acat.eEl 1ft 11amser B. :2 sele-""., AmI commits
Developer to pay an amount based on operating
revenues of Project to the city, including a
minimum rent payment.
~ Development of the site.
A commitment to provide project development secur-
ity satisfactory to the city and to improve the
Site with the Project in a form as approved by the
City Council ("Approved Development") which
incorporates the following:
a. An approved Master Plan for the City Parcel
and Restaurant Celf Ce~Fse Parcel.
b. Compliance with design standards as determined
by Staff, the City'S Design Review Board, the
City Planning Commission, and the City
council.
s. A esmmitmeRt fer imprevcmeJ\'E af the lfliRieipal
Celf CS\irae lsy Be-;eleper SF JUaaries" Celf
CerparatisJ\.
c.
A design that minimizes, to the extent pos-
sible, the traffic circulation and parking
problems that the Approved Development can be
expected to produce.
d.
Public parking sufficient for the Pro;ect. as
j oelen!. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 4
/I"g'
well as the continued use BY the p~Blie of the
jogging trail that circumscribes the golf
course and the aolf course.
e. space for display of historic artifacts,
photographs or other items of significance to
the Bonita Community.
~!. A plan for clearly defining and minimizing the
impact of the Project on existing use of the golf
course; specifically on the availability of golf
starting times to the public.
~2' Schedule of Performance.
A schedule prepared jointly with the City Staff for
the accomplishment of identifiable developmental
milestones iRel~BiRlJ relatina to project
applieatisR implementation. includina aRB evidence
of financing, environmental reviews or compliance
and other milestones.
c. Financial Feasibility and Economic Risk.
Both parties shall use the IRitial Negotiation Period to
estimate total project costs in order to determine the
economic feasibility of the proposed project. It is
understood that the Developer absorbs all economic risks
associated with the completion of the Project except as
hereinbelow noted under the subparaaraph entitled: "Citv
Reimbursement Dutv". Thus. unless excepted expressl v
hereinbelow. i~t is the intention of the Parties that
Developer shall pay the full cost of all improvements to
be constructed on the site and the cost of all normal
City fees and permits applicable to completion of the
proposed improvements. The parties agree and acknowledge
that it is the intent of the parties that. except as
express Iv noted herein. all Project costs, including but
not limited to the lease or acquisition of the Site,
relocation costs, design, construction and development of
all on-Site and off-Site public and private improvements,
appraisal fees, environmental and other consultant fees,
whether incurred by Developer or City shall be the
responsibility of the Developer.
Notwithstanding the above, at such time as developer can
demonstrate that they are unable to generate a reasonable
return based upon extraordinary public improvement costs,
the city may entertain a proposal for financial
assistance for such improvements, such assistance to be
joelenl. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 5
//-(
evaluated and addressed within the content of the nego-
tiated lease agreement and DDA. It is also understood
that in the event either party is unable to reach agree-
ment on the DDA terms and conditions, including a request
for city assistance, and following good faith ne-
gotiations, either party may terminate this agreement.
D. Developer Obligations During the Negotiation Period.
During the Negotiation Period, Developer shall, at his
own cost and expense, and without right to reimbursement
upon termination as herein provided, perform the
following obligations Wi~Bi8 the bv the stated ~
parisE! (lUes. 2 t.arSHElA. S. Belew are 'toe l3e measlirea frsm
Ela~e sf euesu:tieft sy )set.h part.ies sf t.hie agreemePlt.).
For the purposes of this section, time is of the essence.
1.
Obliaation
Developer shall submit a preliminary
market feasibility analysis of the
proposed project conducted by a
consultant approved by the city. The
analysis should provide conclusions
regarding the suitability of the site,
current market demand, supportable
guest rooms and probable occupancy and
supportable average room rates.
2.
Developer shall submit a preliminary
site plan for the project.
Como let ion
Done and accepted
by Council
November 26,
1991.
Sketch site plan
prepared.
joelen1.wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 6
1/-/0
3.
4.
h
L..
1....
L.
.i...
Developer shall submit an Initial study
Application to the City and post the
required deposit to cause Environmental
Review of the Project, and bear the
full cost of same except as herein
noted. In that reqard. citv has
retained the services of Reaional
Environmental Consul tants. an
environmental consul tant. to prepare
the EIR. Developer shall pav for the
costs of same: $18.500 not later than
Auqust 27. 1992: $19.828 not later than
September 3. 1992: $6.000 not later
than September 17. 1992: $4.000 not
later November 5. 1992. and the
balance. if anv. as billed to Developer
bv Citv.
Developer shall enter into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with American
Golf Oerpera~ieft. This MOU shall
describe and determine the involvement,
role, ownership, monetary position and
contribution of American Golf
eerpera~ieft in the Project.
Developer shall submit a Gradinq Plan.
acceptable to. but not approved bv. the
Public Works Director. to the environ-
mental consultant assiqned to perform
the EIR on the pro;ect.
Developer shall submit a detailed site
Plan. acceptable to. but not approved
bv. the Planninq Director. of the
Pro;ect to the EIR consultant.
submit a Landscape
to. but not approved
Director. to the EIR
Developer shall
Plan. acceptable
bv. the Planninq
consultant.
Developer shall deliver a final.
reproducible site Plan. acceptable to.
but not approved bv. the Planninq
Director. to the EIR Consultant.
Developer shall submit an application
for an amendment to the General Plan in
a form that provides for consistencv of
Done.
Auaust 27. 1992 -
I!.Wl
Sept. 3. 1992
Sept. 17. 1992
Nov. 5. 1992
preliminarv
incomplete
submitted.
but
MOU
August 31, 1992
August 31, 1992
September
1992.
3 ,
September
1992.
4 ,
September 4, 1992
j oelenl. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 7
II~ II
the Pro;ect to the General Plan bv the
date ad;acent hereto. and the citv-
reauired deoosit therefore. and shall
thereafter diliaentlv orosecute the
amendment.
~ Develooer shall submit an aoolication
for the rezonina of the Restaurant
Parcel as visitor Commercial. or such
other desianation or land use oermit
reauired bv the ci tv. and the ci tv-
reauired deoosit therefore. bv the date
ad;acent hereto. and shall thereafter
diliaentlv orosecute said aoolication.
~ Develooer shall submit a comolete
aoolication for Desian Review of the
Pro;ect. acceotable to. but not
aooroved bY. the Plannina Director. and
the Citv-reauired deoosit therefore.
and shall thereafter diliaentlv
orosecute said aoolication.
12. Developer shall submit a comprehensive
project feasibility study, which shall
include a pro forma analysis of project
costs, revenues and cash flow.
13. As requested by the City, from time to
time, the Developer agrees to make
periodic oral progress reports and
periodic written reports advising the
City on all matters and all studies.
All such matters shall be deemed to be
the joint property of city and Develo-
per, and may be used by either Party
without reimbursement to the other.
September 4, 1992
September
1992
18,
.1tlfte 19, 1992
November 1, 1992
Variable
Should the above obligations not be met in the identified
timeframes, this agreement, at the discretion of the City, shall
terminate. Failure of the developer to meet the timeframes due to
matters beyond their control and/or to a determination of project
nonfeasibility resulting in termination of this agreement shall not
constitute failure to negotiate in good faith.
joelen1.wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 8
/1-/2
E. City Obligations During the Negotiation Period.
During the negotiation of the DDA, city shall, at its own
cost and expense, and without right to reimbursement upon
termination as herein provided, perform the following
obligations:
1. Work with the City Traffic Engineer to prelimin-
arily determine the extent of on-Site and off-Site
traffic improvements which may be required by the
City as a condition to completion of the proposed
Project and the estimated cost of such improve-
ments. This obligation shall not be construed to
be a substitute for any EIR, studies of traffic, or
any other studies required by the developer as part
of the Project approval process. This information
shall be provided within 60 days of execution of
this agreement.
2. Generally coordinate the EIR process.
3. Work with Developer to determine all non-traffic,
on-site and off-Site public improvements and
utilities and other fees, conditions, improvements
or obligations required to accommodate the proposed
Project and to insure the compatibility of the
Proposed Project with the City zoning and General
Plan requirements.
4. Assist Developer in establishing and periodically
updating a schedule of all discretionary and
ministerial permits, review and approvals.
5. Assist Developer iSD establishing an estimate for
all fees and exactions to be paid by the Project.
Assist Developer in all discussions
negotiations with American Golf eer~eratieft.
F. Conditions Precedent to Obligations to Perform as
Contained in the DDA.
6.
and
1.
The obligatory provisions of the DDA shall be
conditioned upon approval by the City of the final
Project as contained in the Final Environmental
Impact Report and the DDA. The risk of loss of all
processing, design and developmental costs incurred
by the Developer prior to DDA approval shall be
absorbed entirely by Developer exceDt as herein
noted.
j oelen1. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 9
1/~J3
2.
Review and Approval by the city of
Discretionary Findings and Conclusions.
all
The duty of the City to dispose of, or lease, its
property located within the site shall be
conditioned upon the successful review and approval
of all necessary findings and conclusions which the
city Council is required to make, including all
environmental findings, plan consistency findings,
zoning approvals, variances, conditional use
permits, street vacations, etc. As to any matter
in which the city may be required to exercise its
unfettered discretion in advancing the Project to
completion, nothing herein, nor to be contained in
the DDA shall obligate the City to exercise its
discretion in any particular manner.
IV. Exclusive Nature of Agreement.
The City agrees, for the duration of this Agreement, not to
negotiate with any other person or entity regarding the
acquisition and development of the site.
V. Conditions for Termination of ENA
A. Termination Due to Impasse
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to
the contrary, if at any time either Developer or the City
decides in good faith that the Project will not be
feasible, for economic or other reasons, it may terminate
this Agreement without breach by written notice to the
other party. Upon any such termination, each party shall
be released from all further obligations under this
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, except that each party
shall remain responsible for the payment of such expenses
relating to the period prior to termination as it has
agreed to pay pursuant hereto.
VI. City Public Hearing.
If the negotiations culminate in an agreement between the
staff and Developer as to the terms for a Disposition and
Development Agreement, which is signed by Developer, such an
agreement shall be deemed to be an irrevocable offer to the
City to contract on the terms of the DDA for a period therein
provided for, but at least 60 days, but shall not become
obligatory upon the City or become effective until after the
agreement has been considered and approved by the City after
such public hearings and such procedures as are prescribed by
j oeleni. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 10
.'
//-/'/
-law.
VII. Real Estate Commissions
The City shall not be liable for any real estate commission or
brokerage fees which may arise herefrom. The City represents
that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection
with this transaction, and the Developer agrees to hold the
city harmless from any claim by any broker, agent or finder
retained by Developer.
VIII.
city's Dutv of Reimbursement
On the condition that Develooer has comolied with the terms
and conditions of this aareement. is not in breach hereof. and has
tendered to city a bindina and irrevocable DDA in a form that is
consistent with the orovisions of this aareement. and the city
shall refuse to aoorove the Pro;ect. citv shall reimburse the
Develooer its documented and verified. out-of-oocket costs incurred
in the orocessina of this Pro;ect. not to exceed $114.220 for the
Environmental Consultant and subconsultants. Citv-imoosed EIR
orocessina costs. and architectural. feasibility analvsis. and
enaineerina costs.
~ll.
Execution of this Agreement.
By its execution of this Agreement, the City is not agreeing
to undertake any activity including but not limited to the approval
and execution of an Disposition and Development Agreement; the
proposal, amendment, or approval of any land use regulation
governing the Site; the provision of financial assistance for the
development of any public or private improvement pertaining to the
site; the acquisition of any fee interest or leasehold interest in
real property; the authorization or obligation to use the city's
eminent domain authority; or, any other activity requiring the
subsequent exercise of discretion by the City, or any agency or
department thereof.
This Agreement does not constitute a disposition of property
or exercise of control over property by the city and does not
require a public hearing. city execution of this Agreement is
merely an agreement to enter into a period of exclusive
negotiations according to the terms hereof, reserving final
discretion and approval by the City as to any Environmental Impact
Report, proposed Disposition and Development Agreement and all
proceedings and decisions in connection therewith. This agreement
conveys no property right, and shall not be recorded.
(End of Page.
Next Page is signature Page.)
j oelenl. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 11
/ / ~1.5'
Signature Page to
First Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Between
city of Chula vista and
Joelen Enterprises for Hotel Development
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the date set forth adjacent thereto, thereby
indicating the consent of their principals.
Dated: April 1, 1991
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Tim Nader, its Mayor
Approved as to form:
r~~.J;ot~
city Attorney
APP~ed as to content:
~-~
ChrJ.s Salomone
community Development Director
JOELEN ENTERPRISES, a California
General Partnership
By:
Josef Citron, General Partner
By:
Lenore Citron, General Partner
j oelenl. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 12
1/-/6
CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL
GOLF COURSE
'"
~
-
'"
-
::I:
><
.....
CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL
GOLF COURSE
q.
DIRT ROAD/ ~ ----~
EQUESTRIAN _ - -:;.:::- ,. ~
TRAIL __ _ -- '" 1~o o~
_ -- ~e..'b1t
"JIMMY'S
00 the
GREEN"
MFD
(60)
VACANT LAND
PARCEL
MFD
(54)
::::::. .
: ~. . r--15' SEWER
E ~ EASEMENT
"-
H8oo37'30" -.......::::"..
100.02 \t ......... "'""- _
BON/t'A .~O L'293,92.
M 4al9048 44
BONITA
PLAZA
BONITA
BONITA VILLAG
,
CEN\
D.S./Tech.lI/kdv. PL
'.>~.
'" '"
,
.
~
,
I
~
~
~
t"'
~
~~
\Sl \
~
~
200
I
EXHIBIT A
,
MEMORANDUM
August 21, 1992
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Councilman David Malcolm
SUBJECT: Bonita Golf Lodge
Joelen Enterprises currently has an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with the City to
build a golf resort hotel adjacent to the Bonita Golf Course. On June 2, 1992, Council extended
the ENA period through November 1992, partially to allow for further evaluation of the need
for an EIR. Staff has since determined that an EIR is reQuired. An expedited schedule has been
prepared concluding with a joint Planning Commission and Council meeting in December 1992.
In light of the increased costs of an EIR, as well as the business risks relating to carrying a
project (originally approved in concept in April 1991) over to a potentially new set of decision-
makers lacking the historical continuity, Joelen Enterprises has requested some assurances from
the City prior to incurring major additional financial obligations. Joelen's request requires a
policy decision by the Council which I am recommending be addressed at the August 25 Council
meeting.
Specifically, I am recommending that Council approve Joelen's request via the adoption of a
second amendment to the ENA. The amendment provides for reimbursement of costs incurred
by the developer in the event that the EIR. or the oroject itself. is not aDDroved by the City. or
similarly. in the event that the proiect is precluded by a change of land use. Costs eligible for
reimbursement shall not exceed $114.220 (based upon the followinl!: EIR contract costs of
$66.220: related staff processinl! fees of $8.000: and. estimated architectural and enl!ineerinl!
costs of $40.000).
This recommendation is based upon the following factors:
1. The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately $1 million annually in
Transient Occupancy Taxes, lease payments, share of operating revenues and property
taxes - a factor of vital significance to the City in light of current budget realities. (This
economic benefit compares favorably to an annual income of less than $20,000 from the
other proposed projects, with the park proposal actually costing the City for operation
and maintenance).
2. The project was selected by Council as the preferred land use to optimize the value of
this City-owned property. The current recession imposes harsh short-term realities in
terms of market conditions and financing options which argue for a proactive position on
the City's part to help ensure that a desirable economic development project move
forward.
/ J -/ 't
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 21, 1992
Page Two
3. The City of Chula Vista should be prepared to enter into creative partnerships which
aggressively promote entrepreneurial activity when determined to be in the City's best
interest.
4. Precedent for a similar arrangement exists in the case of the Palomar Trolley Center
project wherein the City has contributed $250,000 for the EIR and related costs prior to
project approval.
Staff have been involved in discussions with the developer and are aware of their request. An
ENA amendment has been prepared for adoption per my request and will be available on
August 25.
While this recommendation would provide the types of assurances needed by Joelen Enterprises
to move forward in negotiations with their investors and to proceed to take the project through
the City's review process, it is not intended to waive any rights on the City's behalf to ensure
that all land use, environmental, regulatory, and design standards are met, nor to preclude the
City from stipulating lease terms that are clearly in the City's best interest.
DM/CLD/ak
Attachment: June 2, 1992 Agenda Statement
{A:\MALRECS.MEM]
" on,.
J / ~ /1
EXHl BIT B
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ?
Meeting Date 06/02/92
SUBMIITED BY:
Resolution /~~~.>' Approving and authorizing execution
of the attached first amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement
with ]oelen Enterprises for the negotiation of a Disposition and
Development Agreement for a proposed golf resort hotel
Community Development Director ( ?j I
City Manage!X
17 (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X>
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In June 1990, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for development of City-owned
property adjacent to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course in the 4400 block of Bonita Road.
Six proposals were received with two subsequently withdrawn. On April 23, 1991, Council
directed staff to prepare an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with ]oelen Enterprises for
development of a golf resort hotel.
Council also requested ]oelen Enterprises to prepare a market feasibility study to submit with
the proposed ENA. The original deadline of 120 days for these two items was extended by
Council to November 1991. On November 26, 1991, a Preliminary Market Feasibility Study
was accepted by Council and an ENA was approved. The ENA was for a period of 120 days
(through April 8, 1992) with the City Manager authorized to extend by 60 days. If a longer
extension were found to be necessary, staff was directed to return to Council within 60 days of
the ENA'S expiration.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that Council approve the resolution extending
the ENA with ]oelen Enterprises for a period of 180 days.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Proiect Status
The tasks required to be completed by ]oelen Enterprises under the existing ENA and their status
are delineated below:
~r II-~()
Due Date
Page 2, Item 7
Meeting Date 06/02/92
~
11/26/91 Submitted (attached)
3/9/92 Submitted (attached)
3/9/92 Submitted
4/8/92 Outstanding
4/8/92 Submitted (attached)
1. Preliminary market study
2. Memorandum of Understanding with
American Golf Corp.
3. Preliminary Site Plan
4. Project Feasibility Study/Pro Forma
5. Initial Study Application & Deposit
The one outstanding task is the comprehensive feasibility/pro forma analysis. However, it is
proposed that the deadline for this task be revised and designated in the extended ENA period
pending further environmental studies and project refinement.
The project's Initial Study application has been reviewed by pertinent City departments. Various
issues have been raised that will require specific studies, including traffic, flooding and noise.
Staff is currently evaluating the need for an EIR to be conducted. The project's Pro Forma
analysis will need to incorporate both the costs of the studies ultimately required and the costs
of the resulting mitigations. However, Joelen Enterprises will be required to provide a
Preliminary Income and Expenses Pro Forma analysis (the market study was Phase I) by August
1992, and the final comprehensive feasibility analysis upon completion of all environmental
studies.
Extended ENA
It is important to note that Joelen Enterprises has authorized the City to proceed with hiring a
consultant to conduct the required traffic study which will address ingress and egress issues
including the impact upon the Otay Road and Bonita Road intersection, as well as parking issues
relating to the hotel, golf course, and joggers. Additionally, Joelen has executed a contract with
Rick Engineering to conduct the topographical survey to identify flood elevations. These two
studies are key to determining environmental mitigations and related costs, and therefore project
feasibility .
FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the extended ENA will have no direct fiscal impact on the
City other than the continued cost of staff time to administer the ENA and negotiate related
agreements (lease, Disposition and Development Agreement, etc.). Previous analysis estimates
that the project ultimately will generate approximately $1,000,000 per year in Transit Occupancy
Taxes, lease payments, percentage operating revenues, and property taxes.
[C::\VVPS1\CO~C:[L\113S\J()~-2.113]
.,"" / /
~'J. J -..2,
FIRST AMENDMENT TO TIlE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
JOELEN ENTERPRISES FOR NEGOTIATION TOWARDS A
DISPOSmON AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A
PROPOSED GOLF RESORT HOTEL
This agreement hereby extends the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between
the City of Chula Vista and loelen Enterprises dated November 26, 1991, for an additional 180
days from Council approval by resolution of the amendment.
During the term of the extended 180 day ENA, the following tasks shall be negotiated
and completed by loolen Enterprises within the timeframes specified:
Task
Due Date
1. Topographic Survey
Iuly 10, 1991
2. Traffic Study
Iuly 10, 1991
3. Air and Noise Studies
August 31, 1991
4. Master Plan for Golf Course and
Hotel, Including Identification
of Golf Course Improvements
August 31, 1991
5. Preliminary Income and Expense
Pro Forma
August 31, 1991
6. Drainage Study
September 30, 1990
September 30, 1990
7. Identification of Historical
Artifacts Space
8. Revised Site Plan, showing architectural
design, traffic circulation, on- and
off-site improvements, parking and
jogging trails
October 30, 1991
9. Agreement between American Golf Corp.
and Ioelen Enterprises including
policy regarding available golf times
October 30, 1991
10. Lease Agreement between City and
Ioelen Enterprises
November 30, 1991
11. Financing Income and Expense Pro Forma
November 30, 1991
12. Project Development Schedule and
Identification of Financing Source
November 30, 1991
1~
I / -- ..L J..
~
MAY-28-92 THU 15:38
p.e:3
tlAY-28-92 THU 14:21
COl1l1UN I TY DEVELOPMENT
FAX NO, 8194785310
P.03
The tirnek.4l.e5 lpedfled Aqltualt rcasooabJe O$6m...... of feasible completion dares.
but may be xev1sed upotl City Ilaff authorlzation to reflect c!wlainl needs.
Except lIS specJfica1ly ameoded. all utha ICrlDI alld condill.ons .\tall rema1n the same
and In fun force and effect.
1n witness we:tllOf, AgeDfJ'I and Joe1en Enterprises have QCCUtcd this Amendment 10
tile 0tiabW Ape1nI!Dt tb1I2114 dq of JUlIe 1002.
THB CITY OF CBULA VIS1'A
))ale:
'l1n1 Nader, Mayor
Attest:
Beverly Authe1et, City Clerk.
Approved u to lonn:
Btuce M. Boopard
City Attorney
10m :R1IJ EN'I'.FBPlUSBS
Date: _ ~ ~~. dt1!I;y
~~ jjJ.~j
ICI\WJSI\C;Otl'lMCI\1aI-2.c:nQ
:a
7;:'~ 1/~c23
/'
EXHmIT C
BONITA GOLF HOTEL EIR/PROJECT REVIEW SCHEDULE
August 7, 1992
EIR RFP & NOP out
August 14, 1992
EIR Proposals due
August 17, 1992
EIR Consultant selection; authorize to proceed
August 26, 1992
EIR Contract executed
September 4, 1992
Developer submits Final Site Plan
Developer submits GP A application
Developer submits Rezoning application
Developer submits Design Review application
September 14, 1992
EIR Checkprint to City
September 21, 1992
EIR Revisions to consultant
September 23,1992
EIR Final review by City
September 25, 1992
Public review of Draft EIR begins/copies to SCH
November II, 1992
Planning Commission hearing on Draft EIR
November 20, 1992
Response to EIR Comments out
December 1, 1992
Joint Planning Commission/Council hearing
on Final EIR/ProjectlGPA/Rezone
bonita.sch
//-:;1
EXHIBIT D
RESOLUTION NO. 16428
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA DIRECTING STAFF TO CONFER WITH JOELEN ENTERPRISES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING A PROJECT DEFINITION UNDER
CEQA AND FOR APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH JOELEN ENTERPRISES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH MIGHT
IMPLEMENT SAID PROJECT AND TO RETURN SAME TO THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, in June, 1990, the City of Chula Vista issued a Request for
Proposals for the development of City property in the 4400 block of Bonita Road
adjacent to Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course; and,
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1991, after reviewing four proposals for development,
City Council designated Jolen Enterprises as a prospective developer; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council directed Agency staff to negotiate an agreement
that would come in consultation with said developer, create a project definition
under CEQA and would commit the City to negotiate exclusively with said developer
for the purpose of arriving at a Disposition and Development Agreement for the
implementation of said project and for presenting same to the City Council for
their review and consideration; and,
WHEREAS, sai d agreement ("Excl usi ve Negoti ati on Agreement") has been
prepared with Joelen Enterprises in a form which staff is recommending to the
City Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby directs staff to consult and confer with
Joelen Enterprises for the purpose of defining a project which would
include a golf ~esort hotel concept at the City-owned property in
the 4400 block of Bonita Road, adjacent to the Chula Vista Municipal
Golf Course.
SECTION 2. Cause such project as defined by staff to be environmentally
reviewed as required by the California Environmental Quality Act,
and its guidelines promulgated thereunder.
SECTION 3. City hereby approves the proposed "Exclusive Negotiating Agreement"
between the City of Chula Vista and Joelen Enterprises for hotel
development, dated November 21, 1991, known as document number C091-
209, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and
authorizes the Mayor to execute same.
I j, ),5
Resolution No. 16428
Page 2
SECTION 4. Direct staff to return to the City Council for the review and
consideration of said project definition, the environmental impacts
that may be caused thereby, and for review and consideration of the
terms and conditions of a staff sponsored Disposition and
Development Agreement according to and within the parameters of the
"Exclusive Negotiating Agreement" herewith approved.
SECTION 5. City hereby directs the Executive Director not to extend the initial
negotiating period by more than 60 days without further approval
from the City Council despite the maximum negotiating period of 180
days permitted in Section III.A. Developer is hereby notified that
the Extended Negotiating Period shall not exceed 60 days without
further approval from the City Council.
~,
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Approv
/
~",. M. Boo,.."
City Attorney
Presented by
:
II-)&'
Resolution No. 16428
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 10th day of December, 1991, by the following vote:
YES:
NOES:
Councilmembers:
Malcolm, Moore, Rindone
Councilmember:
Grasser Horton, Nader
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers:
None
Councilmembers:
None
-J- ~~/t
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
~.\ ~
1'-(.// /- ,/';
I . (/1, j 1/. ,~J / l I ~ ~', ;.. .
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
ss.
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16428 was duly passed, approved,
and adopted by the City Council held on the 10th day of December, 1991.
Executed this 10th day of December, 1991.
\
'} .{~'
,/ I .'
. :(IiJ..j~ /. .((2f (/~/
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
//....2 7
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Between
City of Chula Vista and
Joelen Enterprises for Hotel Development
This AGREEMENT is entered into this 1/;-4- ~~ , 1991 for the
purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed by the
parties, by and between the City of Chula Vista, California, a political
subdivision of the State of California, ("City"), and Joelen Enterprises, a
Ca 1 Horni a General Partnershi p, whose general partners, and thei r addresses,
are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference ("Developer").
THE CITY AND DEVELOPER HEREBY AGREE AS FOllOWS:
I. Part i es
A. Nature and Offices of the Developer
Developer is Joelen Enterprises, a California General Partnership.
The principal office of the Developer for purposes of this
Agreement is:
4000 Coronado Bay Road
Coronado, CA 92118
1. Developer's Representatives.
Developer has des i gnated the fo 11 owi ng person or persons who
wi 11 negot i ate the Di sposi t i on and Development Agreement with
the City and who will engage in the activities necessary to
determine the feasibility of the development of the Site:
Josef and Lenore Citron
B. City's Offices and Representatives.
The principal office of City for purposes of this Agreement is:
Community Development Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
(619) 691-5047
1. City's Representatives.
Ci ty has designated the fo 11 owi ng person or persons who will
negotiate the Disposition and Development Agreement with the
Developer and who will engage in the act i vi ties necessary to
determine the feasibility of the development of the Site:
. Chris Salomone, Community Development Director
/ /-~1
R 1\o'-l2'l<
c.u'1I- 2d1
II. Definitions and References
A. Site:
The property which is the subject matter of this Agreement is
approximately 7-9 acres of land identified as follows:
1. San Diego County Assessor Parcel No. 568-420-14, Owned by the
City of Chula Vista, 3i acres ("City Parcel")
2. 4-6 acres of land owned by the City of Chula Vista and leased
to Ameri can Golf Corporat i on for purposes of operating the
Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course ("Golf Course Parcel") and
legally described as set forth in Exhibit B.
B. Project:
The Project as used herein shall be referred to as the development
of the Site with a 200-250 room hotel and associated golf, visitor
commercial and retail floor area ("Project").
III. Negotiations
A. Negotiation Period
The term of this Agreement shall be 120 calendar days from the date
it is approved and executed by both parties (the "Initial
Negotiation Period"). At the end of the Initial Negotiation
Peri od, the Execut i ve Di rector, on beha lf of the City, is
authori zed to extend the term of th is Agreement for up to an
additional 180 days (the "Extended Negotiation Period") if at the
end of the Initial Negotiation Period the parties have not yet
entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement, the tity has
not exerci sed its right to termi nate as herei n provided, and the
Executive Director has determined that there is a reasonably
1 i ke 1 i hood that the Developer wi 11 agree to terms whi ch the City
staff will be able to recommend to the City.
B. Duty of Staff and Developer to Negotiate DDA
During the "Negotiation Period" as herein defined, Staff of the
City ("Staff") and Developer shall negotiate dil igently and in good
faith to prepare a "project definition" for CEQA purposes, to
determine project feasibility and to prepare an implementation
plan, including an agreement ("Disposition and Development
Agreement", or alternatively "DDA") implementing the "Project" to
present to the City for City Council consideration and approval, as
they deem appropriate, after appropriate CEQA review, which DDA
shall, among other things, address the basic issues and
requirements listed below.
The items 1 i sted below shall be negot i ated in good fa i th between
Staff of the City and Developer. Failure by the 'developer to
negot i ate towards the resol ut i on of these i terns shall constitute
breach of good faith negotiations.
-2-; I" :J.. ~ '
1. Lease Agreement
A lease agreement which commits the Developer to lease the City
Parcel from the City; commits the Developer to lease the Golf
Course Parcel from the City and/or American Golf Corporation or
to otherwise enter into an agreement with the City and/or
American Golf Course which meets the development objectives as
del ineated in Number B. 2 below; commits Developer to pay an
amount based on operating revenues of Project to the Ci ty,
including a minimum rent payment.
2. Development of the Site.
A commitment to provide project development security
satisfactory to the City and to improve the Site with the
Project in a form as approved by the City Council ("Approved
Deve 1 opment") whi ch incorporates the fo 11 owi ng:
a. An approved Master Plan for the City Parcel and Golf
Course Parcel.
Compl i ance with design standards as
the City's Design Review Board,
Commission, and the City Council.
c. A commitment for improvement of the Municipal Golf Course
by Developer or American Golf Corporation.
b.
determi ned by Staff,
the City Pl ann i ng
d. A design that minimizes, to the extent possible, the
traffic circulation and parking problems that the Approved
Development can be expected to produce.
e. Publ ic parking sufficient for the continued use by the
publ ic of the jogging trail that circumscribes the golf
course.
f. Space for di sp 1 ay of hi stori cart ifacts, photographs or
other items of significance to the .Bonita Community.
3. A plan for clearly defining and minimizing the impact of the
Project on existing use of the golf course; specifically on the
availability of golf starting times to the public.
4. Schedule of Performance.
A schedule prepared jointly with the City Staff for the
accomplishment of identifiable developmental milestones
including project application and evidence of financing,
environmental reviews and other milestones.
-3- J / ~ 3&
C. Financial Feasibility and Economic Risk.
Both parties shall use the Initial Negotiation Period to estimate
tota 1 project costs in order to determi ne the economi c feas i bil ity
of the proposed project. It is understood that the Developer
absorbs all economic risks associated with the completion of the
Project. It is the intention of the Parties that Developer shall
pay the full cost of all improvements to be constructed on the Site
and the cost of all normal City fees and permits applicable to
completion of the proposed improvements. The parties agree and
acknowledge that it is the intent of the parties that all Project
costs, including but not limited to the lease or acquisition of the
Site, relocation costs, design, construction and development of all
on-Site and off-Site public and private improvements, appraisal
fees, envi ronmenta 1 and other consultant fees, whether incurred by
Developer or City shall be the responsibility of the Developer.
Notwithstanding the above, at such time as developer can demonstrate
that they are unable to generate a reasonable return based upon
extraordinary publ ic improvement costs, the City may entertain a
proposal for financial assistance for such improvements, such
assistance to be evaluated and addressed within the content of the
negotiated lease agreement and DDA. It is also understood that in
the event either party is unable to reach agreement on the DDA terms
and conditions, including a request for City assistance, and
foll owi ng good faith negot i at ions, either party may termi nate thi s
agreement.
D. Developer Obligations During the Negotiation Period.
During the Negotiation Period, Developer shall, at his own cost and
expense, and without right to reimbursement upon termination as
herein provided, perform the following obligations within the stated
time period (#2-5 measured from date of execution by both parties of
this agreement). For the purposes of this section, time is of the
essence.
Oblioation
1. Developer shall submit a preliminary
market feasibil ity analysis of the
proposed project conducted by a consultant
approved by the City. The analysis should
provide conclusions regarding the
suitability of the site, current market
demand, supportable guest rooms and
probab 1 e occupancy and supportable average
room rates.
Comoletion
Nov. I, 1991
2. Developer shall enter into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with American Golf
Corporation. This MOU shall describe and
determine the involvement, role,
ownership, monetary position and
contribution of the American Golf
Corporation in the Project
90 days
-4-
J/~ 3/
Obliqation
Completion
3. Developer shall submit a preliminary site
plan for the project.
90 days
4. Developer shall submit a comprehensive project
feasibility study, which shall include a
pro forma analys is of project costs,
revenues and cash flow.
120 days
5. Developer shall submit an Initial Study
Application to the City and post the
required deposit to cause Environmental
Revi ew of the Project, and bear the full
cost of same.
120 days
6. As requested by the City, from time to time,
the Developer agrees to make periodic oral
progress reports and peri odi c wri tten
reports advising the City on all matters
and all studies. All such matters shall
be deemed to be the joint property of City
and Developer, and may be used by either
Party without reimbursement to the other.
Should the above obligations not be met in the identified
timeframes, this agreement, at the discretion of the City, shall
terminate. Failure of the developer to meet the timeframes due to
matters beyond their control and/or to a determination of project
nonfeas i bil i ty result i ng in termi nat i on of thi s agreement sha 11 not
constitute failure to negotiate in good faith.
E. City Obligations During the Negotiation Period.
During the negotiation of the DDA, City shall, at its own cost and
expense, and without right to reimbursement upon termination as
herein provided, perform the following obligations:
1. Work with the City Traffic Engineer to preliminarily determine
the extent of on-Site and off-Site traffic improvements which
may be required by the City as a condition to completion of
the proposed Project and the estimated cost of such
improvements. This obligation shall not be construed to be a
substitute for any EIR, studies of traffic, or any other
studies required by the developer as part of the Project
approval process. This information shall be provided within
60 days of execution of this agreement.
2. Generally coordinate the EIR process.
3. Work with Developer to determine all non-traffic, on-Site and
off-Site public improvements and utilities and other fees,
conditions, improvements or obligations required to
accommodate the proposed Project and to insure the
compatibility of the Proposed Project with the City zoning and
General Plan requirements.
-5-
I/-;l ~
4. Assist Developer in establishing and periodically updating a
schedule of all discretionary and ministerial permits, review
and approvals.
5. Assist Developer is establishing an estimate for all fees and
exactions to be paid by the Project.
6. Assist Developer in all discussions and negotiations with
American Golf Corporation.
F. Conditions Precedent to Obligations to Perform as Contained in the
DDA.
1. The obligatory provisions of the DDA shall be conditioned upon
approval by the City of the final Project as contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the DDA. The risk of
loss of all processing, design and developmental costs
incurred by the Developer prior to DDA approval shall be
absorbed entirely by Developer.
2. Review and Approval by the City of all Discretionary Findings
and Conclusions.
The duty of the City to dispose of, or 1 ease, its property
located within the Site shall be conditioned upon the
successful revi ew and approval of all necessary fi ndi ngs and
conclusions which the City Council is required to make,
including all environmental findings, plan consistency
findings, zoning approvals, variances, conditional use
permits, street vacations, etc. As to any matter in which the
City may be required to exercise its unfettered discretion in
advancing the Project to completion, nothing herein, nor to be
contained in the DDA shall obl igate the City to exercise its
discretion in any particular manner.
IV. Exclusive Nature of Agreement.
The City agrees, for the
wi th any other person
development of the Site.
V. Conditions for Termination of ENA
duration of this Agreement, not to negotiate
or entity regarding the acquisition and
A. Termination Due to Impasse
Notwithstanding any other provlslon of this Agreement to the
contrary, if at any time either Developer or the City decides in
good faith that the Project will not be feasible, for economic or
other reasons, it may terminate this Agreement without breach by
written notice to the other party. Upon any such termination, each
party shall be released from all further obligations under this
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, except that each party shall
remain responsible for the payment of such expenses relating to the
period prior to termination as it has agreed to pay pursuant hereto.
-6-
/1-:13
VI.
City Public Hearing.
If the negot i at ions cul mi nate in an agreement between the Staff and
Deve 1 oper as to the terms for a Di sposit i on and Development Agreement,
which is signed by Developer, such an agreement shall be deemed to be an
i rrevocabl e offer to the City to contract on the terms of the DDA for a
period therein provided for, but at least 60 days, but shall not become
obl igatory upon the City or become effective until after the agreement
has been considered and approved by the City after such publ ic hearings
and such procedures as are prescribed by law.
Real Estate Commissions
VI I.
The City shall not be liable for any real estate commission or brokerage
fees which may arise herefrom. The City represents that it has engaged
no broker, agent or finder in connection with this transaction, and the
Developer agrees to hold the City harmless from any claim by any broker,
agent or finder retained by Developer.
VIII. Execution of this Agreement.
By its execution of this Agreement, the City is not agreeing to
undertake any activity including but not 1 imited to the approval and
execution of an Disposition and Development Agreement; the proposal,
amendment, or approval of any 1 and use regul at i on governi ng the Site;
the provision of financial assistance for the development of any public
or private improvement pertaining to the Site; the acquisition of any
fee interest or 1 easeho 1 d interest i n real property; the authori zat i on
or obligation to use the City's eminent domain authority; or, any other
activity requiring the subsequent exercise of discretion by the City, or
any agency or department thereof.
This Agreement does not constitute a disposition of property or exercise
of control over property by the City and does not require a publ ic
heari ng. City execution of thi s Agreement is merely an agreement to
enter into a period of exclusive negotiations according to the terms
hereof, reserving final discretion and approval by the City as to any
Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Report, proposed Di spos iti on and Development
Agreement and all proceedings and decisions in connection therewith.
This agreement conveys no property right, and shall not be recorded.
-7- //- J '-I
NOV-14-91 THU 9:15
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FAX NO, 6194765310
p, DB oJ f
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the date set forth adjacent thereto. thereby i ndi cat i ng the consent of
their principals.
Dated: April 1, 1991
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
'it t"
By: -~ /1~/t--/
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
JOELEN ENTERPRISES, a California
General Partnership
BY:
Bruce M, Boogaard,
Approved as to conte By:
rp~- ~~---
Chns Salomone
Community Development Director
WPC 4710H
-8-
//-;15
First Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Between
City of Chula vista and
Joelen Enterprises for Hotel Development
This agreement ("Agreement") is entered into September 1, 1992
for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date
last executed by the parties, by and between the city of Chula
Vista, California, a pOlitical subdivision of the State of
California, ("city"), and Joelen Enterprises, a California General
Partnership, whose general partners, and their addresses, are set
forth in IB below and incorporated herein by reference
("Developer") .
This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts:
Whereas, the city and Developer entered into an agreement
("Original Agreement") entitled "Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Between city of Chula vista and Joelen Enterprises for Hotel
Development", executed as of November 26, 1991 by City; and,
Whereas, on or about June 2, 1992, the parties extended the
Initial Negotiating Period, as therein defined, to November, 1992
by the first amendment to said Original Agreement ("First
Amendment") entitled "First Amendment to Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement Between city of chula vista and Joelen Enterprises for
Hotel Development"; and,
Whereas, the parties now desire to revise their contractual
relationship again but to restate their entire agreement in a
single document which will supersede and replace the Original
Agreement as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY AND DEVELOPER HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. Parties
A. Nature and Offices of the Developer
Developer is Joelen Enterprises, a California General
Partnership. The principal office of the Developer for
purposes of this Agreement is:
4000 Coronado Bay Road
Coronado, CA 92118
1.
Developer's Representatives.
joelen1.wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 1
1/,37
Developer has designated the following person or
persons who will negotiate the Disposition and
Development Agreement with the city and who will
engage in the activities necessary to determine the
feasibility of the development of the site:
Josef and Lenore citron
B. city's Offices and Representatives.
The principal office of City for purposes of this
Agreement is:
Community Development Department
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, California 91910
(619) 691-5047
1. City's Representatives.
City has designated the following person or persons
who will negotiate the Disposition and Development
Agreement with the Developer and who will engage in
the activities necessary to determine the
feasibility of the development of the site:
Chris Salomone, Community Development Director
II. Definitions and References
A. Site:
The property which is the subject matter of this
Agreement is approximately seven acres of land identified
as follows:
1.
a portion of San Diego County Assessor Parcel No.
568-420-14, Owned by the city of Chula Vista,
consisting of approximately three acres in a
configuration shown on the attached Exhibit B
("City Parcel")
2.
Four acres of land owned by the city of Chula Vista
and leased to American Golf Corporation for
purposes of operating the restaurant, banquet
facility and pro shop at the Chula Vista Municipal
Golf Course ("Restaurant Parcel") in the
configuration shown on the attached Exhibit B.
j oelen1. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 2
//~3~
B. Project:
The Project as used herein shall be referred to as the
development of the site with a 200-250 room hotel and
associated golf shop, restaurant, banquet and meeting
facilities, swimming pool, tennis courts, visitor
commercial and retail floor area ("Project").
III. Negotiations
A. Negotiation Period
The term of this Agreement commenced under the Original
Agreement on December 10, 1991 and shall conclude on No-
vember 30, 1992 ("Negotiating Period") unless otherwise
extended by the parties in writing.
B. Duty of staff and Developer to Negotiate DDA
During the "Negotiation Period" as herein defined, Staff
of the city ("Staff") and Developer shall negotiate
diligently and in good faith to prepare a "project
definition" for CEQA purposes, to determine project
feasibility and to prepare an implementation plan,
including an agreement ("Disposition and Development
Agreement", or alternatively "DDA") implementing the
"Project" to present to the city for city Council
consideration and approval, as they deem appropriate,
after appropriate CEQA review, which DDA shall, among
other things, address the basic issues and requirements
listed below.
The items listed below shall be negotiated in good faith
between Staff of the City and Developer. Failure by the
developer to negotiate towards the resolution of these
items shall constitute breach of good faith negotiations.
1. Restaurant Parcel Control.
The DDA shall commit the Developer to obtain site
control sufficient to permit the construction and
occupancy of the Project over and upon the
Restaurant Parcel, which meets the development
objectives as delineated in Number B. 3 below, and
makes the further duties of the parties contained
in the DDA contingent upon same;
2. city Parcel Lease Agreement
A lease agreement which commits the Developer to
joelenl. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 3
/I-:J /
lease the City Parcel
Developer to pay an
revenues of Project
minimum rent payment.
~ Development of the site.
from the city; and commits
amount based on operating
to the City, including a
A commitment to provide project development secur-
ity satisfactory to the City and to improve the
Site with the Project in a form as approved by the
City Council ("Approved Development") which
incorporates the following:
a. An approved Master Plan for the City Parcel
and Restaurant Parcel.
b. Compliance with design standards as determined
by Staff, the City's Design Review Board, the
City Planning Commission, and the City
Council.
c. A design that minimizes, to the extent pos-
sible, the traffic circulation and parking
problems that the Approved Development can be
expected to produce.
d. Public parking sufficient for the Project, as
well as the continued use of the jogging trail
that circumscribes the golf course and the
golf course.
e. Space for display of historic artifacts,
photographs or other items of significance to
the Bonita Community.
4. A plan for clearly defining and minimizing the
impact of the Project on existing use of the golf
course; specifically on the availability of golf
starting times to the public.
5. Schedule of Performance.
A schedule prepared jointly with the city Staff for
the accomplishment of identifiable developmental
milestones relating to project implementation,
including evidence of financing, environmental
reviews or compliance and other milestones.
C. Financial Feasibility and Economic Risk.
joelen1.wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 4
J/-'I~
Both parties shall use the Negotiation Period to estimate
total project costs in order to determine the economic
feasibility of the proposed project. It is understood
that the Developer absorbs all economic risks associated
with the completion of the Project except as hereinbelow
noted under the subparagraph entitled: "City
Reimbursement Duty". Thus, unless excepted expressly
hereinbelow, it is the intention of the Parties that
Developer shall pay the full cost of all improvements to
be constructed on the site and the cost of all normal
City fees and permits applicable to completion of the
proposed improvements. The parties agree and acknowledge
that it is the intent of the parties that, except as
expressly noted herein, all Project costs, including but
not limited to the lease or acquisition of the site,
relocation costs, design, construction and development of
all on-site and off-site public and private improvements,
appraisal fees, environmental and other consultant fees,
whether incurred by Developer or City shall be the
responsibility of the Developer.
Notwithstanding the above, at such time as developer can
demonstrate that they are unable to generate a reasonable
return based upon extraordinary public improvement costs,
the City may entertain a proposal for financial
assistance for such improvements, such assistance to be
evaluated and addressed within the content of the nego-
tiated lease agreement and DDA. It is also understood
that in the event either party is unable to reach agree-
ment on the DDA terms and conditions, including a request
for City assistance, and following good faith ne-
gotiations, either party may terminate this agreement.
D. Developer Obligations During the Negotiation Period.
During the Negotiation Period, Developer shall, at his
own cost and expense, and without right to reimbursement
upon termination as herein provided, perform the
following obligations by the stated date. For the
purposes of this section, time is of the essence.
joelenl.wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 5
/1~0
Obliaation
1.
Developer shall submit a preliminary
market feasibility analysis of the
proposed project conducted by a
consultant approved by the city. The
analysis should provide conclusions
regarding the suitability of the site,
current market demand, supportable
guest rooms and probable occupancy and
supportable average room rates.
2.
Developer shall submit a preliminary
site plan for the project.
Developer shall submit an Initial study
Application to the City and post the
required deposit to cause Environmental
Review of the Project, and bear the
full cost of same except as herein
noted. In that regard, City has
retained the services of Regional
Environmental Consul tants, an
environmental consultant, to prepare
the EIR. Developer shall pay for the
costs of same: $18,500 not later than
August 27, 1992; $19,828 not later than
September 3, 1992; $6,000 not later
than September 17, 1992; $4,000 not
later November 5, 1992, and the
balance, if any, as billed to Developer
by City.
3.
4.
Developer shall enter into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with American
Golf. This MOU shall describe and
determine the involvement, role,
ownership, monetary position and
contribution of American Golf in the
Project.
5.
Developer shall submit a Grading Plan,
acceptable to, but not approved by, the
Public Works Director, to the environ-
mental consultant assigned to perform
the EIR on the project.
joelen1.wp
August 28, 1992
Comoletion
Done and accepted
by Council
November 26,
1991.
Sketch site plan
prepared.
Done.
August 27, 1992 -
paid
Sept. 3, 1992
Sept. 17, 1992
Nov. 5, 1992
Preliminary
incomplete
submitted.
but
MOU
August 31, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 6
1/- '1.<
6.
Developer shall submit a detailed site
Plan, acceptable to, but not approved
by, the Planning Director, of the
Project to the ErR consultant.
7.
Developer shall
Plan, acceptable
by, the Planning
consultant.
submit a Landscape
to, but not approved
Director, to the ErR
Developer shall deliver a final,
reproducible site Plan, acceptable to,
but not approved by, the Planning
Director, to the ErR Consultant.
9. Developer shall submit an application
for an amendment to the General Plan in
a form that provides for consistency of
the project to the General Plan by the
date adjacent hereto, and the City-
required deposit therefore, and shall
thereafter diligently prosecute the
amendment.
8.
10. Developer shall submit an application
for the rezoning of the Restaurant
Parcel as visitor Commercial, or such
other designation or land use permit
required by the City, and the City-
required deposit therefore, by the date
adjacent hereto, and shall thereafter
diligently prosecute said application.
11. Developer shall submit a complete
application for Design Review of the
Project, acceptable to, but not
approved by, the Planning Director, and
the City-required deposit therefore,
and shall thereafter diligently
prosecute said application.
12. Developer shall submit a comprehensive
project feasibility study, which shall
include a pro forma analysis of project
costs, revenues and cash flow.
j oelenl. wp
August 28, 1992
August 31, 1992
September
1992.
3 ,
September
1992.
4 ,
September 4, 1992
September 4, 1992
September
1992
18,
November 1, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 7
J/~L(3
13. As requested by the City, from time to
time, the Developer agrees to make
periodic oral progress reports and
periodic written reports advising the
City on all matters and all studies.
All such matters shall be deemed to be
the joint property of City and Develo-
per, and may be used by either Party
without reimbursement to the other.
Variable
Should the above obligations not be met in the identified
timeframes, this agreement, at the discretion of the city, shall
terminate. Failure of the developer to meet the timeframes due to
matters beyond their control and/or to a determination of project
nonfeasibility resulting in termination of this agreement shall not
constitute failure to negotiate in good faith.
j oelenl. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 8
/ /-L(t(
E. City Obligations During the Negotiation Period.
During the negotiation of the DDA, City shall, at its own
cost and expense, and without right to reimbursement upon
termination as herein provided, perform the following
obligations:
1. Work with the City Traffic Engineer to prelimin-
arily determine the extent of on-site and off-site
traffic improvements which may be required by the
City as a condition to completion of the proposed
Project and the estimated cost of such improve-
ments. This obligation shall not be construed to
be a substitute for any EIR, studies of traffic, or
any other studies required by the developer as part
of the Project approval process. This information
shall be provided within 60 days of execution of
. this agreement.
2. Generally coordinate the EIR process.
3. Work with Developer to determine all non-traffic,
on-Site and off-site public improvements and
utilities and other fees, conditions, improvements
or obligations required to accommodate the proposed
Project and to insure the compatibility of the
Proposed Project with the City zoning and General
Plan requirements.
4. Assist Developer in establishing and periodically
updating a schedule of all discretionary and
ministerial permits, review and approvals.
5. Assist Developer in establishing an estimate for
all fees and exactions to be paid by the Project.
Assist Developer in all discussions
negotiations with American Golf.
F. Conditions Precedent to Obligations to Perform as
contained in the DDA.
6.
and
1.
The obligatory provisions of the DDA shall be
conditioned upon approval by the City of the final
Project as contained in the Final Environmental
Impact Report and the DDA. The risk of loss of all
processing, design and developmental costs incurred
by the Developer prior to DDA approval shall be
absorbed entirely by Developer except as herein
noted.
j oelen1. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 9
/'
11- tf.-?
2.
Review and Approval by the City
Discretionary Findings and Conclusions.
The duty of the City to dispose of, or lease, its
property located within the site shall be
conditioned upon the successful review and approval
of all necessary findings and conclusions which the
City Council is required to make, including all
environmental findings, plan consistency findings,
zoning approvals, variances, conditional use
permits, street vacations, etc. As to any matter
in which the City may be required to exercise its
unfettered dis.cretion in advancing the Project to
completion, nothing herein, nor to be contained in
the DDA shall obligate the City to exercise its
discretion in any particular manner.
of
all
IV. Exclusive Nature of Agreement.
The City agrees, for the duration of this Agreement, not to
negotiate with any other person or entity regarding the
acquisition and development of the site.
V. Conditions for Termination of ENA
A. Termination Due to Impasse
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to
the contrary, if at any time either Developer or the City
decides in good faith that the Project will not be
feasible, for economic or other reasons, it may terminate
this Agreement without breach by written notice to the
other party. Upon any such termination, each party shall
be released from all further obligations under this
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, except that each party
shall remain responsible for the payment of such expenses
relating to the period prior to termination as it has
agreed to pay pursuant hereto.
VI. City Public Hearing.
If the negotiations culminate in an agreement between the
Staff and Developer as to the terms for a Disposition and
Development Agreement, which is signed by Developer, such an
agreement shall be deemed to be an irrevocable offer to the
city to contract on the terms of the DDA for a period therein
provided for, but at least 60 days, but shall not become
obligatory upon the City or become effective until after the
agreement has been considered and approved by the City after
such public hearings and such procedures as are prescribed by
j oelenl. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 10
//''16
law.
VII. Real Estate Commissions
The city shall not be liable for any real estate commission or
brokerage fees which may arise herefrom. The city represents
that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection
with this transaction, and the Developer agrees to hold the
City harmless from any claim by any broker, agent or finder
retained by Developer.
VIII.
city's Duty of Reimbursement
On the condition that Developer has complied with the terms
and conditions of this agreement, is not in breach hereof, and has
tendered to city a binding and irrevocable DDA in a form that is
consistent with the provisions of this agreement, and the City
shall refuse to approve the Project, City shall reimburse the
Developer its documented and verified, out-of-pocket costs incurred
in the processing of this Project, not to exceed $114,220 for the
Environmental Consultant and subconsultants, City-imposed EIR
processing costs, and architectural, feasibility analysis, and
engineering costs.
IX. Execution of this Agreement.
By its execution of this Agreement, the City is not agreeing
to undertake any activity including but not limited to the approval
and execution of an Disposition and Development Agreement; the
proposal, amendment, or approval of any land use regulation
governing the Site; the provision of financial assistance for the
development of any public or private improvement pertaining to the
Site; the acquisition of any fee interest or leasehold interest in
real property; the authorization or obligation to use the City's
eminent domain authority; or, any other activity requiring the
subsequent exercise of discretion by the City, or any agency or
department thereof.
This Agreement does not constitute a disposition of property
or exercise of control over property by the City and does not
require a public hearing. city execution of this Agreement is
merely an agreement to enter into a period of exclusive
negotiations according to the terms hereof, reserving final
discretion and approval by the city as to any Environmental Impact
Report, proposed Disposition and Development Agreement and all
proceedings and decisions in connection therewith. This agreement
conveys no property right, and shall not be recorded.
(End of Page.
Next Page is Signature Page.)
joelenl.wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 11
jj-t/7
Signature Page to
First Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Between
City of Chula vista and
Joelen Enterprises for Hotel Development
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the date set forth adjacent thereto, thereby
indicating the consent of their principals.
Dated: April 1, 1991
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Tim Nader, its Mayor
Approved as to form:
& ~L~~r
~ruce M. Boogaar
city Attorney
AP~oved as to content:
A A.- ~/
Chr1s Salomone
Community Development Director
JOELEN ENTERPRISES, a California
General Partnership
By:
Josef citron, General Partner
By:
Lenore citron, General Partner
j oelenI. wp
August 28, 1992
Second Amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Page 12
J/-L/r"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
Item / dA
Meeting Date 09/01/92
RESOLUTION /" 79/P APPROVING THE HOME PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL TO THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Director [5,
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY: City Managerj(", \;1~\1 (4/Sths Vote: Yes No...xJ
"
BACKGROUND: The City will receive $748,000 of HOME funds from the federal
government and the Agency has allocated an additional $2,000 to the program. The HOME
program description must include the estimated use of HOME funds for a variety of housing
activities which benefit low-income households. In its HOME program description, the City is
targeting new construction of rental and for-sale housing, acquisition of rental housing for very-
low income households, and homeownership opportunities. With only a few exceptions, the City
may amend its HOME program description without HUD approval, if the City later finds that
it is necessary to do so.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution approving the HOME
program description and authorizing its submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: This item was originally presented for
discussion to the Housing Advisory Committee on April 22 and July 1, 1992.
At its August 26th meeting, the Housing Advisory Committee reviewed the HOME program
description and recommends that the Council approve it with the following revisions to the
"Estimated Use of Funds" table (see attached minutes):
Rental $
Owner $
New Construction
Acquisition
o
$375,000
$375,000
o
DISCUSSION:
The HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME Program) is a new federal housing
program which allocates funds by formula directly to state and local governments to promote
affordable housing. HOME funds may be used to provide affordable rental housing and
homeownership through new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and tenant-based rental
assistance. Participating jurisdictions are able to provide this assistance to both for-profit and
non-profit housing developers or directly to qualified renters or homebuyers. The assistance
may take the form of grants, loans, advances, equity investment, and interest subsidies.
On July 20, 1992, HUD sent the City a letter informing us that the City is officially a
participating jurisdiction. The City has 45 days (September 3) to submit a HOME program
description. Since July 20, staff has been working with HUD to receive final program
/.2-)
Page 2, Item / '^
Meeting Date 09/01192
regulations and to clarify those regulations. Staff has also brought drafts of the program
description to the Housing Advisory Cornmittee for discussion and amendment. The HOME
program includes the following sections:
a) Estimated use of funds for eligible activities
b) Involvement of Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO)
c) Affirmative Marketing (Fair Housing)
d) Minority and Women-Owned Business Outreach
e) Resale Provisions for HOME-assisted homeownership opportunities
f) Certifications
The City may amend its estimated use of funds without further approval by H.U.D. Therefore,
the following table entitled "Estimated Use of Funds" does not necessarily commit the City to
spending the specific amount of funds which has been allocated in each activity category. By
simply amending its HOME program description, the City may spend more or less than has been
estimated, or may expend its funds in an altogether different activity category. However, the
estimated use of funds is intended to guide decisions regarding what type of projects to fund.
Housing developers will be encouraged to propose projects consistent with these categories.
ESTIMATED USE OF FUNDS
Staff is recommending that the funds be equally divided between four eligible housing activities:
new rental housing (New Construction-Rental), new for-sale housing (New Construction-Owner),
acquisition of rental units (Acquisition-Rental), and homeownership opportunities (Acquisition-
Owner). No specific projects are being recommended for HOME funding at this time. Several
affordable housing projects are in the "pipeline" which may be eligible for HOME funding.
Staff will bringing these projects forward when they are ready for presentation to the Council.
Housing activities which are eligible for HOME funding but which staff is not recommending
for funding at this time include substantial rehabilitation, minor rehabilitation and tenant-based
rental assistance. These activities already receive other funding; the CHIP program receives
Low and Moderate-Income Housing Set-aside Funds and the County's Section 8 Rental
Assistance and Mobilehome Rental Assistance programs are funded by HUD. If the Council
determines in the future that it is desirable to supplement funding for one of these activities, then
funding can be transferred from one activity to the another without HUD approval.
This year HUD has waived the requirement for the City to provide matching funds for HOME-
funded projects, however, staff contemplates that Low/Mod Housing Set-aside funds may be
used in conjunction with HOME funds for any eligible project. In addition, HUD has waived
the requirement that the City set-aside 30% of its entitlement for new housing construction,
however, staff has targeted 25 % of the funds for this activity.
COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS CCHDa)
HUD requires the City to set-aside 15 % of its allocation for funding a project undertaken by a
qualified non-profit housing organization (CHDO). To qualify as a CHDO, the organization
must have a track record of at least one year and its board of directors must maintain at least
J..2~.;2,
Page 3, Item J';"
Meeting Date 09/01192
one-third (1/3) of its governing board's membership for residents oflow-income neighborhoods,
other low-income community residents, or elected representatives of low income neighborhoods.
In addition, the City must provide technical assistance to CHDOs to enable them to apply for
and utilize the HOME funds. Although there are many non-profit housing development
organizations in the San Diego region, the only ones which appear to qualify as CHDOs at this
time are South Bay Community Services (transitional housing project developer), MAAC
Project, and Housing Opportunities, Inc. (Brandywine Classics developer). Although COACH
is a non-profit seeking to purchase the Bayscene Mobilehome Park, it does not appear that they
qualify as a CHDO at this time because they do not have at least one year of development or
service experience in Chula Vista.
AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING AND MINORITY OUTREACH
HUD requires that the City undertake specific efforts to promote fair housing and minority
participation. The City is already funding a comprehensive fair housing program under contract
with the Fair Housing Council of San Diego. All developers/owners assisted with HOME funds
will be required to utilize the City's fair housing materials and to actively promote fair housing
in their projects.
Although the City has previously adopted a Minority and Women Business Construction
Enterprise Program, HUD requires the City undertake certain activities to promote minority and
women participation in federally-funded housing projects and activities. This includes
identifying and maintaining a list of certified MBE and WBE firms, their capabilities, services,
supplies, and or products. Staff contemplates that the City will participate with other HOME
entitlement jurisdictions (County of San Diego, City of San Diego, Oceanside, and National
City) to establish and maintain such a list.
RESALE PROVISIONS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
HUD requires that when the City assists first-time homebuyers that the City impose certain types
of resale restrictions as well as guarantee the initial homebuyer a fair return on his/her
investment. These resale restrictions include: 1) resale to a low-income family that will use the
property as its principal residence; 2) resale at a price which will enable the subsequent buyer
to pay no more than 30 % of his/her gross income for PITI (principal, interest, taxes, and
insurance); 3) restrictions imposed for 15 years for existing unit or 20 years for a new unit.
AMENDMENTS TO THE HOME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
If the City decides to amend its HOME program description or change the use of its HOME
funds it may do so without notifying HUD, except for amendments which deal with the
following issues: I) other forms of investment not specifically identified; 2) affirmative
marketing; 3) minority outreach, and 4) resale guidelines. Staff contemplates that the City will
/.2,3
Page 4, Item J~
Meeting Date 09/01/92
seek HUD approval for the specific deed restrictions which are used in conjunction with the
homeownership program. Staff is working on a "shared appreciation" loan structure which will
provide both a fair return for the seller and an affordable sales price for the subsequent buyer.
As a result, it may be necessary for the City to negotiate with HUD to amend the resale
guidelines.
CERTIFICATIONS
In order to receive the HOME funds, HUD requires the City to submit its program description
to HUD by September 3, 1992 or lose the opportunity to receive the funds this year. In
addition, the City is required to certify that it is complying with federal laws in the following
ways:
1) that the City is evaluating projects so that it will not invest any more HOME funds in
combination with other Federal assistance (e.g. CDBG funds) than is necessary to
provide affordable housing
2) that the City possesses the legal authority to carry out the HOME Program and will do
so in accordance with the HOME regulations
3) that the City is complying with acquisition and relocation requirements
4) that the City will use HOME funds pursuant to its Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS) which has been approved by HUD
5) that the City will continue to provide a drug-free workplace
6) that the City is complying with the regulations regarding lobbying of federal officials and
representatives.
HUD REVIEW OF THE HOME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
HUD has 30 days to review the HOME program description and inform the City if it is
incomplete or inconsistent with the City's CHAS. As staff has consulted HUD frequently during
the preparation of this document, it is anticipated that the HOME program description will be
found complete. However, if HUD determines that the program description is not acceptable,
then the City will have a reasonable period of time, agreed upon mutually, to submit the
necessary supporting information to show consistency or to revise its program description. After
the HUD review is completed, the City will be able to begin spending its HOME funds. At that
time, staff will bring forward those projects which have applied for HOME funding for Council
consideration.
/.)-'1
Page 5, Item /-2
Meeting Date 09/01/92
FISCAL IMPACT: The City will receive $748,000 of HOME funds from the federal
government and the Agency has previously allocated $2,000 for the HOME program. HOME
does not provide any funds for administrative activities, but CDBG administrative funds and
low/mod housing set-aside administrative funds, which are available in the current budget, can
be used to support the administration of the HOME Program.
[C:\WP51 \CQUNCILlI13S\HOME.113]
1';"-5' /1"-6
RESOLUTION 1~79~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE HOME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND AUTHORIZING ITS
SUBMITTAL TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted a Comprehensive
Affordable Housing Strategy (CHAS), which includes the goals of increasing affordable home
ownership and rental housing opportunities for lower-income households; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has been allocated $748,000 of HOME
federal housing funds for 1992-93; and,
WHEREAS, in order to receive the HOME funds, HUD requires the City to
submit a HOME Program Description which includes the estimated use of funds for eligible
housing activities; and,
WHEREAS , the City Council possesses the legal authority to carry out the
HOME program and will do so in accordance with the HOME program regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista hereby approves the HOME Program Description and certifies that the City will
comply with all applicable federal policies and regulations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the Community
Development Director to submit the HOME Program Description to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary and
Community Development Director
~V1
D. Richard Rudolf 0
Assistant City Attorney
[CoIWP51ICOUNCILIRESOSIHOME.RES)
J.2-7!1J. ..8
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
HOME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
1992-93
Introduction
The HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME Program) is a
new federal housing program which allocates funds by formula
directly to state and local governments to promote
affordable housing. HOME funds may be used to provide
affordable rental housing and home ownership through new
construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and tenant-based
rental assistance. Participating jurisdictions are able to
provide this assistance to both for-profit and non-profit
housing developers or directly to qualified homebuyers or
renters. The assistance may take the form of grants,
loans, advances, equity investments, and interest subsidies.
The City of Chula vista has submitted a Comprehensive
Housing Affordability strategy (CRAS) to the U.S. Dept. of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This document was
approved by HUD and they officially declared the City a
participating jurisdiction in the HOME program on July 20,
1992. The city must submit a HOME program description
within 45 days of this declaration (by September 3, 1992).
Amount and Use of Funds
The City will receive $748,000 in HOME funds from HUD and
has allocated $2,000 of local funds for the HOME program for
1992-93. The City plans to utilize these funds for the
following types of activities:
ESTIMATED USE OF FUNDS
Total HOME S Rental S Owner S
New Construction $375,000 $187,500 $187,500
Substantial Rehab 0 0 0
Other Rehab 0 0 0
Acquisition $375,000 $187,500 $187,500
Tenant Assistance 0 0 0
The New Construction funds can be used to assist the County
Housing Authority, a non-profit developer, or a for-profit
builder to construct rental units for households earning 60%
or less of the area median income, or home ownership units
for households earning 75% or less of the area median
income.
J~-i
The Acquisition-Rental funds can be used to fund acquisition
of existing units for households earning less than 60% of
median income. The Acquisition-owner funds can be used to
fund acquisition of new or existing units for households
earning 75% or less of median income.
Communitv Housina Develooment oraanizations CCHDOI
The City of Chula vista will collaborate with non-profit
organizations in the development, acquisition, preservation,
and rehabilitation of affordable housing. The following
policy is part of the city's recently adopted Housing
Element for 1991-96:
"The city supports and encourages usage of a broad spectrum
of approaches to produce lower-income affordability in
rental housing including: (a) utilization of available
Federal, state and county programs and funding; (b)
participation of non-profit development corporations either
individually or in partnership with the private
developers..."
The City will provide a minimum of 15 percent ($112,500) of
its HOME allocation to qualified CHDOs for eligible HOME
activities. The city will provide technical assistance to
CHDOs in the following areas: applying for HOME funds;
financing housing development; processing development
projects; and, complying with HOME program regulations. Up
to 10 percent of the CHDO set-aside funds may be used by
CHDOs for project-specific assistance as authorized under
Section 92.301.
Affirmative Marketina
The City funds and oversees a comprehensive Fair Housing
Program, which is provided under contract by the Fair
Housing Council of San Diego. This program includes
outreach, education, counseling, and assessment. The city
will work with the Fair Housing Council to promote fair
housing in all affordable housing projects and activities.
The practice of non-discrimination and equal opportunity
will be promoted for all HOME-funded housing projects
through the policies and procedures described below:
1. The Fair Housing logo and slogan will be incorporated
into all public information and outreach.
2. Development agreements between the city and a
developer/owner will specify the owner's responsibility to
promote fair housing when soliciting tenants or homebuyers.
The owner will be required to utilize HUD and/or the city's
fair housing brochures, posters, logos, etc.
~~
3. The developer/owners shall be required to plan and
implement special community outreach to solicit
participation of persons who might not be reached through
mass-media outreach.
4. The developers of new housing will participate in the
County's Voluntary Advertising and Marketing Agreement to
promote fair housing in all their promotional activities.
5. In the event the city finds that a developer/owner is
not in compliance with these policies, the city will specify
corrective action which must be implemented within 30 days.
If this deadline is not met by the developer/owner, then the
City will find the him/her in default of the development
agreement.
6. Records will be maintained documenting the affirmative
marketing efforts of the City and developers/owners of HOME-
funded projects. The City will assess the progress and
effectiveness of the affirmative marketing program on an
annual basis. Modifications to the program will be made as
needed.
Minoritv/Women Business Outreach Prooram
The City of Chula vista will establish a minority outreach
program consistent with 24 CFR 92.350 which shall be
applicable to all affordable housing activities authorized
under the HOME program or any other applicable federal
housing law. The minority outreach program will encourage
the use of minority and women-owned business enterprises in
connection with HOME-funded activities to the maximum extent
possible.
with regard to the expenditure of HOME funds, the city will:
1. Work with other local jurisdictions in the region to
develop a systematic method for identifying and maintaining
an inventory of certified MBE and WBEs, their capabilities,
services, supplies and/or products;
2. Utilize the local media, electronic and print to market
and promote contract and business opportunities for MBEs and
WBEs;
3. Develop informational and documentary materials on
contract/subcontract opportunities for MBEs and WBEs;
4. Develop solicitation and procurement procedures that
facilitate opportunities for MBEs and WBEs to participate as
vendors and suppliers of goods and services;
w-~
5. Sponsor business opportunity-related meetings,
conferences or seminars with minority and women business
organizations;
6. Maintain centralized records with statistical data on
the utilization and participation of MBEs and WBE as
contractors/sub-contractors in all HOD-assisted program
contracting activities.
The city has previously adopted a Minority and Women
Business Enterprise construction Program for federally-
funded construction projects. This M/WBE policy will be
utilized in all HOME-funded construction contracts.
First-Time Homebuver provisions
Any for-sale housing units developed with HOME funds or any
units sold to first-time homebuyers who are assisted by HOME
funds will be encumbered with resale restrictions which
require that:
a) any subsequent buyer is also low-income (earning 75% or
less of median income) and will be the principal resident of
the property
b) financing is such that the subsequent buyer does not pay
more than 30% of his/her gross household income for PITI
(principle, interest, taxes, and insurance)
c) the unit remains affordable for a period no less than 15
years for existing housing and no less than 20 years for new
housing.
Specific guidelines and deed restrictions for the resale of
HOME-assisted property will be established and submitted to
HUD for approval prior to their implementation as required
by 92.254(a) (4). These guidelines will provide the initial
owner with a fair return on his/her investment.
The City plans to utilize a "shared appreciation" loan
structure. Under the shared appreciation arrangement, any
appreciation realized during the term of home ownership will
be shared between the City (which provided the initial
subsidy loan) and the homeowner. The owner's share of
appreciation shall be calculated based on his/her
downpayment, principal reduction payments, and the cost of
any major improvements which increased the value of the
property.
Jd - /~
CERTIFICATIONS
HOME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
In accordance with the Home Investment Partnerships Act and
with 24 CFR 92.150 of the Home Investment Partnership Program
Rule, the participating jurisdiction certifies that:
(a) Before committing any funds to a project, it will evaluate
the project in accordance with the guidelines that it adopts
for this purpose and will not invest any more HOME funds in
combination with other Federal assistance than is necessary
to provide affordable housing;
.
(b) If the participating jurisdiction is not on the list
published under 24 CFR 92.51 and intends to do new
construction to facilitate a neighborhood revitalization
program;
For each neighborhood revitalization program,
1. Rehabilitation is not the most cost-effective way to
meet the participating jurisdictions need to expand the
supply of affordable housing within the neighborhood and
the participating jurisdictions housing needs, within
the neighborhood, cannot be met through rehabilitation
of the available housing stock; and
2. The program of new construction is needed to facilitate
a neighborhood revitalization program that emphasizes
rehabilitation of substandard housing for rental or
homeowners hip opportunities by low-income and moderate-
income families in an area designated by the
jurisdiction;
3. The housing is to be located in a low-income
neighborhood;
4. The housing is to be developed, owned, or sponsored by a
community housing development organization or a public
agency; and
5. The number of housing units to be constructed with HOME
funds does not exceed 20 percent of the total number of
housing units in the neighborhood revitalization program
that are assisted with HOME funds; unless
~.
/;1.-13
(a) The housing .is to be located in a severely
distressed area within the neighborhood with large
tracts of vacant land and abandoned buildings; or
(b) The housing is to be located in an area within the
neighborhood with an inadequate supply of existing
housing that can economically be rehabilitated to
meet identified housing needs; or
(c) The new construction is required to accomplish the
neighborhood revitalization program.
(c) If the participating jurisdiction is not on the list
published under 24 CFR 92.51 and intends to do new
construction on the basis of special needs;
For each project,
1. Rehabilitation is not the most cost-effective way to
expand the supply of affordable housing for the special
need and the special need cannot be met through
rehabilitation of the available housing stock;
2. Based on objective data in its annual approved housing
strategy, a high priority need for such housing exists
in the jurisdiction; and there is not a supply of
vacant, habitable, public housing units in excess of
normal vacancies resulting from turnovers that could
meet the specified need.
3. The HOME funds are used for new construction of one or
more of the following:
a. Housing for families of five or more persons;
b. Housing for persons with disabilities;
c. Single room occupancy housing; and
d. Housing that is necessary to further the
desegregation or racial deconcentration of housing
within the jurisdiction pursuant to a court-
approved settlement agreement, compliance
agreement, or voluntary plan approved by BUD if
tenant-based assistance is not sufficient to meet
the specified need within a reasonable time.
(d) If the participating jurisdiction intends to provide tenant-
based rental assistance;
The use of HOME funds for tenant-based rental assistance is
an essential element of the participating jurisdiction's
annual approved housing strategy for expanding the supply,
)
2
-
Iq? -1'/
(e)
(f)
(9)
(h)
affordability, and availability of decent, safe, sanitary,
and affordable housing.
The submission of the program description is authorized
under State and local law (as applicable), and that it
possesses the legal authority to carry out the Home
Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, in accordance with
the HOME regulations;
It will comply with the acquisition and relocation
requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition policies Act of 1970, as amended,
implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24 and the
requirements of 24 CFR 92.353;
It and State recipients, if applicable, will use HOME funds
pursuant to its Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CRAS) approved by HUD and all requirements of 24 CFR Part
92;
It will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace
by:
1. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the
unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing,
possession, or use of a controlled substance is
prohibited in the grantee's workplace and
specifying the actions that will be taken against
employees for violation of such prohibition;
2. Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program
to inform employees about -
(a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
(b) The participating jurisdiction's policy of
maintaining a drug-free workplace;
(c) Any available drug counseling,
rehabilitation, and employee assistance
programs; and
(d) The penalties that may be imposed upon
employees for drug abuse violations occurring
in the workplace;
3. Making it a requirement that each employee to be
engaged in the performance of the grant be given a
copy of the statement required by paragraph (1);
~. Notifying the employee in the statement required by
paragraph (1) that, as a condition of employment
3
~.
;;-5
under the grant, the employee will--
(a) Abide by the terms of the 'statement; and
(b) Notify the employ' in writing of his or her
conviction for a violation of a criminal drug
statute occurring in the workplace no later
than five calendar days after such
conviction;
5. Notifying the agency in writing, within ten
calendar days after receiving notice under
paragraph 4(b) from an employee or otherwise
receiving actual notice of such conviction.
Employers of convic~ed employees must provide
notice, including position title, to every grant
officer or other designee on whose grant activity
the convicted employee was working, unless the
Federal agency has designated a central point for
the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include
the identification number(s) of each affected
grant;
6. Taking one of the following actions, within 30
calendar days of receiving notice under paragraph
4(b), with respect to any employee who is so
convicted--
(a) Taking appropriate personnel action against
such an employee, up to and including
termination, consistent with the requirements
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended; or
(b) Requiring such employee to participate
satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or
rehabilitation program approved for such
purposes by a Federal State, or local health,
law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
7. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain
a drug-free workplace through implementation of
paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
8. The grantee may insert in the space provided below
the sites(s) for the performance of work done in
connection with the specific grant:
4
(
/~-/~
~
place of Performance (street address, city,
county, state, zip code)
276 Fourth Avenue
ChulaVista. CA 91910
San Dieqo County
(i) To the best of its knowledge and belief:
1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or
will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative
agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement;
2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds
have been paid or will be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence and officer
or employee of any ag~ncy, a Member of Congress, an
officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of
a Member of Congress in connection with this
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement, it will complete and submit Standard
Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in
accordance with its instructions; and
3. It will require that the language of paragraph (h)
of this certification be included in the award
documents for all subawards at all tiers (including
subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under
grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that
all subrecipients shall certify and disclose
accordingly.
5
JJ--/7
~
,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
HOME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
1992-93
Introduction
The HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME Program) is a
new federal housing program which allocates funds by formula
directly to state and local governments to promote
affordable housing. HOME funds may be used to provide
affordable rental housing and home ownership through new
construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and tenant-based
rental assistance. Participating jurisdictions are able to
provide this assistance to both for-profit and non-profit
housing developers or directly to qualified homebuyers or
renters. The assistance may take the form of grants,
loans, advances, equity investments, and interest subsidies.
The city of Chula vista has submitted a Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) to the U.S. Dept. of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This document was
approved by HUD and they officially declared the City a
participating jurisdiction in the HOME program on July 20,
1992. The City must submit a HOME program description
within 45 days of this declaration (by September 3, 1992).
Amount and Use of Funds
The City will receive $748,000 in HOME funds from HUD and
has allocated $2,000 of local funds for the HOME program for
1992-93. The City plans to utilize these funds for the
following types of activities:
ESTIMATED USE OF FUNDS
Total HOME $ Rental $ Owner $
New Construction $375,000 $187,500 $187,500
Substantial Rehab 0 0 0
other Rehab 0 0 0
Acquisition $375,000 $187,500 $187,500
Tenant Assistance 0 0 0
The New Construction funds can be used to assist the County
Housing Authority, a non-profit developer, or a for-profit
builder to construct rental units for households earning 60%
or less of the area median income, or home ownership units
for households earning 75% or less of the area median
income.
f<.1r,.1'1~
='l2.-I'J.<J.
The Acquisition-Rental funds can be used to fund acquisition
of existing units for households earning less than 60% of
median income. The Acquisition-Owner funds can be used to
fund acquisition of new or existing units for households
earning 75% or less of median income.
Communitv Housinq Development Orqanizations (CHDOI
The City of Chula Vista will collaborate with non-profit
organizations in the development, acquisition, preservation,
and rehabilitation of affordable housing. The following
policy is part of the City's recently adopted Housing
Element for 1991-96:
"The City supports and encourages usage of a broad spectrum
of approaches to produce lower-income affordability in
rental housing including: (a) utilization of available
Federal, state and county programs and funding; (b)
participation of non-profit development corporations either
individually or in partnership with the private
developers..."
The City will provide a minimum of 15 percent ($112,500) of
its HOME allocation to qualified CHDOs for eligible HOME
activities. The City will provide technical assistance to
CHDOs in the following areas: applying for HOME funds;
financing housing development; processing development
projects; and, complying with HOME program regulations. Up
to 10 percent of the CHDO set-aside funds may be used by
CHDOs for project-specific assistance as authorized under
section 92.301.
Affirmative Marketinq
The City funds and oversees a comprehensive Fair Housing
Program, which is provided under contract by the Fair
Housing Council of San Diego. This program includes
outreach, education, counseling, and assessment. The City
will work with the Fair Housing Council to promote fair
housing in all affordable housing projects and activities.
The practice of non-discrimination and equal opportunity
will be promoted for all HOME-funded housing projects
through the policies and procedures described below:
1. The Fair Housing logo and slogan will be incorporated
into all public information and outreach.
2. Development agreements between the City and a
developer/owner will specify the owner's responsibility to
promote fair housing when sOliciting tenants or homebuyers.
The owner will be required to utilize HUD and/or the City's
fair housing brochures, posters, logos, etc.
3. The developer/owners shall be required to plan and
implement special community outreach to solicit
participation of persons who might not be reached through
mass-media outreach.
4. The developers of new housing will participate in the
County's Voluntary Advertising and Marketing Agreement to
promote fair housing in all their promotional activities.
5. In the event the city finds that a developer/owner is
not in compliance with these policies, the City will specify
corrective action which must be implemented within 30 days.
If this deadline is not met by the developer/owner, then the
City will find the him/her in default of the development
agreement.
6. Records will be maintained documenting the affirmative
marketing efforts of the City and developers/owners of HOME-
funded projects. The City will assess the progress and
effectiveness of the affirmative marketing program on an
annual basis. Modifications to the program will be made as
needed.
Minoritv/Women Business Outreach Proaram
The City of Chula vista will establish a minority outreach
program consistent with 24 CFR 92.350 which shall be
applicable to all affordable housing activities authorized
under the HOME program or any other applicable federal
housing law. The minority outreach program will encourage
the use of minority and women-owned business enterprises in
connection with HOME-funded activities to the maximum extent
possible.
with regard to the expenditure of HOME funds, the City will:
1. Work with other local jurisdictions in the region to
develop a systematic method for identifying and maintaining
an inventory of certified MBE and WBEs, their capabilities,
services, supplies and/or products;
2. utilize the local media, electronic and print to market
and promote contract and business opportunities for MBEs and
WBEs;
3. Develop informational and documentary materials on
contract/subcontract opportunities for MBEs and WBEs;
4. Develop solicitation and procurement procedures that
facilitate opportunities for MBEs and WBEs to participate as
vendors and suppliers of goods and services;
5. Sponsor business opportunity-related meetings,
conferences or seminars with minority and women business
organizations;
6. Maintain centralized records with statistical data on
the utilization and participation of MBEs and WBE as
contractors/sub-contractors in all HUD-assisted program
contracting activities.
The City has previously adopted a Minority and Women
Business Enterprise Construction Program for federally-
funded construction projects. This M/WBE policy will be
utilized in all HOME-funded construction contracts.
First-Time Homebuver provisions
Any for-sale housing units developed with HOME funds or any
units sold to first-time homebuyers who are assisted by HOME
funds will be encumbered with resale restrictions which
require that:
a) any subsequent buyer is also low-income (earning 75% or
less of median income) and will be the principal resident of
the property
b) financing is such that the subsequent buyer does not pay
more than 30% of his/her gross household income for PIT I
(principle, interest, taxes, and insurance)
c) the unit remains affordable for a period no less than 15
years for existing housing and no less than 20 years for new
housing.
Specific guidelines and deed restrictions for the resale of
HOME-assisted property will be established and submitted to
HUD for approval prior to their implementation as required
by 92.254(a) (4). These guidelines will provide the initial
owner with a fair return on his/her investment.
The City plans to utilize a "shared appreciation" loan
structure. Under the shared appreciation arrangement, any
appreciation realized during the term of home ownership will
be shared between the City (which provided the initial
subsidy loan) and the homeowner. The owner's share of
appreciation shall be calculated based on his/her
downpayment, principal reduction payments, and the cost of
any major improvements which increased the value of the
property.
<
~\) ~b
~~
':Jl~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item /3
Meeting Date 09/01/92
RESOLUTION I~ 7?? Forgiving a loan for the construction
of a public street in the vicinity of Brandywine Avenue and Otay Valley
Road in the Otay Valley Road Project Area contingent upon
implementation of the Otay Valley Road Widening Assessment District
. 1 . I S.
Commumty Deve opment Director v_
Director of Public Works 'fir-
City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No _XJ
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND: On October 28, 1986 the City Council approved an Agreement with the
Werdin Development Company and Mrs. Helen Cushman for the construction of Shinohara Lane
to provide access to a parcel owned by Mrs. Cushman and zoned for industrial development.
The Agreement stipulated that the Werdin Development Company construct the street and that
the developer and Mrs. Cushman each pay for one-half of the cost of the street ($57,000 each).
The street has been constructed and Cardon-Meadow Development Corporation, successors to
the Werdin Development Company, has paid their half of the cost to the City. Mrs. Cushman
was to pay her share with interest at the time her property was developed. The ownership has
subsequently been transferred to Lawrence and Stephen Cushman.
At the meeting of July 21, 1992 the Council voted to excuse the Cushmans from paying their
share of the street construction cost due to the unique problems and costs impacting development
of their property. The accompanying resolution excuses payment of the loan by Lawrence and
Stephen Cushman contingent upon implementation of the Otay Valley Road Widening
Assessment District.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution forgiving a loan for the
construction of a public street in the vicinity of Brandywine Avenue and Otay Valley Road in
the Otay Valley Road Project Area contingent upon settlement of the legal challenge and
implementaion of the assessment district.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: NoT applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In 1985 the Werdin Development Company proposed to develop ten acres located at the
northwest corner of Brandywine Avenue and Otay Valley Road. This project was taken over
and completed by Cardon-Meadow Development Corporation. One of the requirements of
development was to provide access to the Cushman parcel, adjacent to the west (see attached
/ map) since this parcel would be virtually landlocked after development along Brandywine
Avenue.
13-/
Page 2, Item 13
Meeting Date 09/01192
An Agreement was entered into by the City, Werdin Development (accepted by Cardon-
Meadow) and Mrs. Helen Cushman, dated October 28, 1986 whereby Cardon-Meadow would
provide right-of-way and construct the street. The City would pay one-half of the cost of the
street ($57,000) to be later reimbursed with interest by Mrs. Cushman at the time her property
developed. Funds were provided through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Economic Development Revolving Fund for the City's share of construction costs.
Through the planning process for development of the Cushman parcel, and later through the
process of spreading the assessments for the widening of Otay Valley Road, it became apparent
that there were severe constraints to the development of this site which threatened to increase
costs beyond reasonable and competitive levels. These constraints include:
[1] Loss of access from Timber Street in order to preclude commercial traffic from
residential areas, thus requiring construction of Shinohara Lane.
[2] Loss of direct access from Otay Valley Road through earlier subdivision map
approvals.
[3] Proximity to residential properties along Oleander Avenue requiring redesign of
buildings on site to minimize impacts which resulted in higher planning and
development costs.
[4] Extensive slopes and sensitive 200 foot impact boundary which restricted building
site coverage to less than 30 percent.
[5] The necessity of constructing a crib wall to support development of an access
road due to site conditions.
These constraints will impact the feasibility of the proposed development project in terms of the
ability to construct and lease at competitive rates, particularly under current economic
conditions. The purpose of using CDBG Economic Development Revolving Funds was to
promote industrial jobs development. In consideration of the development constraints, the
excusing of the street construction costs would still be consistent with that purpose.
The forgiveness of the loan is contingent upon execution of the Otay Valley Road Widening
Assessment District. The District was approved by the City Council on June 23, 1992. A
complaint has been filed challenging the benefit spread for the assessment district. Subject to
resolution of the complaint, the bonds will be sold and the district implemented. If this does not
occur, the loan will not be forgiven since the property owners will not be subject to the same
financial impacts.
FISCAL IMPACT:
I J~.2
Page 3, Item I J
Meeting Date 09/01/92
The construction of Shinohara Lane was to be funded one-half by Cardon-Meadow Development
Corporation and one-half by Mrs. Cushman. The City provided the Cushman share ($57,000)
using CDBG Economic Development Revolving Funds which were to be reimbursed, with
interest, at the time the property developed. Approval of the resolution will result in these funds
not being repaid to the Economic Development Revolving Fund.
This action is not precluded under City and Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
requirements for the use of these funds and is consistent with the purpose of the revolving fund.
IC,IWP51 ICOUNCILI] 13SICUSHMAN3.113]
13"'3/Jj--4f
',if, ,,' L)
j ~~,. --I (41, c-J,~ 'C-, ?l>-l
Zld ~.' /,. l i
";'7/,:":. I~ , I
/~"'c::::::;~." I
I I ," \."" 'i
-~',\j',,' T,'J I,'; 'i
~I \:{.,'!Ti J' \L
I ',..... ", ----r- _ ) \
/~-
~IL
------==~ ,,-----
I
:~ ...... ... i
- - - .. ...---- ... ...---~_\--- ~
r----- 'I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
1. ---
----
---
'ILlJ"
l. u_
;
1
\
\
J ~,
BRANDYWINE
o
-i
>>
-<
:
I
OElNISO
o Q
- -<
~ -<
) .~ <:
RQMA
2 J:J.-Lj
f'1 <
Cl
I 0 (/I ri
-<
I )> I
I I I
I I ~
I
!
, .
>"
r"'~, '\.
p..t~
tJ I t:( I 4,,\^
I.~' - 0 '. "'~i
'~'~-,
=-
-~
'"
- '"
~V\
- '>.
r';""~
~. ::to.
~\ '::..
t"'- ,_
AVE
p
RESOLUTION /" '/9/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FORGIVING A LOAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC STREET
IN THE VICINITY OF BRANDYWINE AVENUE AND OTAY VALLEY
ROAD IN THE OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA CONTINGENT
UPON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD WIDENING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City Council entered into an Agreement with the Werdin
Development Company and Mrs. Helen Cushman on October 28, 1986 for the construction of
a public street known as Shinohara Lane located within theOtay Valley Road Redevelopment
Project Area; and
WHEREAS, Cardon-Meadow Development Corporation ("Developer"),
successors to the Werdin Development Company, accepted said Agreement on October 28,
1986; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Helen Cushman has transferred her interests in the property
to Lawrence and Stephen Cushman ("Owners"); and
WHEREAS, said Agreement required that the Developer construct the public
street known as Shinohara Lane and that the City of Chula Vista will pay one-half the cost of
the street up to a maximum of $57,000 to be reimbursed by the Owner, with interest, at the time
they develop the property and require access through Shinohara Lane; and
WHEREAS, Shinohara Lane has been completed and the Cushman property is
nearing development; and
WHEREAS, the Council approved the Otay Valley Road Widening Assessment
District on june 23, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that, due to excessive site development
problems and related costs, the best interests of the City would be served by excusing the
Owners from repayment of the loan from the City for construction of Shinohara Lane.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby
resolve that the repayment of the loan to Mrs. Helen Cushman, pursuant to the Agreement dated
October 28, 1986, is hereby forgiven and no further payment of principal or interest shall be
required contingent upon implementation of the Otay Valley Road Widening Assessment
District. .
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
~L5~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
\'II ^ 'l /
3\'" vC_ I /1, /I.J i-
/,., Bruce M. Boogaard \ ~\.
r City Attomey,j
[C:I WP51 ICOUNCILlRESOSICUSHMAN3 .RES]
135
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
REVIEWED BY:
Item J L/
Meeting Date 9/1/92
Resolution /, 798"" Approving the City of Chula
Vista's update of Federal Functional Classification Maps
Director of Public WorksJJ/ ~
City ManageCK. 'p'...j?!r:,;p. (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.X..!
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 required the use of functional highway
classification to update and modify the Federal-Aid highway systems. This legislative
requirement is still effective today and is part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (lSTEAl of 1991. The functional classification of roads in Chula Vista
has not been updated for a considerable period of time. This resolution will satisfy
said ISTEA's requirements. It is also in response to a request by CalTrans to prepare
the update.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution as stated in the item title above.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped
into classes or systems according to the character of service they are intended to
provide. Chula Vista's road system is grouped into the following three classes:
principal arterial system, minor arterial system, and collector system.
The enclosed Attachment" A n shows a listing of all the City streets grouped under
said three different classes. This grouping is based on the circulation element chapter
of the General Plan.
According to the Functional Classification Manual, the urban principal arterial system
is identified as unusually significant to the area in which it lies in terms of the nature
and composition of travel it serves. The principal arterial system serves the major
centers of activity of a metropolitan area. It carries the highest traffic volume and a
high proportion of the total urban area travel on a minimum of mileage. The principal
arterial system should carry the major portion of trips entering and leaving the urban
area as well as the majority of through movements desiring to bypass the central city.
Chula Vista does not have any streets that meet the principal arterial criteria.
The minor arterial street system should interconnect with and augment the urban
principal arterial system and provide service to trips of moderate length at a somewhat
lower level of travel mobility than principal arterials.
/'1-1
Page 2, Item pi
Meeting Date 9/1/92
The collector street system provides both access service and traffic circulation within
the residential neighborhoods, commercial, and industrial areas. It differs from the
arterial system in that facilities on the collector system may penetrate residential
neighborhoods distributing trips from the arterials through the area to the ultimate
destination.
Further description on each of the three different classes is shown in Attachment "S".
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
SMN/KY-026
WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\FEDERALMAP
082882
FI- ..2
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON
THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT
~
'"
~
...'"
~'"
...
.
o
...
j
~~
~
\
.s> ...
.....~~ ,...\
l'O"1-'S
... "0 "
- "",
'L *- '" ...
~'P.(f\.
7. :.t. .
:L
......
~
~
......
~
,
~
...... Minor Arterials
.-.. Collector Streets
~
None
mwt
Telegraph Canyon Road
Orange Avenue
East 'H' Street
East 'H' Street
Otay Lakes Road
Paseo Ranchero Road
Orange Avenue
Orange Avenue
Broadway
Fourth Avenue
'H' Street
Palomar Street
Otay Valley Road
Hunte Parkway
Slwt.
Broadway
Fourth Avenue
Fourth Avenue
'E' Street
Marina Boulevard
'J' Street
Orange Avenue
Main Street
Plaza Bonita Road
Sweetwater Road
ATTACHMENT A
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON
THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT
PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS
Section
MINOR ARTERIALS
Section
Interstate 805 to eastern city boundary
Paseo Ranchero to State Route 125
Interstate 805 to Otay Lakes Road
State Route 125 to Hunte Parkway
Bonita Road south to Orange Avenue
Telegraph Canyon Road to the southern boundary
Interstate 805 to Paseo Ranchero Road
State Route 125 to Hunte Parkway
'E' Street to State Route 54
State Route 54 to 'C' Street
Interstate 5 to Interstate 805
Interstate 5 to Broadway
Interstate 805 to Paseo Ranchero
Orange Avenue to State Route 125
COLLECTOR STREETS
Section
'E' Street to southerly boundary
'C' Street to 'E' Street
Moss Street to the southerly boundary
Marina Boulevard to Broadway
'E' Street to 'J' Street
Marina Boulevard to Broadway
Palomar Street to Interstate 805
Interstate 5 to Interstate 805
Sweetwater Road to Bonita Road
State Route 54 to Plaza Bonita Road
/'1-0'
COLLECTOR STREETS (Continued)
~
Bonita Road
East 'H' Street
Eastlake Parkway
Hunte Parkway
Palomar Street
Orange Avenue
Section
Flower Street to Otay Lakes Road
Otay Lakes Road to State Route 125
State Route 125 to south ot Hunte Parkway
East 'H' Street to Orange Avenue
Interstate 805 to Paseo Ranchero
Hunte Parkway to ent 'ranee ot the Olympic Training Center
/1..-~
ATTACHMENT "B"
Urban nrincinal arterial Bvstem
In every urban environment there exist. a .ystem of streets
and highways which can be identified as unusually siqnificant to
the area in which it lies in terms of the nature and composition
of travel it serves. In smaller urban areas (under 50,000) these
facilities may be very limited in number and extent and their
importance may be primarily derived from the service provided to
travel passing through the area. In larger urban areas their
importance also derives from service to rural oriented traffic, but
equally or even more important, from service for major movements
within these urbanized areas.
This system of streets and highways is the urban principal
arterial system and should serve the major centers of activity of
a metropolitan area, the highest traffic volume corridors, and the
longest trip desires: and should carry a high proportion of the
total urban area travel on a minimum of mileage. The system should
be integrated, both internally and between major rural connections.
The principal arterial system should carry the major portion
of trips entering and leaving the urban area, as well as the
majority of through movements desiring to bypass the central city.
In addition, siqnificant intra-area travel, such as between central
business districts and outlying residential areas, between major
inner city communities, or between major .uburban centers should
be served by this system. Frequently the principal arterial system
will carry important intraurban as well as intercity bus routes.
Finally, this system in small urban and urbanized areas should
provide continuity for all rural arterials which intercept the
urban boundary.
Because of the nature of the travel served by the principal
arterial system, almost all fully and partially controlled access
facilities will be part of this functional system. However, this
system is not restricted to controlled access routes. In order to
preserve the identification of controlled access facilities, the
principal arterial system is stratified as follows: (1)
Interstate, (2) other freeway. and expre.sways, and (3) other
principal arterials (with no control of access).
The spacing of urban principal arterials will be closely
related to the trip-end density characteristics of particular
portions of the urban areas. While no firm spacing rule can be
established which will apply in all, or even most circumstances,
1 OF 2
/'1- ?
ATTACHMENT "8"
the spacing of principal arterials (in larger urban areas) may vary
from less than one mile in the highly developed central business
areas to five miles or more in the sparsely developed urban
fringes.
For principal arterials, the concept of service to abutting
land should be subordinate to the provision of travel service to
major traffic movements. It should be noted that only facilities
within the "other principal arterial" system are capable of
providing any direct access to adjacent land, and such service
should be purely incidental to the primary functional
responsibility of this system.
Urban minor arterial street system
The minor arterial street system should interconnect with and
augment the urban principal arterial system and provide service to
trips of moderate length at a somewhat lower level of travel
mobility than principal arterials. This system also distributes
travel to geographic areas smaller than those identified with the
higher system.
The minor arterial street system includes all arterials not
classified as a principal and contains facilities that place more
emphasis on land access than the higher system, and offer a lower
level of traffic mobility. Such facilities may carry local bus
routes and provide intra-community continuity, but ideally should
not penetrate identifiable neighborhoods. This system should
include urban connections to rural collector roads where such
connections have not been classified as urban principal arterials.
The spacing of minor arterial streets may vary from 1/8 - 1/2
mile in the central business district to 2 - 3 miles in the
suburban fringes, but should normally be not more than 1 mile in
fully developed areas.
Urban collector street svstem
The collector street system provides both land access service
and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods,
commercial and industrial areas. It differs from the arterial
system in that facilities on the collector system may penetrate
residential neighborhoods, distributing trips from the arterials
through the area to the ultimate destination. Conversely, the
collector street also collects traffic from local streets in
residential neighborhoods and channels it into the arterial system.
In the central business district, and in other areas of like
development and traffic density, the collector system may include
the street grid which forms a logical entity for traffic
circulation.
2 OF 2
/11- g'
RESOLUTION NO.
/~ 79~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA's UPDATE OF FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION MAPS
WHEREAS, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 required the
use of functional highway classification to update and modify the
Federal-Aid highway systems; and
WHEREAS, this legislative requirement is
today and is part of the Intermodal Surface
Efficiency Act of 1991; and
WHEREAS, the functional classification of roads in Chula
vista has not been updated for a considerable period of time; and
still effective
Transportation
WHEREAS, this resolution will satisfy said requirements
and is in response to a request by CalTrans to prepare the update.
NOW, THEREFORE,
the city of Chula vista
vista's update of Federal
BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
does hereby approve the City of Chula
Functional Classification Maps.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
y
D. Richard Rudolf,
City Attorney
slstant
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F:\hOOle\attorney\Fedmap
/Lj-Cj
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
REVIEWED BY:
Meeting Date 9/1/92
Resolution 11179'1 Amending Schedule III, Section
10.52.280 of the Municipal Code - Parking-prohibited at all times
on certain streets - North Fourth Avenue and Medical Center Drive
0;,,,,,", of PobU, W"':'f../fJ
City Manager0l, \"'0 ~{ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoXI
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
In order to minimize traffic hazards and congestion, and to allow for the installation
of a right turn lane on North Fourth Avenue and bicycle lanes on Medical Center Drive,
parking prohibitions on these streets should be authorized by resolution. A review of
trial traffic regulations initiated by the City Engineer under the authority of the
Municipal Code show that these regulations are operating effectively and should be
made permanent.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution amending Schedule
III, Section 10.52.280 of the Municipal Code to prohibit parking on North Fourth
Avenue and Medical Center Drive.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Safety Commission, at their
meeting of August 13, 1992, voted 4-0-3 (Braden, Chidester and Thomas absent),
to accept staff's recommendation and prohibit parking on North Fourth Avenue (east
curbline) and Medical Center Drive.
DISCUSSION: The City Engineer has determined that in the interest of minimizing
traffic hazards and congestion and for the promotion of public safety that on-street
parking be prohibited:
a) Along the east side of North Fourth Avenue between Brisbane Street and SR-
54 on-ramp.
b) Along both curblines of Medical Center Drive between Telegraph Canyon Road
and Medical Center Court.
Said regulations were initiated on a trial basis upon the posting of the signs on
October 22 and November 4, 1991 respectively. Staff has reviewed the above
installations and determined the prohibition should be made permanent.
15"/
Page 2. Item t..-t;
Meeting Date 9/1/92
Schedule III - Parkina Prohibited at All Times on Certain Streets
Name of Street
North Fourth Avenue
Medical Center Drive
Beainnina At
Brisbane Street
Telegraph Canyon Road
Endina At Side
SR-54 East
Medical Center Ct. Both
The purpose of prohibition on Fourth Avenue is to prevent vehicles from parking in
order to allow for the transition to and installation and use of a right turn lane for SR-
54 eastbound on-ramp.
The purpose of the prohibition on Medical Center Drive is to prevent vehicles from
parking in order to allow for the installation and use of bike lanes.
A review of the traffic conditions at both locations show that they are operating
effectively. Therefore. staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution
amending Schedule III of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.52.280.
Attachment:
Area Plats
FXR:SB/ENGINEERlAGENDAIPARKING.PRD
OB2B92
/5;,;2.,
.. ~ ~'-.~ - .
_.~ : ~-'''---
--'-'~ .~--....._-
.... ..
., . t....
--, .
.~-_.~ ~--
--'~-~--' ~
. . .
'----,,,,-,,.
---~-~
..~:_~ ... -:. w
...~--:' ::>
..... L.______.z
W
~
.
--.
(
,
_J
Subject Area
----,...-~.........,.
I I
I ,..--------
, I
I I
I I
, I
I I
, I
, I
I I
I J
: I
: r--T--~
.1 I I
'I I :
" I I
c
STREET
.," ,,"',' .' .... I" oJ' ~ '. . . . '01
OJ' .1' -':.. -:.I"'.~i"i:i :"'1";" .) ./~; ~:t.;~ . :' .;,.1'1' ..' ,J:e'J.~
'.J .,,, ,'.J :'.1 J ,. ..',;'.1 ....' ,..J.J ~..Jo""~" J
. J.I -'J....,... -,.".. ,.' "..V.,_ 1.1. ...J' of..1J.J
,.I.r J ,- ......" . ,_f .....I..J J..' .I'.
I .,:',,, J""'.:"."'..~ t.~.1 :...-', r'..,'~"....-,...'.....,-!...., .,.
." . "" , ~ " . "J;' .' .. .' ".." " . J' "J
"'~.'~I.J~"::-"::;""~:'" ~,.,.I""'~'."";J;.:"."''''.IJ ....,;"j.,
'''~''N)~.J ....:_ftl'.........J.,J..&....:..;:..... ....;;.:I"~...4J.I.I
.- ...., .G.: ,).UC & 'TVPTUS PARK j :J' .(oJ ~ J
",..'..'.1 .~. ~ ~ ..' "...,........~
.I.'':;:~ ..,).....1 .,.;1.,. ':1":.1.1
, j' .1.lJiJ ....,.r~f":,:J:...,...~. '/".1 '" I~~"~ .'';),: ,"'J.i'.~": i'~'-';~-.li'
.1 J;:...I.;..~;.'.'...J.I..:.. ;'''J.,J.I.I...r'-:'~~:.'. .:"'.:/.:'
:'~":":}"'-: :":~/':"':; .J.).._I.f..)~J ...".11.1.(.:" ~:,..I~,,~"""J-!.",
~'~'."'."".;~:",Jr..".~.I.JIJ'" -'..I..~;".'J..J.'.,.'fl'.'J
1.1.', .1..., .,;....-..I)...I.J .}~'""J.'''.:,.I, .'.1-' ,.1. I'~ _.'~.J ,
.1..:.'1".:' .J".r" ;;., ......t...~ J' .1.1 ". J' "';'.'~ .,..f ::'.v"';' J~J.J.J:J..
. . - '.. .
'.1..
OR~WN .y
Dennis Mo Wolfe
TIT L E
I
I
I
I
I
,
CITY I
~
o
-.
'"
,
.",0
o
z
c
-'
%
"
-
%
",'IE"
,~EE't ~,.'tE"
&4
IV
~
%
~
a:
o
z
o
II:
i
~
--------
OAT E
AREA PLAT
...-.......--- Affected Are. /5-3
-----------
----------
\.
. "'EL.ES"~PH
__t'.
--
f.~~
Subject Area
DR"WH aT
Dennis M. Wolfe
TIT L E
~ ~T~ .7:?-/-!2.... __
AREA PLAT
__....._ Affected Are. 15'''
-----------
RESOLUTION NO.
I&: 79'1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING SCHEDULE III OF THE CHULA
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.52.280 TO
PROHIBIT PARKING AT ALL TIMES ON PORTIONS OF
MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE AND NORTH FOURTH AVENUE
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of section 10.52.280
of the Chula vista Municipal Code, the City Engineer has determined
that in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and congestion
and for the promotion of public safety parking of all vehicles on
the east side of Medical Center Drive between Telegraph Canyon Road
and Medical Center Court and the east side of North Fourth Avenue
between Brisbane Street and SR 54 on-ramp should be prohibited; and
WHEREAS, trial traffic regulations which were effective
for a trial period of eight (8) months have now expired and the
prohibition should be made permanent; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Commission, at their meeting of
August 13, 1992, voted 4-0-3 (Braden, Chidester and Thomas absent)
to accept staff's recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby amend Schedule III (Parking
Prohibited at All Times) of section 10.52.280 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code as follows:
Name of Street Beqinninq at Endinq at side
Medical Center Telegraph Canyon Medical Center Both
Drive Road Court
North Fourth Brisbane street SR 54 on-ramp East
Avenue
Presented by Approved as to form by
, Assistant
(,
,
,
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F:\hcme\attomey\medceotr
/5'-,5'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM:
Item I d:>
Meeting Date: 9/1192
Resolution I Ii? ~~pproving the temporary closure of Bonita Road and
a portion of Otay Lakes Road to conduct the Bonitafest parade.
SUBMTITED BY: Director of Parks and Recreation ~fl
J 1
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~(l t(J ~!2) (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
The Bonitafest Committee and it's sponsoring organization, the Bonita Business and Professional
Association (BBPA), will be conducting the Bonitafest event on Saturday, September 26,1992. The
event will include a parade, which will require the temporary closure of Bonita Road and a portion
of Otay Lakes Road. This report outlines several details of the event which were not discussed
during the August 25, 1992 Council action regarding the event.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the temporary closure of
Bonita Road between Willow Street and Central Avenue, and the closure of Otay Lakes Road at the
intersection with Bonita Road, subject to staff conditions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION: The Bonita Business and Professional Association is sponsoring the annual Bonitafest
event on Saturday, September 26, 1992, and is requesting permission to conduct a parade as part of
the event (Attachments A and B). The parade will necessitate the temporary closure of Bonita Road
between Willow Street and Central Avenue, and will include the closure of Otay Lakes road at the
Bonita Road intersection.
The main activities of the event will include the parade, and the operation of approximately 300
booths by profit-making and non-profit groups selling arts and crafts and food/beverage.
The BBP A previously requested a waiver of business license fees for all business licenses required
in association with the event. At their meeting on April 7, 1992, Council approved this request and
directed staff to waive the appropriate fees for participating vendors. On August 25, 1992, Council
approved a request from the BBP A for the City to fund shuttle bus service and police service at the
event. The BBP A agreed to name the City of Chula Vista as an event co-sponsor on all publicity
and advertising for the event.
The Bonitafest parade is scheduled to begin at 10:00 AM, and will conclude at approximately 12:00
PM. The event will necessitate the closure of Bonita Road from Central Avenue at the east, to
Willow Street on the west. Willow will remain open to traffic at all times. A diagram of the parade
route is Attachment C. These street closures will be in effect from 9:00 AM to 1;00 PM to allow time
for parade staging and dispersion. Otay Lakes Road will be closed to traffic during the staging and
actual running of the parade. The parade will consist of marching units, marching bands, floats, other
motor driven units, as well as equestrian units. All horses will be ridden by their owners. Streamers,
balloons, and noise-making devices will not be permitted along the parade route. The route will be
marshalled by sponsor volunteers and the police.
/~-/
Arts and crafts booths, along with other vendor booths, will be set up in parking areas on the south
side of Bonita Road. The BBP A is also requesting permission to utilize the vacant City-owned lot
adjacent to the South Bay Golf Course parking lot. This area will be utilized for staging of
equestrian units involved in the parade.
The BBP A is also requesting the use of City-owned folding tables and chairs, as well as traffic cones.
The tables will not be available for use this year due to revenue-producing rentals at community
centers on the weekend of the event. Chairs will be available from the City, although the BBP A will
be responsible for transporting them to the event, and returning them following the event. The
BBPA will be required to provide a $100 dollar loss/damage deposit for use of the City equipment.
The BBP A will be required to rent traffic cones, since they are not available through the City. In
addition, the BBP A will be required to contact the Police Department to arrange for adequate crowd
and traffic control throughout the day.
The BBP A will not be utilizing part of Otay Lakes Road for booth space at this year's event, due to
problems experienced at last year's event with the addition of this area to the plan.
The street closures will have an impact on City bus service in the area. Transit will need to cancel,
or re-route, Route 705 during the event. This route services Bonita Road, Otay Lakes Road, and
the Southwestern College area. Ridership will be affected, and there is a potential for loss of
revenue.
Staff is recommending that the BBP A be required to comply with the following conditions:
1. Provision of evidence of insurance in the form of a Certificate of Insurance and policy
endorsement in the amount of $2 million, naming the City as additional insured.
2. Execution of the standard Hold Harmless Agreement.
3. BBP A to provide adequate traffic control devices, and no-parking signs as specified by the
Police Department.
4. BBP A to make all arrangements for Police coverage at the event directly with the Chula
Vista Police Department.
5. BBPA to pick-up and return all City-owned equipment (chairs). A $100 loss/damage
deposit will be required.
6. BBP A to return City-owned property adjacent to the golf course to it's pre-event condition.
7. BBP A to provide adequate trash control and street sweeping services during and after the
parade.
8. BBP A to list City of Chula Vista as an event co-sponsor on all event publicity and advertising.
FISCAL IMPACf: Per action taken at the August 25 City Council meeting, the City will be
providing $1,832 for support of the event ($175 for shuttle bus service and
wp\bfparade
Jt, -.2
Attachments:
wp\bfparade
$1,657 for Police services). This amount was allocated from the
unappropriated general fund balance.
A - Letter of Request (Parks and Recreation, .~ ,. e
B - Letter of Request (Traffic Engineering) w'4 St,fNN tJ
C - Parade Route Diagram
/~:J
RESOLUTION NO.
/~ lItlt)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF
BONITA ROAD AND A PORTION OF OTAY LAKES ROAD
TO CONDUCT THE BONITAFEST PARADE
WHEREAS, the Bonitafest Committee and it's sponsoring
organization, the Bonita Business and Professional Association
(BBPA) will be conducting the Bonitafest event on Saturday,
september 26, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the event will include a parade, which will
require the temporary closure of Bonita Road and a portion of Otay
Lakes Road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the temporary closure
from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. of Bonita Road between willow Street
and Central Avenue and otay Lakes Road at its intersection with
Bonita Road to conduct the Bonitafest parade on September 26, 1992
subject to the following conditions:
1.
provision of evidence of insurance in the form
certificate of Insurance and policy endorsement in the
of $2 million, naming the City as additional insured.
of a
amount
2. Execution of the standard Hold Harmless Agreement.
3. BBPA to provide adequate traffic control devices, and no-
parking signs as specified by the Police Department.
4. BBPA is to make all arrangements for Police coverage at the
event directly with the Chula vista Police Department.
5.
BBPA is
(chairs) .
to pick-up and return all City-owned equipment
A $100 loss/damage deposit will be required.
6. BBPA to return City-owned property adjacent to the golf course
to its pre-event condition.
7. BBPA is to provide adequate trash control and street sweeping
services during and after the parade.
8. BBPA is to list city of Chula Vista as an event co-sponsor on
all event publicity and advertising.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
D. ichard Rudol, ssistant
City Attorney
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
F: \bome\atlomey\booitafs
I' -if
0J
BONITA BUSINESS
& PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
March 23, 1992
Mr. Jess Valenzuela
Director of Parks & Recreation
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Jess;
The Bonitafest Committee and its sponsoring organization, the
Bonita Business & Professional Association, request from the City
of Chula Vista permission to hold the Bonitafest again this year.
The date involving use of Bonita Road, is Saturday, September 26th.
The parade is scheduled, as in previous years, from 10:30 a.m. to
12:30 p.m. The booths will be set up early on saturday.
We would appreciate the usual response from the city in furnishing
certain equipment and staff support. Our needs this year are:
250 traffic cones
125 folding chairs
12 six-foot tables
Also very importantly, use of the lot adjacent to the South Bay
Golf Course, Police and traffic control as well as the bike patrol
for the parade and during the day for the booth areas.
Waiver of the business license fees for booth participants (a
lcttzr h~~ ~ce!1 ~.;.Tri t't:;:;. to May"r Ti.m Nad~r)..
We would like to meet with you for a discussion of any problems or
further needs, our Logistics Chairman will also attend. I will
call you for an agreeable date near the end of July. Thank you
very much for your help.
e Maniscalco,
st Chairwoman
Shields Realty
479-3120
MM:pd
(:-
.,t~
I'..
POST OFFICE BOX 284, BONITA, CALIFORNIA 92002(619)475-2030
1~5
C~
BONITA BUSIl\'ESS
& PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATJCJ~
Sponsor of the Annual Bonitafest
August 11, 1992
l:O
::s
;0...
&i
,~ ~
;:: ~.l
:;''' "<
.f>o
.; ("'-
-;-r -i, ~
_ '-'"0 t<;
. I C. {~'
~.~ ..J' ,...,;:.'
.;:~ c~ ;.:
~ ...~ '"
'.) ;. P"I
c.' ()
1"1 ,~
-niii
-j ..:
t-
Mr. Hal Rosenburg
City Traffic Engineer
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
~
~
CI1
C
Re:
Bonita Road Closure Permit
Dear Mr. Rosenburg;
It's that time of year again. We will be celebrating our 20th
Annual "Wild West" Bonitafest on Saturday, September 26th.
As in the past years, we will need Bonita Road closed
from Otay Lakes Road to willow Road for our Parade. The Parade is
scheduled from 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. We will need the assistance
of the Chula vista Police Department to close Bonita Road and
direct traffic one hour before at 9:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m., after.
This will allow all parade participants enough time to get to their
cars, buses, etc. before Bonita Road is re-opened, and give the
Police Officers ample time to make the transition. Bonitafest
Booths open at 9:00 a.m. and Bonitafest is over at 5:00 p.m.
Traffic Cones will be delivered by Traffic Chairman prior to
road closure.
Thanking you in advance for your consideration.
hoping that this correspondence will be on the next Council
for approval. Please send your letter of confirmation
attention at the following address;
We are
Agenda
to my
P.O. Box 284
Bonita, CA 91908
MM:pd
POST OFFICE BOX 284 · BONITA, CA 92002 · (619) 475-2030
It, -~
-'0----.-+ -.'
'.
. ~ES ,,0 j
O~.." ~__~. -.
~I . ,...
~ \ ~ ,
I ' ,
i \ .,
\ ' ,
I \ .. ,
, ~---- ,"..
.....-( .
..""1 '
. .
, ..-,
.....-r-- ,
. \.
" .
I · I
~.........::... ,
.......... . ~
-,'
00"
r---
I
I
I I
~...-...-..\\
-~
.
.
-i \,
\ _oj.
~ ...... ,
.
I
~
\' (
..
I
\ ~-
\:
. \:
-J
--
-
.'
_0-
.
.
..-
,
.--
---
.'
.
.
.
.
__--'t-,-r
-- \ \ ,
_--:.t
\
,
"
,
I~ -'2
t~-~
"
.
...
.@
. ..
t-
et
....I
0-
<C
IJJ
a:
<C
.i
.--....
..
..J
I-
-
I-
~
..
~
~
;
,