HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2001/04/24 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
April 24, 2001 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CITY OF
CHUIA VISTA
City Council City Manager
Patty Davis David D. Rowlands, Jr.
Stephen C. Padilla City Attorney
Jerry R. Rindone John M. Kaheny
Mary Salas City Clerk
Shirley A. Horton, Mayor Susan Bigelow
The City Council meets regularly on the first calendar Tuesday at 4:00 p.m.
and on the second, third and fourth calendar Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m.
Regular meetings may be viewed at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays on
Cox Cable Channel 24 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 47
AGENDA
April 24, 2001 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Horton.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
PRESENTATION OF A GIFT TO COUNCIL BY ARTIST, JENNIFER HODGE,
iNTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE
* PRESENTATION BY HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, 1NC. REGARDING THE
CORPORATION YARD CONSTRUCTION
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 through 12)
The Council will enact the staff recommendations regarding the following items
listed under the Consent Calendar by one motion, without discussion, unless a
Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be
removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out
a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby,) and submit it to the City Clerk
prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed
afier Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 3 and April 10, 2001.
Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes.
2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Memorandum from the Assistant to the Mayor and Council advising of the verbal
resignation of Mr. David Ruch from the Town Centre Project Area Committee.
Staff recommendation: The resignation be accepted with regret and the City
Clerk be directed to post the vacancy in conformance with Maddy Act
requirements.
B. Letter of resignation from Donna Daum, member of the Commission on Aging.
Staff recommendation: The resignation be accepted with regret and the City
Clerk be directed to post immediately in accordance with the Maddy Act.
3. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SALT CREEK RANCH PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICTS REGULATIONS TO CHANGE THE LAND-USE
DESIGNATION OF A SEVEN-ACRE PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD, BETWEEN HUNTE PARKWAY AND DUNCAN
RANCH ROAD, FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMUNITY
PURPOSE FACILITY AND PARK; AND THE LAND-USE DESIGNATION OF A
THREE-ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO THE NORTH, FROM COMMUNITY
PURPOSE FACILITY TO PARK (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION)
The applicant, Pacific Bay Homes, has submitted an application to amend the Salt Creek
Ranch (Rolling Hills Ranch) General Development Plan, Sectional Planning Area plan,
and Planned Community District Regulations in order to change the land-use designation
of a seven-acre parcel, located on the south side of Proctor Valley Road, between Hunte
Parkway and Duncan Ranch Road at the southerly boundary of Rolling Hills Ranch,
Neighborhood 8, from Low-Density Residential to Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
and Park; and the land-use designation of a three-acre parcel adjacent to the north, from
CPF to Park. This ordinance had its first reading on April 10, 2001. (Director of
Planning and Building)
Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption.
4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE FORM OF A TWO-PARTy AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AND VARIOUS CONSULTANTS FOR ENGINEERING AND
LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK SERVICES; AMENDING THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION BUDGETS
BY APPROPRIATING $75,000 AND $25,000 RESPECTIVELY, BASED ON
UNANTICIPATED REVENUES FROM DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENTS; AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS
(4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 10, 2001)
The subject agreements will provide the City with the ability to respond to the ongoing
plan check work while maintaining a delicate balance between the quality of review,
overall project processing time, and permanent staffing level. (Director of Public Works)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT, TRAFFIC
SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT MAIN STREET AND MAXWELL ROAD (TF-292)
AND TRANSFERRING EXISTING APPROPRIATIONS OF $125,000 FROM THE
CHULA VISTA CORPORATION YARD PROJECT (GG-131) TO THE NEW
PROJECT THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) (CONTINUED FROM
APRIL 10, 2001)
Page 2 - Council Agenda 04/24/01
On September 15, 1998, Council approved an agreement with SDG&E to pumhase their
property located at 1800 Maxwell Road for the purpose of constructing the City's new
corporation yard. City staff determined that it would be necessary to install a traffic
signal at the intersection of Main Street and Maxwell Road, in conjunction with the
corporation yard project, in order to assign the proper right-of-way and maintain safety.
Adoption of this resolution will allow for the timely installation of the traffic signal.
(Director of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GRANTiNG UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATION EASEMENTS
TO SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC (SDG&E) TO ERECT, CONSTRUCT,
CHANGE THE SIZE OF, IMPROVE, RECONSTRUCT, RELOCATE, REPAIR,
AND/OR MAiNTAIN SDG&E FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES ACROSS
CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE FOLLOWiNG LOCATIONS: LOT
'A' OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-07 SUNBOW, PHASE lB, UNITS 3, 4 AND
16, ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 13917; LOT 'C' OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-
07 SUNBOW, PHASE lC, UNITS 5, 6, 13, 14, AND 15, ACCORDING TO MAP NO.
13917; LOT 'K' OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-07 SUNBOW, PHASE 2B,
UNITS 7 AND 11, ACCORDiNG TO MAP NO. 14077; LOT 'V' OF CHULA VISTA
TRACT NO. 80-15, ACCORDiNG TO MAP NO. 10051, AND AUTHORIZiNG
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE EASEMENTS
SDG&E proposes to construct underground electrical and communication facilities and
appurtenances within City-owned property and is requesting three easements along
Olympic Parkway and one easement on East 'H' Street. Easements for the installation,
operation, maintenance, replacement and repairs of electrical facilities, together with the
right of ingress thereto and egress therefrom over said easement. (Director of Public
Works)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATiNG
$280,392 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF VARIOUS OPEN SPACE
AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS' RESERVES TO CORRECT
DISCREPANCIES IN THE MAINTENANCE ACCOUNTS (4/5THS VOTE
REQUIRED)
In preparation of the new two-year budgets for Fiscal Year 2001/2002 and Fiscal Year
2002/2003, staff discovered that baseline budget amounts approved by Council for
various expenditure accounts for Open Space and Community Facilities Districts were
incorrect. Adjustments are now needed to reflect anticipated expenditures required to
maintain the landscaping within these special districts. (Director of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
Page 3 - Council Agenda 04/24/01
8. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING CALiFORNIA STATE LIBRARy, PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION
FUNDS AWARDED TO THE CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LIBRARy,
APPROPRIATING THE UNANTICIPATED REVENUE, AND AMENDING THE
FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 BUDGET (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
The Library requests that additional unanticipated Public Library funds be appropriated
to the Library budget to support the Civic Center Library's 25th Anniversary Celebration,
an Internal Management Reorganization, and to provide informational and fundraising
brochures. (Deputy City Manager Palmer)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
9. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) AND HOME iNVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
(HOME) PROGRAM ANNUAL PLAN TO REPROGRAM $300,000 IN BLOCK
GRANT FUNDING FROM THE GATEWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
AND APPROPRIATING SAID FUNDS TO THE COMMUNITY HOUSING
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (4/STHS VOTE REQUIRED)
On June 13, 2000, Council authorized submittal of the CDBG and HOME 2000/2001
Annual Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Incorporated within the Plan was funding for the Gateway capital improvement project.
Staff is recommending reprogramming the CDBG funds to another eligible use.
(Director of Community Development)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
10. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REALLOCATING $124,427 IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) FUNDS FROM VARIOUS PROJECTS TO THE PARKWAY POOL
RENOVATION PROJECT AND RETURNING $124,427 1N PARK ACQUISITION
AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FUNDS FROM THE pARKwAY POOL PROJECT TO
FUND BALANCE
The Parkway Pool Renovation Project (PR223) is currently underway and is funded by
CDBG funds, PAD funds, Residential Construction Tax funds, and State Grant funds.
There are CDBG funds remaining in a number of non-Capital Improvement Program
projects that can be reallocated to this project, thereby freeing up needed PAD funds for
other park projects. In addition, City staff's goal is to spend CDBG funds in a timely
manner and to spend those funds first, wherever appropriate, prior to using other City
funds. (Assistant City Manager Morris/Director of Parks and Recreation/Director of
Community Development)
Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
Page 4 - Council Agenda
04/24/01
11 A. REPORT ON STAFFING AND CONSULTANT RESOURCES NEEDED TO CARRY
OUT EXISTING PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM
AND EXPANDED WORK PROGRAM
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 BUDGET OF THE PLANNING AND
BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO ADD AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT
MANAGER POSITION, APPROPRIATING $32,250 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING
FOR THIS POSITION, ADDING A TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATiVE OFFICE
ASSISTANT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SERVICES, FOR WHICH
$6,458 IS FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND,
AND $4,500 IS FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE OF THE CiVIC
CENTER EXPANSION DEVELOPMENT rMPACT FEE FUND (4/5THS VOTE
REQUIRED)
C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CItY OF CHULA
VISTA, RBF CONSULTING AND BELLA LAGO, LLC FOR VARIOUS
CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE PREPARATION OF THE
REZONING AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL WORK FOR BELLA LAGO
DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
D. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, RBF CONSULTING AND MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC, APPLICANT,
FOR VARIOUS CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROCESSING OF
ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE OTAY RANCH, FREEWAY COMMERCIAL PORTION
OF PLANNING AREA 12, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
Staff is recommending the inclusion of two additional projects to the current fiscal year
work program (Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial and Bella Lago Developments). In
order to process the additional projects, as well as complete the existing work program in
a timely fashion, additional resources are needed this fiscal year. (Director of Planning
and Building)
Staff recommendation: Council accept the report and adopt the resolutions.
12. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 BUDGET TO ADD ONE FULL-TIME-
EQUIVALENT (FTE) LEGAL ASSISTANT, ONE FTE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY,
AND RECLASSIFY ONE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II POSITION TO
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
Page 5 - Council Agenda 04/24/01
In Fiscal Year 1997/1998 the structure of the City Attorney's office was changed to
support a full-time in-house litigation program. As a result, the City Attorney's Office
has not only been able to defend the City in civil litigation at a reduced expense, it has
also been able to obtain significant civil judgments or settlements in such matters as
construction defect litigation and the removal of environmentally hazardous materials. In
response to an anticipated increase in civil litigation cases and to the increasing demands
for legal services from an expanding City workforce, an increase in the staffing level of
the City Attorney's office is recommended. (City Attorney)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons speaking during Oral Communications may address the Council on any
subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the
agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue
not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the
topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to
three minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required
by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" orm
(available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting, fi
13. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE SUNBOW II
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, THE OTAY RANCH, SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA ONE PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, AND A REVISED TENTATiVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
VILLAGE ONE WEST OF THE OTAY RANCH
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and
Sunbow II SPA Plan to adjust the boundary between the two master planned
communities and to subdivide the south portion of Village One West in Otay Ranch into
523 lots on approximately 147.7 acres of land. (Director of Planning and Building)
Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the following
resolutions and place the ordinance on first reading:
A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUNBOW II SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN TO ADJUST THE EASTERLY SUNBOW II
SPA BOUNDARy ADJUSTMENT WITH THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH, SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN MODIFYING NEIGHBORHOOD
BOUNDARIES IN VILLAGE ONE WEST
Page 6 - Council Agenda
04/24/01
C. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROViNG THE AMENDED OTAY RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO
MODIFY THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP FOR VILLAGE ONE WEST
D. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A REVISED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR VILLAGE
ONE WEST OF THE OTAY RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE
PLAN, CHULA VISTA TRACT 98-06A, AND MAKING THE NECESSARY
FINDINGS
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial
discussion and deliberation by the Council, staff, or members of the public. The
items will be considered individually by the Council, and staff recommendations
may, in certain cases, be presented in the alternative. If you wish to speak on any
item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and
submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
14. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 PAVEMENT
REHABILITATION PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZiNG THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS TO APPROVE CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS FOR LIP TO
20% OF THE CONTRACT AMOUNT
On March 28, 2001, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the Fiscal Year
2000/2001 pavement rehabilitation program (Project STL-267). The work to be done
includes removal and repaving of selected street areas, cold milling, conventional asphalt
concrete pavement overlay, hot-poured crack sealing, emulsion aggregate slurry seal,
rubberized emulsion aggregate slurry seal, pavement reinforcing fabric, chip seal,
installation of pedestrian ramps, replacement of traffic signal loop detectors, traffic
control, pavement striping and marking, protection and restoration of existing
improvements, other miscellaneous items of work, and all labor, material, equipment, and
transportation necessary for the project. (Director of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution and award the contract to
Nicholas Grant Corporation of San Diego for $5,472,000:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTiNG BIDS AND AWARDiNG CONTRACT FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 2000/2001 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM (PROJECT
STL-267), AND AUTHORIZiNG THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO
APPROVE CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS FOR LIP TO 20% OF THE
CONTRACT AMOUNT
Page 7 - Council Agenda 04/24/01
15. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF A REPORT FOLLOWING UP ON THE
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON THE STATE ENERGY CRISIS, AND
REQUESTING COUNCIL DIRECTION TO ESTABLISH A CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ENERGY STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN
In light of the State's energy crisis, Council held an energy workshop on April 17th, 2001.
The workshop included reports from the City's energy management consultant, MRW
and Associates, and City staff. MRW presented their report with broad-based options
and recommendations the City of Chula Vista could pursue which may allow the City to
gain a measure of control over the City's demand and supply of energy, as well as the
financial costs of the City's energy use over time. Staff then provided specific action
items and recommendations to advance the MRW options. Council requested that the
report be brought back to the next Council meeting for specific direction. (Director of
Community Development)
Staff recommendation: Council accept the report and direct staff to return with formal
resolutions adopting and implementing a City Energy Strategy and Action Plan.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
OTHER BUSINESS
16. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
A. Scheduling of meetings.
17. MAYOR'S REPORTS
18. COUNCIL COMMENTS
A. Councilmember Rindone: Referral to staff to have a full-time School Resource
Officer on each high school campus in Chula Vista.
CLOSED SESSION
19. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property: The Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course on Bonita Road and seven
adjacent acres.
Negotiating Parties: City of Chula Vista (Sid Morris, Chris Salomone), American Golf,
County of San Diego, C.W. Clark, Inc. (C.W. C/ark), The Phair
Co. (JeffPhair), Scott Robinson and Chris Bitterlin
Under Negotiation: Purchase price/lease rate and other terms and conditions for
possible disposition of City-owned property and/or lease buy-out
restructure.
Page 8 - Council Agenda 04/24/01
20. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDiNG SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE
TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(B)
* Two cases
21. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDiNG EXISTiNG LITIGATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A)
A. City of Chula Vista v. Clancy Constructors (SBSC)
B. City of Chula Vista v. Jerry Seeman (SBSC 5113)
22. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDiNG iNITIATION OF
LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(C)
One case
ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of May 1, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Page 9 - Council Agenda 04/24/01
Memo
To: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
From: Armando Buelna~,~Assistant to the Mayor and Council
cc: Byron Estes, Redevelopment Manager
Date: April 12, 2001
Re= Resignation from the Town Centre Project Area Committee
This is to advise you that Mr. David Ruch has verbally resigned from the Town
Centre Project Area Committee. Due to conflicts with his work commitments,
Mr. Ruch has been unable to attend the Town Centre Project Area Committee
meetings. Please place this matter on the next available agenda so the City Council
may accept his resignation.
ab
,[PAGE} ~,/~
Aprill6. 2001
Honorable Shirley Horton
City Hall
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Dear Mayor:
It is ~vith deep regret that I resign from the Cormmssion on Aging We are leaving the city.
It has been my honor and privilege to se~e on the comnnssion and in some small way make a difference
m the lives of Chula Vista's seniors.
Sincerely,
COUNCIL OFFICES
CHULAVIST~ SA
SF.¢Ot40 pE.. tt, tB N40 N Op't'tOtt
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AMENDMEIXrFS TO THE SALT CREEK RANCH
PLANNED COMMLrNITY DISTRiCTS REGULATIONS TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 7-ACRE PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD, BETWEEN HUNTE
PARKWAY AND DUNCAN RANCH ROAD FROM LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY AND PARK; AND
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 3-ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO
THE NORTH FROM COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY TO PARK.
I. RECITA~LS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is subject matter of this Ordinance is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference, and commonly known as portion of Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood 8,
and for the purpose of general description herein, consists of a 7-acre parcel and an
adjacent 3-acre parcel, located south of Proctor Valley Road, east of Hunte Parkway and
west of Duncan Ranch Road ("Project Site"); and,
J B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2001, a duly verified application was filed with
the City of Chula Vista Planning & Building Department by The EastLake Company
("Developer"), requesting approval of amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch General
Development Plan, Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and Planned
Community District Regulations in order to change the land use designation of a 7-acre
parcel from Low Density Residential (0-3 du/ac) to Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
and Park; and the land use designation of a 3-acre parcel adjacent to the north from CPF
to Park ("Project); and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of
various entitlements, including: 1) a General Development Plan, Salt Creek Ranch
General Development Plan, previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15875
("GDP") on October 2, 1990; 2) a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, Salt Creek Ranch
Sectional Planning Area Plan ("SPA") previously approved by City Council Resolution
No. 16555 on Marcl~ 24, 1992; 3) Planned Community District Regulations, Salt Creek
Ranch Planned Community District Regulations; 4) Design Guidelines, Salt Creek Ranch
Design Guidelines; and 5) Public Facilities Finance Plan, Salt Creek Ranch Public
Facilities Fniancing Plan all previously approved by City Council Resolution 16555 and
Ordinance 2499 on March 24, 1992; Salt Creek Ranch Air Quality Improvement Plan
(AQIP approved by Resolution No. 16555; 6) Tentative Subdivision Map for Salt Creek
Ranch, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 previously approved by City Council Resolution 16834
on October 6, 1992, and amended On June t3, 2000 by Resolution 2000-190; and,
D. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on March 28, 2001 and after heating staff presentation and public testimony,
voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the
findings listed below; and,
E. City Council Record on Applications
~VHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public heating on the Project was held
before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on April 10, 2001, on the Project and
to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public
testimony with regard to same; and,
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said Planned
Community Districts Regulations amendment application and notice of said heating,
together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 fi. of the exterior
boundary of the project at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m., April I0, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City
Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance
WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at which this Ordinance was
introduced for first reading (April 10, 2001), the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approved Resolution No. by which it imposed amendments on the Salt Creek
Ranch General Development Plan, Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
plan; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City Environmental Review Coordinator prepared
an addendum (IS-01-29) to the Final Salt Creek SEIR-91-03, which was approved by the
City Council on December 19, 2000 with the approval of the Park Agreement.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required, and no further action is
necessary.
/I NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine and ordain as follows:
A. Findings for Planned Community District Regulations Amendment
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch
Planned Community Disthct Regulations and Land Use Districts Map are consistent with
the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and public necessity, convenience, the general
welfare and good zoning practice support the amendment.
B. Approval of Zone Amendment
The City Council does hereby approve the amendment to the Salt Creek Ranch Planned
Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map as represented in Exhibit B.
III. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that
in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a
Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this Ordinance
shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab imtio.
iv. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter John Kaheny
Director of Planning City Attorney
H:\HOME\PLANNING\StanD\RoIIing Hills Ranch\PCM 01 ~ 19 Park-CPF SPA Amendment\PCM 01-19.CC Ord.doc
CITY OF CHULA VISTA PlaNNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT Pacific Bay Homes PROJECTDESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT $o.O, Proclor Valley Rd Between Adopted Land Use
lOCATION: Hu~te Pkv6' & Duncan Rd.
SCALE: I PILE NUMBER:
,, , None I PCM;,01-19 EXHIBIT - A
CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
,~.l~,T, rr: Pacific Bay Homes PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT So. Of Proctor Valley Rd Between
~O~^T,O,: ,..,ep~ O..ca. R,. Proposed
Land
Use
SCALE: ! FILE NUMBER:
,o.e I .CM 0~-~,EXHIBIT - B ~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date: q--2.q- OI
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the form of a two party agreement between
the City of Chula Vista and various consultants for engineering and
landscape plan check services, amending the Department of Public Works
and Department of Parks and Recreation budgets by appropriating $75,000
and $25,000 respectively based on unanticipated revenues from developer
reimbursements, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said
agreement(s)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~7/~f~'' Director of Parks and ReCreation
REVIEWED BY: City Manager(./} r>,'l-~ (4/5 Vote: Yes X No
The subject agreement will provide the City with the ability to respond to the ongoing plan check
work while maintaining a delicate balance between the quality of review, overall project
processing time and permanent staffing level.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the form of a two party
agreement between the City of Chula Vista and various consultants for engineering and
landscape plan check services, amending the Department of Public Works (Engineering
Division) and Depm-tment of Parks and Recreation (Landscape Architecture Division) budgets
by appropriating $75,000 and $25,000 respectively based on unanticipated revenues from
developer reimbursements, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreement(s).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
Background
Staff is recommending the approval of agreements with consultants for plan check services
related to land development work to assist staff should construction activities remain strong in
the near future. Staff advertised for proposals in January and received proposals in Febrhary
from seven firms.
Contract Goals
Staff recommends approval of a consultant contract to provide engineering and landscape
architecture services to assist staff in responding to peak work load levels in plan checking. As
you are aware, the on-going growth in the planned communities in eastern Chula Vista and infill
development in the western part of the City is significant. Staff's recommendation to seek
Page 2, Item__
Meeting Date 4/10/01
consultant assistance during peak workload periods is based on the following principles and
goals:
· 1. Maintain "reasonable" review and processing times for development plans. Based on
workload projections, staff recommends using consultant services to assist staff in
complying with reasonable processing times~ In balancing speed with quality, staff does
not recommend speeding up the process. To the contrary, the goal of the contract(s) is to
assign specific and limited technical tasks to phvate professionals to allow staff to focus
on entitlement, processing and policy issues.
2. Avoid permanent overstaffing in response to current peak workload levels. With
overstaffing, layoffs would be likely should construction activities slow at some point in
the future. Staff recommends that a consultant, providing a team of engineers and
landscape architects, be retained to address the peak workload, eliminating the need for
overstaffing and still meet reasonable plan check review time frames.
3. Reduce staff dependence on overtime to complete their projects and reduce overtime
expenditures to a manageable level. Present staff is working extensive overtime in an
attempt to accommodate the peak workload and meet the "standard" turnaround times.
4. improve overall work efficiency during the entitlement process by focusing staff's time
on "big picture" items, processing, coordinating between departments and addressing
management and policy issues. The more routine plan check items can be successfully
delegated to a consultant with oversight by City staff. In most cases it is not practical for
engineering or landscape architect consultants to provide assistance at the "front end" of
projects (i.e. the review of SPA Plans, Tentative Maps, etc.) due to the major policy level
decisions that need to be made. There is, however, benefit to having consultants provide
services on the technical oriented "back end" of projects (i.e. review of grading plans,
improvement plans, landscape improvement plans, and final maps). However, project
management will remain the responsibility of the City.
5. Provide assurance that the City can respond should the construction market continue to
grow. The contract provides the City with the option, but not the obligation, to delegate
some of'the technical review to a consultant. No review work will be allocated to these
consultants should development activities decline due to economic forces or other issues.
Staff anticipates that the workload will continue to increase based on the development
community's approved projects.
6. Provide an additional resource to comply with the Subdivision Map Act requirement of
acting on improvement plans within certain time limits.
Additionally, the tight job market has compounded the workload as not all budgeted positions
have been filled. There are five engineering positions and one landscape architecture position
currently open. (Human Resource staff is diligently pursuing the filling of the vacant positions.)
Staff recommends that the consultant(s) be brought under contract and then used i__f the need
arises to relieve staff of overtime and to meet "standard" work deadlines. Use of the consultant
would be determined on a case by case basis by management of the two departments. The
Page 3, Item__
Meeting Date 4/10/01
consultant services would not be utilized to expedite plan reviews nor be used as a substitute for
staff, unless so directed by Council.
Request for Proposal for Consultant Services
Staff advertised for Request for Proposals for Engineering and Landscape Architecture Plan
Check Services. Seven firms submitted proposals and a staff selection committee interviewed
the four most qualified firms. Based on the submittal materials and interviews a contract is being
negotiated with the highest ranked firm of Powell/PBS&J, the form of which is attached to this
report.
The selection committee ranked the top four finns as follows:
1. PowelI/PBS&J (with Environs for landscape architect services)
2. Berryman & Henigar (with Nowell and Associates for landscape architect services)
3. P&D Consultants (P&D has in-house staff for landscape architect services)
4. Dudek & Associates, Inc. (with Environs for landscape architect services)
Staff recommends that the City Manager be authorized to enter into contracts with any one of
these four qualified firms on an as-needed basis. Doing so will enable the City Manager to enter
into a contract with next best-ranked firms providing a seamless transition from one consultant to
the next should there be staffing or performance issues with the first-ranked firm. It would also
allow the City Manager to utilize more than one firm if peak workloads warrant it. The contract
term is for one year subject to renewal at the City Manager's discretion, upon written request by
the City Engineer for two (2) one-year extensions (3 years total).
Action
The resolution approves the contract in substantially the form attached with PoweI1/PBS&J and
authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement and extensions in a final form as approved
by the City Attorney. It also authorizes the City Manager to execute agreements with any one of
the other three firms in a form as approved by the City Attorney and substantially the same as the
Powell/PBS&J agreement. The total compensation shall not exceed $500,000 in any one year
for ail firms combined (a maximum of $1,500,000 for 3 years combined). The contract is based
on an hourly rate. The development community supports staff's recommendation.
The resolution further approves mid-year appropriations totalling $100,000 to the Department of
Public Works and the Department of Parks and Recreation current year's operating budgets.
FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of the contract will ultimately be borne by the development
community via developer deposits and develop~nent staffing agreements. These accounts will
reimburse the General Fund for all expenses incurred.
Attachment: Two party agreement between the City of Chula Vista and PowelI/PBSJ for Engineering and Landscape
Architect Plan Check Services
[)DS 4/5/01 2:14:41 PM
H :\I-IOM [~\ENGIN EER\AG EN DA\RF Ppowellr. doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FORM OF A TWO PARTY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
VARIOUS CONSULTANTS FOR ENGINEERING AND
LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK SERVICES, AMENDING THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND DEPARTMENT OF
PARKS AND RECREATION BUDGETS BY APPROPRIATING
$75,000 AND $25,000 RESPECTIVELY BASED ON
UNANTICIPATED REVENUES FROM DEVELOPER
REIMBURSEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT(S)
WHEREAS, the subject agreement will provide the City with the ability to respond to the
on-going plan check work while maintaining a delicate balance between the quality of review,
overall project processing time and permanent staffing level; and
WHEREAS, no agreement with any of the four firms listed below shall extend beyond
April 30, 2004; and
WHEREAS, staff advertised for Request for Proposals for Engineering and Landscape
Architecture Plan Check Services with seven firms submitting proposals; and
WHEREAS, the selection committee ranked the top four firms as follows:
1. Powell/PBS&J
2. Berryman & Henigar
3. P&D Consultants
4. Dudek & Associates, Inc.
WHEREAS, based on the submitted materials and interviews, a contract is being
negotiated with the highest ranked firm of Powell/PBS&J.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Manager is authorized to: (1)
execute one-year agreements with any one of the firms in the form substantially the same as the
agreement being negotiated with PowelI/PBS&J subject to approval by the City Attorney (2)
renew the agreements for two (2) one-year extensions, through April 30, 2004 and (3) negotiate
the agreements for a total compensation, from Developers' deposits and staffing agreements, not
to exceed $500,000 in any one year for all firms combined (a maximum of $1,500,000 for
services through April 30, 2004); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby approve a two party agreement in substantially the form as attached between the City of
Chula Vista and various consultants for engineering and landscape plan check services, and
authorize the City Manager to execute said agreements in a final form as approved by the City
Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Public Works (Engineering
Division) and Department of Parks and Recreation (Landscape Architecture Division) budgets
are hereby amended by appropriating $75,000 and $25,000 respectively based on unanticipated
revenues from developer reimbursements.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt John M/. ~i~1~ -
Director of Public Works City Attorney
Parties and Recital Page(s)
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
PowelI/PBS&J
for Engineering and Landscape Architect Plan Check Services
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated for the purposes of
reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise
specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on
Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A,
paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as
Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of
business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"),
and is made with reference to the following facts:
Recitals
Whereas, there is a need for consultant services in order to ensure the timely
review of engineering and landscape plans; and
Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and
staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services
required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement;
(End of Recitals. Next Page starts Obligatory Provisions.)
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 1
H:\HOME\ENGIN EER\LAN DDEWDON NAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
Obligatory Provisions Pages
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby
mutually agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Duties
A. General Duties
Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit ^,
Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and,
B. Scope of Work and Schedule
In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant
shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled"
Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to,
and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such
Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth
therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work
and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to
as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times
indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement.
C. Reductions in Scope of Work
City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time
reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement.
Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the
purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with
said reduction.
D. Additional Services
In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require
Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services
("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of
services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials
basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless
a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services
shall be paid monthly as billed.
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 2
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
E. Standard of Care
Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined
Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing
under similar conditions and in similar locations.
F. Insurance
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed
by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the
risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the
limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's
Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City:
Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9.
Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance
coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit
applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant,
which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the
City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the
City in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage").
Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph
9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy.
G. Proof of Insurance Coverage.
(1) Certificates of Insurance.
Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to
the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of
Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies
may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional
Insured.
(2) Policy Endorsements Required.
In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary
Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 3
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LAN DDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the
City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager.
H. Security for Performance.
(1) Performance Bond.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for
Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the
parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance
Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in
a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is
indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19,
Exhibit A.
(2) Letter of Credit.
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for
Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical
space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then
Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at
their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City
Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The
letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to
the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to
the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A.
(3) Other Security
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for
Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit
(indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the
subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such
other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or
City Attorney.
I. Business License
Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise
comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. Duties of the City
A. Consultation and Cooperation
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 4
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the
progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide
direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall
permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term
of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data,
items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further
understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after
authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the
Consultant's performance of this agreement.
B. Compensation
Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City
periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently
than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall
compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms
and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing
compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate
arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of
Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 12.
All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the
propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable
thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated
on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment.
3. Administration of Contract
Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on
Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said
party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement.
4. Term.
This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all
executory provisions hereof.
5. Liquidated Damages
The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 14.
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 5
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEWDONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of
this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in
performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to
compensate for delay,
Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified
in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar
day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment
or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due,
the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated
Damages Rate").
Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays
caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or
designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when
granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for
delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will
delay the progress of the work.
6. Financial Interests of Consultant
A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer.
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer",
Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act
conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the
City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories
as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as
determined by the City Attorney.
B. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant
shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's
position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason
to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by
this Agreement.
C. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant
warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and
inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 6
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that
Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest
which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement.
D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant
further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an
economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of
interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act.
E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant
further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City
Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may
result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and
regulations promulgated thereunder.
F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests.
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's
immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant
Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any
property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property
within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the
subject matter of the Defined Services; ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 15.
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future
employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been
made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's
performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such
promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months
thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such
Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the
expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this
Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's
responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City.
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 7
H:\HOM E\ENGINEER\LAN DDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
7. Hold Harmless
Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its
elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the
conduct of the Consultant, or any of Consultant's agents or employees, subcontractors,
or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement,
except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct
of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and
all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents,
or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment
or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or
employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or
subsequent declaration by the Consultant.
8. Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and
specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of
such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies,
surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at
the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled
to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on
such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination,
not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by
Consultant's breach.
9. Errors and Omissions
In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants'
negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has
resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such
negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional
expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under
other provisions of this agreement.
10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 8
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving
specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date
thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that
event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove
shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the
Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be
entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed
on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination.
Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation
arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein.
11. Assignability
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not
assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same
(whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby
consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants".
12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans,
procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this
Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or
properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private
use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other
country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted
authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public
Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any
such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced
under this Agreement.
13. Independent Contractor
City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an
independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the
services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept
Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees
or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent
contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall
be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited
to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other
leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 9
H:\HOME\ENGIN EER\LAN DDEV~DON NAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the
payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto.
14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the
City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted
upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the
provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and
such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation Of same.
Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for
the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
15. Attorney's Fees
Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the
prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to
reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be
deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought.
16. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the
preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant
shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the
numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the
preparation of the report or document.
17. Miscellaneous
A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no
authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their
principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed
real estate broker or salesperson, Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither
Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons.
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 10
H:\HOM E\ENGIN EER\LANDDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
C. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant
to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to
any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or
deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid,
registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein
as the places of business for each of the designated parties.
D. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or
contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the
parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision
hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in
writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or
discharge is sought.
E. Capacity of Parties
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other
party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into
this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to
enable it to enter into this Agreement.
F. Governing LawNenue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be
brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of
California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible.
Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of (;hula Vista.
[end of page. next page is signature page.]
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 11
H:\HOM E\ENGIN EER\LANDDEV~DON NAS\plancheckagmt2,doc
4/3/01
Signature Page
to
Agreement between City of Chula Vista and PowelI/PBS&J
for Engineering and Landscape Architect Plan Check Services
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement
thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and
complete consent to its terms:
Dated: ,2001 City of Chula Vista
by:¸
David Rowlands, Jr., City Manager
Attest:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John M. Kaheny, City Attorney
Dated: PowelI/PBS&J
By:.
John M. Powell, Senior Vice President
Exhibit List to Agreement
( X ) Exhibit A.
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 12
H:\HOME\ENGIN EER\LAN DDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
Exhibit A
to
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
PowelI/PBS&J
1. Effective Date of Agreement:
2. City-Related Entity:
(X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of
California
( ) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of
the State of California
( ) Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a
( ) Other: , a [insert
business form]
("City")
3. Place of Business for City:
City of Chula Vista,
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
4. Consultant: PowelI/PBS&J
5. Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
( X ) Corporation
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 13
H:\HOM E\ENGIN EER\LAN DDEV~DON NAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant:
175 Calle Magdalena
Encinitas, CA 92024
Voice Phone (760) 753-1120
Fax Phone (760) 753-0730
E-Mail: tfrank@pbsj.com
7. General Duties:
The Consultant shall perform plan check and related tasks ("Project") as
assigned by the City Engineer or City's Principal Landscape Architect on an as-needed
basis.
8. Scope of Work and Schedule:
A. General Scope of Work:
1. The Consultant shall perform all duties and related tasks to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer or City's Principal Landscape Architect.
2. The Consultant shall assign Evan Wilks, as Project Manager for the Project
and maintain sufficient local staffing throughout the duration of this
Agreement. The Consultant shall facilitate processing of plans by tracking
the progress of plan check, determining critical path tasks, acting as liaison
between the plan checker and City's engineers and City's principal landscape
architect(s), and attending meetings with City staff, engineers, landscape
architects, developers, etc., if requested by the City and performing tasks
necessary to ensure efficient, timely plan check.
3. The Consultant shall ensure that its plan check engineer(s), land surveyor(s),
subconsultants or others have considered relevant City documents
necessary for the grading, landscaping and construction of improvements to
include, but not be limited to: General Plan(s), Environmental Impact
Report(s), and associated technical appendices regarding traffic (including
TAZ's, impact analyses, threshold standards, water, wastewater, drainage,
geotechnical, title reports, easement documents, etc.), SPA Plans, Tentative
Maps (preliminary or approved) and conditions of approval, Landscape
Master Plan, Master Plans and/or studies, alignment studies, adjacent
improvements, regional standards and City standards and the Public
Facilities Financing Plan(s). The Consultant shall ensure that any interim
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 14
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
facilities are consistent with the design of ultimate facilities. The Consultant
shall review and be familiar with the City's Subdivision Manual, Landscape
Manual, Grading Ordinance, Regional Standard Drawings, City Design and
Construction Standards and other City standards and policies to ensure the
plans comply with these documents. The Consultant shall review plans for
compliance with acceptable engineering, land surveying and landscape
amhitecture practices. The Consultant shall address plan check issues and
make written recommendations to the City Engineer, or City's Principal
Landscape Architect for Landscape Improvement plans, based on sound
engineering and construction practices and City standards, including the
City's threshold standards.
4. The Consultant shall ensure that the plans and plan review comments are in
compliance with City and State standards and all related documents.
5. The Consultant and its sub-consultants will serve as support to City's staff.
As such, the Consultant shall perform all tasks needed to ensure Project
delivery in a timely manner as directed by the City Engineer or City's
Principal Landscape Architect. The first plan check to the City shall be
completed by the Consultant no later than 21 days from the date of submittal
to the Consultant, the second plan check to the City shall be completed by
the Consultant no later than 14 days from the date of submittal to the
Consultant, and the third check to the City, and any subsequent plan check
to the City, shall be completed by the Consultant no later than 7 days from
the date of submittal to the Consultant (all calendar days).
6. The Consultant shall uniformly implement the City's quality control measures
to all projects.
7. The Consultant shall document, in writing to the City, all major plan check
issues, items reviewed, project progress, decisions and other issues
identified by the City Engineer or City's Principal Landscape Architect with
each plan check assigned to the Consultant. The Consultant shall be
proactive in identifying issues that impact the project schedule. The
Consultant shall provide the City a red-lined mark-up of each plan and
related studies assigned for review by the Consultant to be returned by the
City to the Engineer or Landscape Architect of Work.
B. Detailed Scope of Work:
The Consultant shall be responsible for assembling a team of technical personnel
under its direction to perform the plan check duties of the City. The team shall
consist of a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California and the team of
technical support shall hold a BSCE degree or hold an EIT certificate for all work
associated with the civil plans and final maps. The team may also consist of a
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 15
H:\HOME\ENGI N EER\LAN DDEV~DON NAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of California for work associated with the Final
Maps, in lieu of the aforementioned engineer(s), with technical support from persons
holding LSIT certificates. The team shall also consist of a Landscape Architect
licensed in the State of California for review of landscape improvement plans to
oversee the plan check of these plans. The Consultant shall be responsible for all
aspects 'of the technical plan check process to permit issuance, and shall include
review of right of way documents and plats, legal descriptions, easements, grading
and erosion control plans, drainage plans, improvement plans, landscape
improvement plans, traffic plans, and related reports (traffic, drainage, sewer,
geotechnical, title, etc.) for all improvements including but not limited to:
Mass and Site Grading
· Review geotechnical reports, EIR, Tentative Map, related documents listed
in paragraph 8, Corps permits and other permits to ensure that the grading
as proposed complies with all.
· Review erosion control plans for compliance with City requirements and
coordinate the plans with the landscape improvement plans. Review for
consistency with NPDES requirements.
· Review plans for grading work, creek/habitat remediation work as
appropriate, compaction, trenching, slope and slide repairs if applicable, sub-
drainage requirements, etc.
· Review cost estimates for bond purposes.
· Review trails and fencing.
· Review for consistency with improvement plans, landscape improvement
plans, and final maps.
Drainage · Review drainage plans for conformance with requirements and conditions
from EIR, related documents listed in paragraph 8, and City Standards.
· Review hydrology calculations for adequacy of assumptions and
methodology.
· Review hydraulic calculations for piped and open systems.
· Review design and plans for creek/channel work, piped systems, extent and
flow of overflows, desilt basins, and detention basins.
· Review of off-site impacts both upstream and downstream.
· Review of existing, interim and ultimate drainage hydrology and hydraulics.
· Review access to all storm drain inlet and outlet structures.
· Review for public versus private improvements.
· Review for consistency with grading/improvement plans and final maps.
· Review cost estimates for bond purposes.
· Review for consistency with NPDES requirements.
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 16
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
Streets
· Review roadway plans for conformance with requirements and conditions
from EIR, Tentative Map, related documents in paragraph 8, and City
Standards.
· Review plans for horizontal and vertical alignment, intersection design
(existing and future), knuckle and cul-de-sac design, median design,
classification and widths, sight distance, turn lanes, curb, gutter and
sidewalk, lighting, handicap ramps and ADA requirements, striping, signage,
provisions for emergency vehicle access, design of bridges and culverts,
intersection lighting, etc.
· Review of traffic signal designs and layout.
· Review access to all sewer manholes.
· Coordinate the median and parkway design with the landscape plans.
· Review all landscape improvement plans associated with the parkways,
medians, drainage channel and adjacent slopes.
· Review for consistency with grading plans and final maps.
Utilities (Part of improvement plans) · Review utility plans for conformance with requirements and conditions from
EIR, Tentative Map, related documents in paragraph 8, and City Standards.
· Review plans for construction of off-site and on-site utilities and joint utility
(electric/gas/cable t.v.), including locations within right-of-way and
easements.
· Review utility crossings for potential conflicts.
· Review sewer studies, sewer line sizing and hydraulic calculations.
· Reviewfire hydrant locations.
· Miscellaneous items such as sewer pump stations.
Review for consistency with grading plans and final maps.
· Review cost estimates for bond purposes.
Final Maps/Right-of-Way Documents
· Review closure calculations for accuracy and conformance with right-of-way
documents/final maps.
· Review legal descriptions of dedications and easements, and to whom
dedicated and purpose.
· Review statements for conformance to Map Act and City requirements.
· Review title reports to ensure accuracy and conformance to the right-of-way
documents, and any easements or restrictions accurately portrayed on the
right-of-way documents.
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 17
H:\HOM E\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~DON NAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
· Review entitlements being granted to other agencies.
· Review record of survey(s).
· Coordinate easements with plans, considering private versus public
easements.
· Review for consistency between improvement plans, landscape improvement
plans and grading plans
· Review for conformance with the requirements and conditions from EIR,
Tentative Map, related documents in paragraph 8 and City standards.
· Review monumentation estimate for bonding purposes.
Landscape Improvement Plans · Review EIR, Tentative Map, related documents in paragraph 8 and City
standards.
· Review planting and irrigation plans
· Review landscape improvement plans
· Review trails, fencing and walls
· Review for public versus private improvements and review for separate
systems
· Review for consistency between improvement plans and grading plans.
· Review cost estimate for bonding purposes.
Miscellaneous
Comments will be incorporated from various departments/divisions in the City
into the first plan check. The Consultant shall make City staff aware of any
issues which may impact other departments/divisions for each subsequent
plan check.
· Other tasks and duties as assigned by the City Engineer or City's Principal
Landscape Architect.
· All tasks shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or City's
Principal Landscape Architect.
B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
( ) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
(X) Other: Upon request of the City Engineer or the City's Principal
Landscape Architect for each assigned task, the Consultant shall prepare a fee letter
estimating the cost, based on an hourly rate, for work to be assigned to the Consultant.
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 18
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
The Consultant shall commence work after receiving written notice from the City to
proceed.
C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables:
The first plan check to the City shall be completed by the Consultant no later than 21
days from the date of submittal to the Consultant, the second plan check to the City shall
be completed by the Consultant no later than 14 days from the date of submittal to the
Consultant, and the third check to the City, and any subsequent plan check to the City,
shall be completed by the Consultant no later than 7 days from the date of submittal to the
Consultant (all calendar days).
All other services shall be performed in a time specified by the City Engineer or
City's Principal Landscape Architect upon assignment of such work.
D. Date for completion of all Consultant services:
All Consultant services shall be completed by April 30, 2002. Consultant
services may be extended for two (2) one-year terms upon written notice and in the
discretion of the City Manager. If the Agreement is extended, all Consultant services shall
be completed by April 30, 2004.
9. Insurance Requirements:
(X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance
(X) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000.
(X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000.
( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial
General Liability coverage).
(X) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial
General Liability coverage).
10. Materials will be supplied by City to Consultant on an as-needed basis.
11. Compensation:
A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required,
City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the
Deliverables set forth below:
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 19
H:\HOM E\ENGINEER\LANDDEWDON NAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
Single Fixed Fee Amount: , payable as follows:
Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee
( ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly
advances against the compensation due for each phase on a
percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at
the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has
been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as
interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is
not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily
completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation
due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in
Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at
the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the
compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a
phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by
the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such
other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon
such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no
event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the
Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of
completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor.
The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert
this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment.
B. ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the per[ormance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by
Consultant as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated
with each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or
Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and
shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless City shall have issued a
notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase.
Phase Fee for Said Phase
1. $
2. $
3. $
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 20
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
( ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly
advances against the compensation due for each phase on a
percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at
the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has
been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as
interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is
not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily
completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation
due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in
Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at
the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the
compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a
phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by
the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such
other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon
such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no
event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the
Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of
completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor.
The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert
this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment.
C. (X) Hourly Rate Arrangement
For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City
shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the
performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule
herein below according to the following terms and conditions:
(1) 0 Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement
Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and
materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant
agrees that Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein
required of Consultant for $ including all Materials, and
other "reimbursables" ("Maximum Compensation").
(2) (X) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials
Arrangement
(a) At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and
materials equal to $300,000 ("Authorization Limit"),
Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 21
H:\HOM E\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~DON NAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
compensation without further authorization issued in writing
and apprOved by the City Manager.
(b) If services are extended beyond April 30, 2002, pursuant to
Paragraph 8 (D) of this Exhibit A, for each subsequent
extended year, the Authorization Limit as approved in writing
by the City Manager shall be increased an additional
$300,000. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from
providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and
expense.
(c) The total Authorization Limit of this Agreement shall not
exceed $900,000.
Plan Check Rate Schedule
Category of Employee Hourly
of Consultant Name Rate
Principal in Charge John Powell $180
Project Manager- Registered Civil Engineer Evan Wilkes $ 98
Plan Check Engineer (BSCE) Mariel Paras Cairns $ 98
Mikhail Ogawa $ 98
Ernesto Aguilar $119
Corri Salseth $ 73
Michael Dufue $ 73
Traffic Engineer Bill Darnell $125
Registered Land Surveyor Ted Krull $ 95
Map Check - LSIT Certificate Rick St. John $ 98
Registered Landscape Architect Martin F. Schmidt $103
Except for Evan Wilks, qualified individuals as approved by the City Engineer and City's
Principal Landscape Architect may be substituted for the above-listed individuals.
For requested services other than those related to plan check, the Consultant shall
submit an hourly rate schedule and obtain written approval from the City prior to
commencing any such work.
(X) Upon request of Consultant and as approved in writing by the City
Engineer, hourly rates may increase each April, beginning in 2002,
by a factor which shall be equal to the January to January San
Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPO for
services rendered after April 2002.
12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 22
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV\DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
q -z7
For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance
of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth
below:
(X) None, the compensation includes all costs.
Cost or Rate
( ) Reports, not to exceed $
( ) Copies, not to exceed $
( ) Travel, not to exceed $
( ) Printing, not to exceed $
( ) Postage, not to exceed $
( ) Delivery, not to exceed $
( ) Long Distance Telephone Charges,
not to exceed $
( ) Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs:
, not to exceed $
, not to exceed $
13. Contract Administrators:
City: Alex Al-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer, Land Development
Consultant: Tom Frank, Project Director, PowelI/PBS&J
14. Liquidated Damages Rate:
( ) $ per day.
( ) Other:
15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of
Interest Code:
(X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.
( ) FPPC Filer
( ) Category No. '1. Investments and sources of income.
( ) Category No. 2. Interests in real property.
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 23
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEWDONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
( ) Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real property and sources
of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of
the department.
( ) Category No. 4. Investments in business entities and sources of
income which engage in land development, construction or the
acquisition or sale of real property.
( ) Category No. 5. Investments in business entities and sources of
income of the type which, within the past two years, have
contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to
provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No. 6. Investments in business entities and sources of
income of the type which, within the past two years, have
contracted with the designated employee's department to provide
services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No. 7. Business positions.
( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of
Project Property, if any:
16. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
17. Permitted Subconsultants:
Environs - Landscape Architect Services
Darnell & Associates - Traffic Engineering Services
Other Subconsultants may be permitted upon written approval by the City
Engineer or City's Principal Landscape Architect.
18. Bill Processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time:
(X) Monthly
( ) Quarterly
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 24
H:\HOME\ENGIN EER\LANDDEV~DON NAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
( ) Other:
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing:
(X) First of the Month
( ) 15th Day of each Month
( ) End of the Month
( ) Other:
C. City's Account Number: Developer deposit accounts or as otherwise
specified by the City. Each plan check will be assigned a separate City work order
number. Consultant's Billing shall show hours per classification per work order number.
19. Security for Performance
( ) Performance Bond, $
( ) Letter of Credit, $
( ) Other Security:
Type:.
Amount: $
(X) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions
to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant
sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the
following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City
determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred:
(X) Retention Percentage: 10%
( ) Retention Amount: $
Retention Release Event:
( ) Completion of All Consultant Services
(X) Other: Plan approval by City Engineer or City's Principal
Landscape Architect or as otherwise approved by City Engineer or City's Principal
Landscape Architect.
2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision)
May 25, 1999 Page 25
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~DONNAS\plancheckagmt2.doc
4/3/01
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date ~t~2qrOI
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving a new CIP project, Traffic Signal
Installation at Main Street and Maxwell Road (TF-292), and Transferring
existing appropriations in the amount of $125,000 from the Chula Vista
Corporation Yard Project (G.G:i ~) to the new project therefore.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~¥~V
REVIEW BY: City Manager ~9~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes X No )
On September 15, 1998, the City Council, By Resolution 19169, approved an agreement with
SDG&E to purchase their property located at 1800 Maxwell Road for the purpose of constructing
the City's new corporation yard. City staff determined that it would be necessary to install a
traffic signal at the intersection of Main street and Maxwell Road in conjunction with the
corporation yard project in order to assign the proper right-of way and maintain safety. Approval
of this resolution will allow for the timely installation of the traffic signal.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council Approve a new CIP project, Traffic Signal Installation
at the Intersection of Main Street and Maxwell Road (TF-292), and Transferring existing
appropriations in the amount of $125,000 from the Chula Vista Corporation Yard Project (GG-
131) to the new CIP project in order to install the traffic signal.
BOARDS/COMMISSION: Not Applicable
DISCUSSION:
The intersection of Main Street and Maxwell Road is a T-intersection. Maxwell Road, which
functions as an industrial roadway, has an existing average daily traffic (ADT) of 1677 (year
2000 counts) and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. It is the only access to both the Otay Land Fill,
which is located within the most northerly parcel off of Maxwell Road, and the new corporation
yard, which will generate additional 1176 daily trips. Main Street, the major roadway, is
classified as a six-lane major street. It has approximately 16,000 ADT, an 85%tile speed of 53
mph and a posted speed of 45 mph. It serves as the main access to several significant attractions
including the Coors Amphitheater, the water park, the Otay land fill, several auto recycling
businesses and the new corporation yard. The latest SANDAG transportation forecast modeling
shows that Main Street will accommodate 59,000 ADT at build-out conditions.
Page 2, Item __
Meeting Date
The new corporation yard will increase the existing traffic volume of 1677 vehicle trips per day
to 2853 trips per day, a 70% total increase. The Cahrans-based warrant study, which was
performed on November 22, 2000, revealed that the intersection met six (6) of eleven (1 l)
· warrants, where a minimum of three (3) warrants are needed to justify a traffic signal installation.
As a result, the intersection collected a total of 50 points, and ranked number three (3) on the
2001 Traffic Signal Evaluation List, which consisted of fifteen (15) studied intersections.
As mentioned above, the new corporation yard will cause the subject intersection to experience
an increase in the percentages of heavy, slow moving vehicles. Those vehicles are less
maneuverable and provide for less acceleration and deceleration responses thm~ the typical
passenger vehicles. This, coupled with the fact that the 85%tile speed on Main Street is 53 mph,
makes it evident that a traffic signal is needed to maintain traffic safety and to assign right-of-
way for approaching vehicles and pedestrians.
Private developers proposing similar projects would have paid a significant amotmt of Traffic
Signal and D1F fees, or otherwise would be required to install a project-related traffic signal at
their own expense. The use of the Corporation Yard Project fund for the purpose of installing the
traffic signal is appropriate, since the City did not pay any Traffic Signal or DIF fees.
The new traffic signal will be equipped with L.E.D. traffic signal indications as well as L.E.D.
pedestrian module indications for lower power consumption. It will be interconnected and
coordinated with the traffic signal at the intersection of Main Street and Nirvana Avenue as well
as future traffic signals to the West. A back-up power supply will be included with this package
to keep the traffic signal in full operation during medium (6 hours or less) power outages. Video
detection will also be included in the design of the traffic signal to eliminate future loop
replacement as a result of pavement failure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of the traffic signal is estimated at $125,000, taking into account that standards and
underground conduit are already in-place. There are enough fund appropriations to the
Corporation Yard Project contingency fund in order to cover related unanticipated items of work,
including the traffic signal installation. Operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be
$3,500 per year.
Attachments:. Area plat for the intersection of Main Street and Maxwell Road
Cost estimate to install the traffic signal
prepared By: Majed AI-GhafiT
H:\HOM E\ENGINEER~AGENDA\MainMaxwelI.DOC
San Diego County Land Fill
New Corporarte Yard
~reated By: Title:
Dennis M. Wolfe
AREA PLAT
)ate Created:
March 27, 2001
PROJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT MAIN STREET
.-~ND MAXWELL ROAD (TF NE~V) FOR FY 01/02
Sheet of FIGURES CHECKED BY _
-- Check that all signatures are affixed
__ Check type and amount of bond
__ Addendums to be acknowleged
ENGINEER'S
ESTIMATE
NO. [ ITEM QTY UNIT UNITCOST TOTAL
1 Furnish and install Traffic Signal 1 ?0E Controller I EA $ 18,000.00 [ $ 18,000.00
and 332 Cabinet. Install New Foundation, Pad, etc...
-- 2 {Furnish and Install SDG&E Approved Meter Pedestal [ 1 EA [ $ 2,500.00 $ 2.500.00
3 IFumish and InstallType lA Traffic Signal Standard I EA $ 750.00 $ 750.00
Furnish & Install (50') Signal Mast .~-m on
4 Existing 29-5-70 Traffic S gna Standard 2 EA $ '1,200.00 ' $ 2,400.00
Furnished & Install (35') Signal Mast Arm on
-~ Existing,~ 24-4-70 Traffic S gnal Standard 1 EA $ 'I,000.00 $ 1,000.00
6 [Furnish and Install ~'ide~ Detection Cameras [ 3 EA $ 6.000.00 $ 18,000.00
7 IFumish and Install 3-Lens Vehicular Indication [ I2 EA $ 600.00 $ 7.200.00
$ I Furnish and In,tall Pedestrian Indication I 4 EA $ 450.00 $ 1,800.00
9 [Furnish and Install ADA Pedes~an Pushbutton w/si~n 4 EA $ 200.00 $ 800.00
l0 tWire Intersection . 1 LS $ 6.000.00 $ 6.000.00
11 Furnish and Install I.I.S.N.S. [ 3 EA $ 750.00 $ 2.250.00
12 Install City-FumishedE.V.P.E System I 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00
Furnish and Install Signs (Per Plan)
13 and Pedestrian BarricadesI 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
14 [Traffic Control [ t LS $ 1.000.00 $ 1.000.00
Removal, Disposal, and Protection
15 of Ex st ng Improvements 1 LS $1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
TOTAL S 64.'~00.00
5¢i, PR]CE DIFFER~ENTLAL $ 3,210:00
SUB*TOTAL $ 67,410.00
15% CONTINGENCY $ 10.114.50
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 77,500.00
CITY FURNISHED E.V.P.E. SYSTEM $ 7.200,00
DESIGN $ 15',000,00
EN'SPECTI'ON ~ $ 15,000.00
GENE1LM, ADMINISTRATION I $ 5,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ , 1 ~]¢.700.00
H:/HOME;ENGINEER/TKA-FFIC/ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE/COST EST MAIN AND MAX~ ELL.xls
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A NEW CIP PROJECT,
TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT MAIN STREET AND
MAXWELL ROAD (TF-292), AND TRANSFERRING
EXISTING APPROPRIATIONS OF $125,000 FROM THE
CHULA VISTA CORPORATION YARD (GG-131) TO THE
NEW PROJECT THEREFOR
WHEREAS, on September 15, 1998, the City Council, by Resolution 19169, approved an
agreement with SDG&E to purchase their property located at 1800 Maxwell Road for the
purpose of constructing the City's new corporation yard; and
WHEREAS, City staff detennined that it wonld be necessary to install a traffic signal at
the intersection of Main street and Maxwell Road in conjunction with the corporation yard
project in order to assign the proper right-of way and maintain safety; and
WHEREAS, approval of this resolution will allow for the timely installation of the traffic
signal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby approve a new CIP Project, Traffic Signal Installation at Main Street and
Maxwell Road (TF-292), and transferring existing appropriations in the amount of $125,000
from the Chula Vista Corporation Yard (GG-13I) to the new project therefore.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt J~-~
Director of Public Works
¢ Attomey
5'-5
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 4/24/01
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Granting underground electric and communication
easements to SDG&E to erect, construct, change the size of, improve,
reconstruct, relocate, repair, and/or maintain SDG&E facilities and
appurtenances across City-owned property located at the following locations:
Lot 'A' of Chula Vista Tract No. 90-07 Sunbow, Phase lB, Units 3, 4 and
16, According to Map No. 13917; Lot 'C' of Chula Vista Tract No. 90-07
Sunbow, Phase lC, Units 5, 6, 13, 14, and 15, According to Map No. 13917;
Lot 'K' of Chula Vista Tract No. 90-07 Sunbow, Phase 2B, Units 7 and 11,
According to Map No. 14077; Lot 'V' of Chula Vista Tract No. 80-15,
According to Map No. 10051 and authorizing Mayor to execute the
easements
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~/~ff?
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X ~
SDG&E proposes to construct underground electrical and communication facilities and
appurtenances within City-owned property and is requesting three easements along Olympic
Parkway and one easement on East 'H' Street. Easements are for the installation, operation,
maintenance, replacement and repairs of electrical facilities, together with the right of ingress thereto
and egress therefrom over said easement.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the subject resolution granting underground electric
and communication easements to SDG&E to erect, construct, change the size of, improve,
reconstruct, relocate, repair, and/or maintain SDG&E facilities and appurtenances across City-owned
property located at the following locations: Lot 'A' of Chula Vista Tract No. 90-07 Sunbow, Phase
lB, Units 3, 4 and 16, According to Map No. 13917; Lot 'C' of Chula Vista Tract No. 90-07
Sunbow, Phase lC, Units 5, 6, 13, 14, and 15, According to Map No. 13917; Lot 'K' of Chula Vista
Tract No. 90-07 Sunbow, Phase 2B, Units 7 and 11, According to Map No. 14077; Lot 'V' of Chula
Vista Tract No. 80-15, According to Map No. 10051 and authorizing Mayor to execute the
easements.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Three of the proposed easement sites are located along Olympic Parkway. The easement areas are
150, 684 and 110 square feet as shown in Exhibits A, B and C, respectively. The development along
the Olympic Parkway "Scenic Corridor" included modifying various City standards, in relationship
to the location of above ground appurtenances, poles, structures, etc. to enhance the City's visual
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 4/24/01
appearance. Such modifications have resulted in the need to dedicate easements to SDG&E to allow
the installation of equipment, which complies with the scenic corridor.
The request by SDG&E for additional easement areas is in response to the City's direction to install
above ground SDG&E appurtenances behind the meandering Regional Trail, in some cases thirty
feet behind the face of curb for Olympic Parkway. These particular improvements are small above
ground utility service boxes behind the Regional Trail that encroach into the City owned open space
slope areas fronting both the developments of Sunbow and Otay Ranch. The request for additional
easements from the City is in keeping with the SDG&E and the City of Chula Vista agreements for
access.
Typically, these improvements would be placed behind the face of curb, some six to ten feet within a
General Utility Easement (GUE). However, given the defined guidelines and scenic corridor status
the City staff has requested that these boxes be located away from the parkway. In addition, the
landscape theme has been prepared not only to provide SDG&E access, but also integrate or screen
these improvements.
The fourth location is located at the back of sidewalk on Kemal Place, just south of East 'H' Street.
The easement area is 128 sq. ft. as shown in Exhibit "D". This location is needed in order to provide
power to an adjacent Cox Communications Reliability Unit. Normally these types of facilities are
connected to natural gas lines. In this case, natural gas was- not available, so a separate electrical
power supply had to be provided by SDG&E. The Reliability units have the ability to serve the
adjacent neighborhood with telephone, cable and data services.
The language in the casements has been reviewed by the City's Engineering Division and approved
by the City Attorney's office.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no cost to the General Fund. SDG&E has paid a $1,000.00 fee for the
processing of these easements.
Attachments: A - Easement Lot "A"
B - Easement Lot "C"
C - Easement Lot "K"
D Easement Lot "V"
H:\HOM E\ENGINEER\PERM ITS\Pf~PF291 Reso.doc
OLY~~
~-~'=~ EASEMENT AREA :
~$0,00 SQUARE FEET
IHUNSAKER
ASSOCIATES 30 o 30 so ~o
a,m,'- ~,m SCALE 1" = 30'
ATThOt-tHD,)T ' Fo;
EXHIBIT "B"
N 86'04 '22"W , ~ c".), ~. '~'
.~. ~8. 00 ' -. ~ l\ J'\~
--~ %V//////A .>' o,.,,
.¢JT~ ~ /.?.o.C.
-- ~'- N 86'04'22'l¢ 502.71' L-12! 22''-~
__ ~//'"- OENTERL/NE
OLYMPIC PARKTCA y
684.00 SQUARE FEET
BHUNSAKER
ASSOCIATES
30 0 30 60 90
.,m:..,,~?-.4.~m.,~,~."m~ SCALE 1 =""ou' -..
EXHIBIT "B"
P.O.C.---~
.,~o~'~ ,
.~ ~.oo'~¢~°~'
'
~ / / I 110.00 SOUSE ~
30 0 50 60 90
SCALE 1" = 30'
H~S~ER
ASSOCIATES
NODE , 582
SITE ID' ' /TM j NORTH
~BERt ~72'~7s"/ ~i~?:~::~::~::] EASEMENT AR~
BLOCK :-[ un~.own/
OWNER: THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a municipal corporation
7[26/82 ~ F/P No. 82-227751, O. R.
A.P.N, 592-192~12
DEAD END T-,Most S'Iy corner
Of Lot
CONST. NO,: Z71.Z142
ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND THOS. BROS.: [310-
PROJECT NO.: 042518-960 G6
PROJECT NA~4E IA LOCATION o~WN sv: C..EUNE. OK TO ~NST^.,: D~W~N~ .O:
DATE: 02/27/01 R/W OK:
COX CABLE NODE 58ZA
E/SIDE KERNEL PLACE, S/O EAffr "H" STREET SCALE: NONE JOB TYPE:EUG COORDINATES
- CHULA VISTA, CA - REFERENCES: R/W 127452 168-1758
EXHIBIT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
AND COMMUNICATION EASEMENTS TO SDG&E TO
ERECT, CONSTRUCT, CHANGE THE SIZE OF, IMPROVE,
RECONSTRUCT, RELOCATE, REPAIR, AND/OR MAINTAIN
SDG&E FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES ACROSS
CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE FOLLOWING
LOCATIONS: Lot 'A' OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-07
SUNBOW, PHASE lB, UNITS 3, 4 AND 16, ACCORDING TO
MAP NO. 13917; LOT 'C' OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-
07 SUNBOW, PHASE lC, UNITS 5, 6, 13, 14, AND 15,
ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 13917; LOT 'K' OF CHULA
VISTA TRACT NO. 90-07 SUNBOW, PHASE 2B, UNITS 7
AND 11, ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 14077; LOT 'V' OF
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 80-15, ACCORDING TO MAP
NO. 10051
WHEREAS, SDG&E proposes to construct underground electrical and communication
facilities and appurtenances within City-owned property and is requesting easements along
Olympic Parkway and one easement on East "H" Street; and
WHEREAS, easements are for the installation, operation, maintenance, replacement and
repairs of electrical facilities, together with the right of ingress thereto and egress therefrom over
said easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby grant underground electric and communication easements to SDG&E to erect,
construct, change the size of, improve, reconstruct, relocate, repair, and/or maintain SDG&E
facilities and appurtenances across city-owned property located at the following locations: Lot
'A' of Chula Vista Tract No. 90-07 Sunbow, Phase 1 B, Units 3, 4 and 16, according to Map No.
13917; Lot 'C' of Chula Vista Tract No. 90-07 Sunbow, Phase lC, units 5, 6, 13, 14, and 15,
according to Map No. 13917; Lot 'K' of Chula Vista Tract No. 90-07 Sunbow, Phase 2B, Units
7 and 11, according to Map No. 14077; Lot 'V' of Chula Vista Tract No. 80-15, according to
Map No. 10051.
BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said easements on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Director of Public Works City Attorney
¢-7
Recording Requested by
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
When recorded, mail to:
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
Attn: RECORDS CENTER - CP11D
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Project No 937740-010
Const. No. 2674850
A.P.N. No. Pending
Transfer Tax None
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
EASEMENT
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called (Grantor),
grants to SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation (Grantee), an easement and fight
of way in, upon, over, under and across the lands hereinat~er described, to erect, construct, change the
size of, improve, reconstruct, relocate, repair, maintain and use facilities consisting o~
1. Underground facilities and appurtenances for the transmission and distribution of
electricity.
2. Communication facilities, and appurtenances.
The above facilities will be installed at such locations and elevations upon, along, over and
under the hereinafter described easement as Grantee may now or hereafter deem convenient or necessary.
Grantee also has the right of ingress and egress, to, from and along this easement in, upon, over and
across the hereinafter described lands. Grantee further has the fight, but not the duty to clear and keep
this easement clear from explosives, buildings, structures and materials.
s.' land.' data I 810236S
The property in which this easement and fight of way is hereby granted is situated
in the County of San Diego, State of California described as follows:
Lot "K" of Chula Vista Tract No. 90-07 Sunbow, Phase 2B, Units 7, and 11, according to
Map thereof No. 14077, filed in the office of the County Recorder of said County of San Diego.
The easement in the aforesaid property is more particularly described in Exhibit "A' and
shown on Exhibit '~B", both attached hereto and made a part hereo£
In order to provide adequate working area for Grantee, Grantor shall not erect, place or
construct, nor permit to be erected, placed or constructed any building or other structure, park any
vehicle, plant any tree and/or shrubs within eight feet of the front of the door or hinged opening of any
transformer (s) installed within this easement.
Grantor grants to Grantee the fight to erect and maintain on Grantor's property immediately
adjacent to this easement retaining walls and/or protective barricades as may be necessary for Grantee's
purposes.
Grantor shall not erect, place or construct, nor permit to be erected, placed or
constructed, any building or other structure, plant any tree, drill or dig any well, within this easement.
Grantor shall not increase or decrease the ground surface elevations within this easement
after installation of Grantee's facilities, without prior written consent of Grantee, which consent shall not
unreasonably be withheld.
Grantor further grants to Grantee the right to assign any or all of the rights granted in this
easement in whole or in part to other companies providing utility or communication facilities/services.
Grantee shall have the right but not the duty, to trim or remove trees and brush along or
adjacent to this easement and remove roots from within this easement whenever Grantee deems it
necessary. Said right shall not relieve Grantor of the duty as owner to trim or remove trees and brush
to prevent danger or hazard to property or persons. In order to provide adequate working area for
Grantee, Grantor shall not erect, place or construct, nor permit to be erected, placed or constructed any
building or other stmcture, park any vehicle, plant any trees and/or shrubs within eight feet of the from
of the door or hinged opening of any transformer(s) installed within this easement.
CONDUITS CARRY HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL CONDUCTORS, therefore
Grantor shall not make or allow any excavation or fill to be made within this easement WITHOUT
FIRST NOTIFYING SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY BY CALLING 696-2000, and
OBTAINING PERMISSION.
The legal description for this easement was prepared by San Diego Gas & Electric
Company pursuant to Section 8730 of the Business and Professions Code, State of California.
s:land:data -2- 810256~
Rev. I
This easement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of successors, heirs,
executors, administrators, permittees, licensees, agents or assigns of Grantor and Grantee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor executed this instrument this __ day of
,200
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation
By:
Drawn ~Garland
Checked
Sketch Exhibit "B"
Date 3/22/01
STATE OF )
COUNTY OF )SS.
On , before me
(name, title of officer), appeared
personally known to me
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me
that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capaeity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
s.'land:data 3 810236S
Rev. I
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF LOT "K" OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-07 SUNBOW, PHASE 2B
UNITS 7 AND 11, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 14077 IN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF SAID
COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 21, 2000, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF OLYMPIC
PARKWAY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT COURSE
DESCRIBED AS NORTH 68°02'32" EAST, 1384.63 FEET AS DEPICTED ON SAID MAP NO.
14077; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 68°02'32'' WEST,
414.72 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 68°02'32'' WEST, 10.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING
SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 21°57'28" WEST, 11.00 FEET; THENCE
ALONG A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 11 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY, NORTH 68°02'32'' EAST, 10.00
FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE, SOUTH 21°57'28" EAST, 11.00 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINS 110.00 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS.
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, INC.
PAGE 1 OF 1
:SE M:\0025\271\Legal Descriptions\a25.doc
WO 25-271 2/22/01 ~7-//
EXHIBIT "B"
P.O.C.~
II
SCALE 1" = 30'
HUNSAKER
& ASSOCIATES
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 04/24/01
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Amending the FY 00/01 budget by appropriating $280,392
from the un-appropriated balance of various Open Space and Community
Facilities Districts' reserves to correct discrepancies in the maintenance
accounts.
SUBMITTED BY: Director o f PWorks '~')~[:~ ~_~ ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5th Vote ~X Yes __ No)
In preparation of the new two-year budgets for FY 01/02 and FY 02/03, staff discovered that current
budget amounts approved by City Council for various Open Space and Community Facilities
Districts were incorrect. Adjustments are needed to reflect anticipated expenditures required to
maintain the landscaping within these special districts.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the FY00/01 budget by appropriating
$280,392 from the un-appropriated balance of various Open Space and Community Facility
Districts' reserves to correct discrepancies in the maintenance accounts.
DISCUSSION:
The City implemented a new budget program in FY 00/01 to be compatible with the City's new
financial system (WAS) that has been in place the last two years. The Open Space Section has 44
individual landscape maintenance budgets for Open Space Districts (OSD), Community Facility
Districts (CFD), and special landscape areas throughout the City.
We have recently noticed that the adopted budget figures for FY 00/01 for various Open Space and
Community Facility Districts were incorrect. The errors occurred due to last minute changes to the
budgets, which unfortunately went undetected until after formal adoption by the Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommended budget amendments will allow normal expenditures to be made with various
special district funds, without exceeding authorized spending levels. The assessments to fund the
special districts, which are done annually, are correct for FY 00/01 and the revenues have been
collected to cover the anticipated expenditures for the currem fiscal year.
Attachment
Attachment A
OSD & CFD Accounts
OSD or Counc~ Revi~ed
CFD Expenditure Approved Budget Difference
Budget Account Amount Amount
35500 6401 $2,668 $4,138 $1,470
35600 6401 ($3,511) $14,531 $18,042
6573 0 $1,400 $1,400
35700 6301 0 $2,184 $2,184
" 6401 ($172) $28,642 $28,814
35800 6301 0 $1,456 $1,456
" 6401 ($754) $12,215 $12,969
36100 6301 0 $364 $364
" 6401 $2,374 $3,028 $654
36200 6301 0 $728 $728
" 6401 $19,578 $21,216 $1,638
36300 6301 0 $2,184 $2,184
" 6401 $17,015 $20,899 $3,884
36400 6301 0 $2,548 $2,548
" 6573 0 $840 $840
" 6621 $290 $550 $260
36500 6301 0 $6,188 $6,188
" 6573 $280 $4,480 $4,200
" 6621 $530 $9,400 $8,870
36800 6301 0 $728 $728
" 6401 $4,206 $4,897 $691
" 6573 0 $280 $280
" 6621 $210 $600 $390
36900 6401 ($377) $1,803 $2,180
37100 6301 0 $1,200 $1,200
6621 0 $5,170 $5,170
37220 6401 $17,593 $20,492 $2,899
37230 6401 $8,748 $11,293 $2,545
37250 6401 $229,469 $238,648 $9,179
6621 $2,202 $11,112 $8,910
38820 6401 $56,535 $130,720 $74,185
6572 $3,468 $4,840 $1,372
6573 $1,140 $1,930 $790
6574 $72,226 $100,140 $27,914
6621 $18,640 $57,981 $39,341
6814 $1,650 $2,995 $1,345
6911 $6,290 $8,870 $2,580
TOTAL $280,392
G:~BobL~ 113 Open Space Budget Corr~ctionsA.doe
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY00/01 BUDGET BY
APPROPRIATING $280,392 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED
BALANCE OF VARIOUS OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICTS' RESERVES TO CORRECT
DISCREPANCIES IN THE MAINTENANCE ACCOUNTS
WHEREAS, in preparation of the new two-year budgets
for FY 01/02 and FY 02/03, staff discovered that baseline budget
amounts approved by the City Council for various expenditure
accounts for Open Space and Community Facilities Districts were
incorrect; and
WHEREAS, adjustments are now needed to reflect
anticipated expenditures required to maintain the landscaping
within these special districts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the FY00/01 budget by
appropriating $280,392 from the unappropriated balance of
various Open Space and Community Facilities Districts' reserves
to correct discrepancies in the maintenance accounts as set
forth in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in full.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. nippitt /~ M. Kaheny
Director of Public Works Jty Attorney
J:\attorney~reso~Approp Open Space Accounts(April 18, 2001 (12:39PM)]
Attachment A
OSD & CFI) Accoun~
OSD or Council Revised I' "
CFD Expenditure Approved Budget Difference
Budget Account Amount Amount
35500 6401 $2,668 $4,138 $1,470
35600 6401 ($3,511) $14,531 $18,042
" 6573 0 $1,400 $1,400
35700 6301 0 $2,184 $2,184
" 6401 ($172) $28,642 $28,814
35800 6301 0 $1,456 $1,456
6401 ($754) $12,215 $12,969
36100 6301 0 $364 $364
6401 $2,374 $3,028 $654
36200 6301 0 $728 $728
6401 $19.578 $21.216 $1,638
36300 6301 0 $2,184 $2,184
I 6401 $17,015 $20,899 $3.884
36400 [ 6301 0 $2,548 $2,548
i 6573 0 $840 $840
! 6621 $290 $550 $260'
36500 6301 0 $6,188 $6,188
6573 $280 $4,480 $4,200
6621 $530 $9,400 $8.870
36800 6301 0 $728 $728
6401 $4.206 $4,897 $691~
6573 0 $280 $280
6621 $210 $600 $390
36900 6401 ($377 $1,803i $2,180
37100 6301 0 $1,200I $1,200
6621 I 0 $5,170 $5,170
37220 6401 $17,593 $20,492 $2,899
37230 6401 $8,748 $11,293 $2,545
37250 6401 $229,469 $238,648 $9,179
6621 $2,202 511,112 $8,910
088-0 6401 $56,535 $130,720 $74,185
6572 $3,468 $4,840 $1,372
6573 $1,140 $1,930 $790
6574 $72,226 $100,140 $27,914
t 6621 $18,640 $57,981 $39,341
I 6814 $1,650 $2,995 $1,345
[ 6911 [ $6,290 $8,870 $2,580
TOTAL $280,392
G:q3ob'~113 Open Spa~e F:ndget CorrectionsA.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM -
MEETING DATE: 04/24/01
ITEM TITLE: Resolution accepting California State Library, Public
Library Foundation Funds awarded to the Chula Vista Public
Library, appropriating the unanticipated revenue, and amending
the FY 2000-01 budget
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager Palmer(E~~''
REVIEWED BY: City Manager'ff~-~ (4/SthSvote: Yes X No )
In signing the FY 2000-01 State budget, the Governor authorized an increase in the
Public Library Foundation (PLF) fund. As a result, the Chula Vista Public Library's
share of the PLF allocation has risen by $7,663 to $288,850. When the City Council
approved the FY 2000-01 budget, a transfer of $281,187 to the General Fund was
included in the City Manager's budget. The State Library has now formally issued this
year's PLF payment with the augmented funds. The Library requests that the
unanticipated revenue of $7,663 be appropriated in the Library's budget to fund costs
associated with the Civic Center Branch Library's 25th Anniversary community
celebration on July 15, assist in the production of the Library System's Informational and
fundraising brochures, and purchase additional library materials.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution accepting
Califomia State Library, Public Library Foundation funds; and appropriating $7,663 in
unanticipated revenue, and amending the FY 2000-01 budget.
BOARDS/COMMISION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
In 1983 the California State Legislation instituted the Public Library Foundation (PLF)
Program designed to insure that each public library provides a minimum level of service
known as a "Foundation Program." The program also calls for the State to fund 10% of
the cost of the Foundation Program if the public library pays 90% from local sources.
The State's contribution (known as the PLF fund) toward the Foundation Program may
be applied towards library services which are basic to its function as a provider of
information, education, and cultural enrichment to all segments of the community,
including but not limited to collection development and maintenance, lending services,
information services, facility maintenance and administration. Foundation funds cannot
be spent on major capital improvements.
ITEM ., PAGE 2
MEETING DATE: 04/24/01
Since its inception, the Public Library Foundation program has not been fully funded.
However, last year, the Legislature did vote to fully fund PLF this fiscal year.
Unfortunately, the Governor reduced the allocation.
With the additional $7,663 in this year's PLF fund, the Library requests that it be
appropriated to support the following programs, at the indicated levels in FY 2000-01:
Civic Center Branch Library's 25th Anniversary Celebration ($2,763)
The Civic Center Branch is celebrating its 25th Anniversary on July 15, 2001. The
Library and Friends of the Library are planning a community celebration that includes a
concert in the park with entertainment for children, and a special library reception to
honor those who were instrumental in the building of Civic Center Branch. These funds
will be spent in this fiscal year for items such as invitations, supplies, etc.
Informational and Fundraising Brochures. ($2,400)
The Library was funded $3,300 in the FY 2000-01 budget to design and print new
informational and donation brochures. After discussions with the Library's graphic artist
and fund raising consultants, it has been determined that there is a need to take new,
professional quality photographs that will be included in these publications. These
additional funds will fund the photography necessary to make both of these brochures
both attractive and effective communication tools.
Additional Library Materials ($2,500)
Finally, the Library will purchase approximately 50 new circulating CD-ROM titles to
augment its collection.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Accepting these funds will provide an additional $7,663 to the Chula Vista Public
Library. This augmentation has been included as part of the Library's anticipated
revenue in FY 2001-02.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA STATE
LIBRARY, PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION FUNDS
AWARDED TO THE CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LIBRARY,
APPROPRIATING THE UNANTICIPATED REVENUE, AND
AMENDING THE FY 2000-01 BUDGET
WHEREAS, in signing the FY 2000-01 State budget, the Governor authorized an
increase in the Public Library Foundation (PLF) fund and, as a result, the Chula Vista Public
Library's share of the PLF allocation has risen by $7,663 to $288,850; and
WHEREAS, when the City Council approved the FY 2000-01 budget, a transfer of
$281,187 to the General Fund was included in the City Manager's budget; and
WHEREAS, the State Library has now formally issued this year's PLF payment with the
augmented funds; and
WHEREAS, the Library requests that the unanticipated revenue of $7,663 be
appropriated in the Library's budget to fund changes associated with the Library's internal
management reorganization, the Civic Center Branch Library's 25th Anniversary community
celebration on July 15, and assist in the production of the Library System's Informational and
fundraising brochures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby accept the California State Library, Public Library Foundation Funds awarded
to the Chula Vista Public Library.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 2000-01 budget is hereby amended by
appropriating $7,663 in unanticipated revenue.
Presented by Approved as to form by
David Palmer Johi1 M. Kaheny d'
Deputy City Manager City Attorney
1: Attomcy\Rcso\PLF LiblaIy Funds
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/01
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) AND HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM ANNUAL PLAN TO
REPROGRAM $300,000 IN BLOCK GRANT FUNDING FROM THE
GATEWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND APPROPRIATE
SAID FUNDS TO THE COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT
PROGRA~
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEV/~OPMENT DIRECTOR ~-~ ~
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER --
4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO ~
BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2000 resolution number 2000-191 was approved authorizing submittal of the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG} and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) 2000-01
Annual Plan ("Plan") to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Incorporated within the Plan was funding for the Gateway capital improvement program in the
amount of $300,000. The Gateway project is not in a position to expend the CDBG funds this fiscal
year due to continued negotiation be~veen the City and the developer on what public improvements
will be required. The CDBG funds are targeted to fund a portion of the public improvements.
Staff is recommending reprogramming the CDBG funds to the Community Housing Improvement
Program (CHIP) which is also an eligible use. HUD regulations mandate any change in funding
activity from the approved Plan requires an amendment. Along with the amendment, a 30-day
public comment period is also required. The public comment period began on March 23, 2001
and ends on April 23, 2001. To-date staff has not received any public comments regarding
amending the Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the resolution amending the fiscal year 2000-01Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME} Annual Plan to
reprogram $300,000 in Block Grant funding from the Gateway capital improvement project and
appropriate said funds to the Community Housing Improvement Program.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/01
DISCUSSION
Each year CDBG and HOME funds are budgeted for specific eligible programs and projects. For
fiscal year 2000-01 CDBG funds are budgeted in the amount of $931,550 for City capital
improvements. Of this amount, $300,000 is budgeted for the Gateway project. This project
involves the construction of improvements to the intersection of Third Avenue and "H' Street.
In recent discussions with the Gateway project manager, it has been determined that the street
improvements will not be installed this fiscal year. In an attempt to ensure CDBG funds are being
expended in a timely manner, staff recommends the $300,000 be reprogrammed from the
Gateway project and appropriated to the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP}. The
CDBG funds will be used to provide Iow-interest and/or zero interest loans to Iow-income
households to rehabilitate their homes. The CHIP program will emphasize the rehabilitation effort in
the western territory of the City. Appropriating CDBG funds for the CHIP program is an eligible use.
Community Development Department staff underwent the process of revising the CHIP program
guidelines. Those specific program parameters and revisions are provided in a separate report on
tonights Redevelopment Agency agenda.
FISCAL IMPACT
Amending the CDBG/HOME Annual Plan; approving reprogramming $300,000 from the
Gateway capital improvement project; and appropriating the funds to the CHIP program has a
minimal fiscal impact and will not affect current CDBG-funded capital projects. Staff
recommends re-budgeting $300,000 for the Gateway capital improvement project from fiscal
year 2001-02 CDBG funds.
J:\COMMDEV~STAFF.RI~P~04-24-01 \Annual Plan Amendment Report.doc
BLANK PAGE
9-3
PAGE 9-4
CORRECTED VERSION
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-0'1 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) AND HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM ANNUAL PLAN
TO REPROGRAM $300,000 IN BLOCK GRANT FUNDING FROM
THE GATEWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND
APPROPRIATING SAID FUNDS TO THE COMMUNITY HOUSING
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on June '13, 2000 by resolution number 2000-'19'1 the City Council approved
submittal of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME Investment
Partnership (HOME) program 2000-0'1 Annual Plan ("Plan") to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development; and
WHEREAS, staff is requesting reprogramming $300,000 in CDBG funds from the Gateway
capital improvement project which does not require funding until Fiscal Year 200'1-2002 and
appropriating said funds to the Community Housing Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Community Housing Improvement Program is an eligible use of CDBG
funds; and
WHEREAS, reprogramming $300,000 in CDBG funds will not impact the project nor the
current CDBG-funded capital projects.
WHEREAS, any programmatic or funding changes to the Plan require an amendment to the
Plan along with a 30-day public comment period for staff to receive public input with regard to the
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 30-day public comment period began on March 23, 200'1 and ends on April
23,200'1; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby approve amending the fiscal year 2000-01 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program Annual Plan to reprogram $300,000 in block
grant funding from the Gateway capital improvement project and appropriating said funds to the
Community Housing Improvement Program.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Ch mone J_~hn M~l~heny
Director of Community D,,velopment C~y
J:\COMMDEV~RESOS~Annual Plan Amendment Resolution doc
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /O
Meeting Date 04/24/01
ITEM TITLE: Resolution reallocating $124,427 in Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds from various projects to
Parkway Pool Renovation project and returning $124,427 in Park
Acquisition and Development~(PAD) Funds from Parkway Pool
project to Fund Balance (//~
SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manager Morris~
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development
Andy Campbell, Director of Parks and Recreation.~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~'9 (4/Sths Vote: X No )
The Parkway Pool Renovation Project (PR223) is currently underway and is funded by CDBG
funds, PAD funds, and State Grant funds. There are CDBG funds remaining in a number of non-
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects that can be reallocated to this project, thereby
freeing up needed PAD funds for other park projects. In addition, City staffs goal is to spend
CDBG funds in a timely manner and to spend those funds first, wherever appropriate, prior to
using other City funds. The proposed fund reallocations are shown in Attachment "A".
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution reallocating $124,427 in
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds from various projects to Parkway Pool
Renovation Project and returning $124,427 in Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Funds
from the Parkway Pool Project to Fund Balance.
BOARDS/COMMISSION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The $523,374 construction contract for the Parkway Pool resurfacing project is being funded by
the three funding sources listed above. When the construction contract was awarded in October
by Council, additional CDBG funds and PAD funds were appropriated to the project. Since that
time, an additional $124,427 of available CDBG funds has been identified, from completed CIP
projects or from completed, prior year social service or community service projects with
remaining funds.~ Staffs recommendation is to reallocate these CDBG funds to this project, in
order to spend the City's CDBG allocation in a timely manner, and to return the PAD funds to
fund balance. The list of projects and remaining funds proposed to be reallocated is shown in
Attachment "A".
FISCAL IMPACT: CDBG funds of $124,427 will be reallocated to this project, and this same
amount of PAD funds currently allocated to the Parkway Pool project will be returned to fund
balance, to be used for future park and recreation projects.
t One of the CIP projects, City Street Miscellaneous Requirements [Beyer Way], is still under constraction and has
not been completed. However, the project was not bid as a CDBG-funded project, since Gas Tax funds were also
allocated for the project. The CDBG funds remaining in this project can therefore be reallocated.
16 -.'t
ATTACHMENT A
Master Proi # Proflram Type of CDBG Fundin;I Amount
41191000 B& H Community Appearance Program income $3,097
Prior year FY99 $1,302
41192180 Administration Prior year FY99 $5,637
41192450 CV Literacy Team Prioryear FY99 $6
FY99 $1,464
41192900 Montgomery Infrastructure Prioryear FY99 $39,373
41292190 Fair Housing Program Prior year FY99 $9,014
41292260 HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Prior year FY99 $2
41292390 Lutheran Soc Serv-Project Hand FY99 $2,277
41292740 Family Violence Prevention Prior year FY99 $64
41392760 CV Youth Svcs Network Prior year FY99 $49
41292770 Southwestern College Program income $360
FY99 $883
41292810 Access Center of SD FY99 $3,128
22091250 South Chula Vista Library Prior year FY99 $6,280
23091940 Norman Park Ctr Game Facility Prior year FY99 $1,792
26599080 Drainage Impvt, G St, 2"u/Del Mar Prior year FY99 $5,885
25092260 Downtown St Light Phase II FY99 $171
24195250 City Streets Misc Requirements FY99 $43,643
TOTAL $124,427
File: H: SHARED~ATTORNEY/A 113-PARKWAY POOL
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA REALLOCATING $124,427 IN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FROM
VARIOUS PROJECTS TO PARKWAY POOL RENOVATION
PROJECT AND RETURNING $124,427 IN PARK
ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FUNDS FROM
PARKWAY POOL PROJECT TO FUND BALANCE
WHEREAS, the Parkway Pool Renovation Project (PR223) is currently underway and is
funded by CDBG funds, PAD funds, Residential Construction Tax funds, and State Grant funds;
and
WHEREAS, there are CDBG funds remaining in a number of non-Capital Improvement
Program projects that can be reallocated to this project, thereby freeing up needed PAD funds for
other park projects; and
WHEREAS, in addition, City staff's goal is to spend CDBG funds in a timely manner
and to spend those funds first, wherever appropriate, prior to using other City funds; and
WHEREAS, the proposed fund reallocations are shown in Attachment "A".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby reallocate $124,427 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
from various projects to Parkway Pool Renovation Project and return $124,427 in Park
Acquisition and Development (PAD) Funds from Parkway Pool Project to Fund Balance as
shown in Attachment "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full.
Presented by Approved as to form by
?J~6h/IM. Kaheny/
Andy Campbell ~y Attorney ~
Director of Parks and Recreation
.1 \at~omey\leso\CDBG Reallocation Parkway Pool
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: i /
ITEM TITLE: Report on staffing and consultant resources needed to carry out existing
Planning and Building Department Work Program and Expanded Work
Program.
Resolution Amending the FY 00/01 budget of the Planning and
Building Department to add an Environmental Project Manager Position,
and a temporary Administrative Offtce Assistant position funded from
salary savings and appropriating $4,500.00 from the available fund
balance of the Civic Center Expansion Development Impact Fee Fund for
office equipment.
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approving a three party agreement between the City of Chula Vista; RBF
Consulting, Consultant; Bella Lago, LLC, for various consultant services
related to the preparation of the rezoning and associated environmental
work for Bella Lago Development, and other entitlements authorizing
Mayor to execute said agreement.
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving
a three party agreement between the City of Chula Vista; RBF Consulting,
Consultant; McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, applicant for various
Consulting Services related to the processing of entitlements for the Otay
Ranch, Freeway Commercial portion of Planning Area 12, and authorizing
the Mayor to execute said agreement.
SUBMITTED BY: Director o£Planning and Building~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~./ //,~ (4/5 Vote: Yes X No )
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopts the draft resolutions amending the FY00-01 budget to add a permanent
Environmental Project Manager position, a temporary Administrative Office Assistant position
and consultant contracts for planning and environmental services.
/iA- /
Page 2, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
Background
Staff is recommending the inclusion of the two additional projects to the current fiscal year work
program (Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial and Belle Lago Developments). In order to process
the additional projects as well as complete the existing work program in a timely fashion
additional resources are needed in this fiscal year.
Current Work Program
The Planning and Building Department has been utilizing the services of two approximately
halftime temporary expert professional environmental project managers to process the Eastlake
and San Miguel Ranch environmental documents. These positions have been funded out of
developer deposit accounts. The agreement reached with both individuals was that they would
work as temporary expert professionals for a specified period of time that has now expired.
Those individuals have agreed to continue work on a contract basis until the two major projects
have been completed. Due to the Iow contract amounts they do not require City Council
approval, however, an appropriation of funds is needed. The contract costs will be fully offset
by developer deposits.
Expanded Work Program:
Staff is at this time recommending that two additional projects be added to the eastern Chula
Vista Community Planning work program, the Belle Lago Development and the Otay Ranch
Freeway Commercial
The Bella Lago Development proposal is for 120 estate homes on 180 of acres property located
directly east of the Rolling Hills P, anch development. The city has long recognized the benefits
of providing a wide variety of housing choices. There is very little estate housing in the City of
Chula Vista at this time. The property owner at this time is requesting only a rezoning of the
property from the Planned Community district (PC) designation to the l~esidantial Estate (P,.E)
designation during this calendar year. Thc property owner has had discussions with staff
regarding development of this property for several years. The level of entitlements needed at this
time is due to financing issues. The entitlements necessary to allow actual development of the
property would not be granted until after State Route 125 is constructed.
The Otay Ranch "Freeway Commercial" portion of Planning Area 12 is, according to the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan~ intended to provide over 100 acres of commercial
development. The McMillin Company has submitted a request to initiate the processing of the
SPA Plan and Tentative Map for the Freeway Commercial portion of Planning Area 12.
Development of this property would provide retail establishments to serve the increasing
population in the eastern portion of the city. The commercial development would also benefit
Page 3, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
the city through increased property and sales tax as well as in the reduction of vehicle trips by
those who now have to go elsewhere to shop.
There is not currently the staff resources available to process the two additional projects
discussed above. In order to avoid overstaffing after this peak period we recommend the
utilization of consultant planning services. For this reason staff created and distributed a request
for proposal to nine qualified planning firms~ Only two proposals (RBF Consulting, Chapin Land
Management, Inc.) were received. Staff determined that the firm of RBF Consulting is most
qualified to provide the needed services. RBF Consulting has extensive experience in providing
"Extension of Staff' consulting services to assist public agencies in the processing and analysis
of development proposals. Contracts have been negotiated with RBF Consulting. The attached
draft resolutions approve the contracts with KBF Consulting and authorize the Mayor to execute
the agreements.
There is not currently adequate environmental planning staff resources available to assist in the
processing of the Bella Lago and Freeway Commercial development proposals. One of the
environmental project manager positions, which was intended to review development proposals,
has been required to be dedicated solely to the preparation and implementation of the city's
Multiple Species Conservation Program. The Environmental section has also become more
heavily involved in providing support for major capital improvement projects such as the Salt
Creek Sewer Interceptor. The current staffing deficiency has led to the need for the
environmental section to work large amounts of overtime throughout the current fiscal year and
to rely on the use of two half time temporary expert professionals. These temporary employees
are fully engaged in the review of major development proposals.
The addition of the two major projects therefore would require the addition of an Environmental
Project Manager at this time. Throughout the remainder of the fiscal year this individual will be
working exclusively on the review of environmental documents related to development
proposals. This staff time is all fully recoverable through developer deposits. In the next two
fiscal years approximately 25% of this individual's time will be spent on providing direct support
for the creation and processing of the environmental documents required as part of the
comprehensive General Plan Update, 75% of the time will continue to be spent on development
processing. The use of a temporary environmental project manager position was considered,
however, due to the scarcity of qualified individuals interested in temporary positions as well as
the substantial workload during the current and next two fiscal years it is not recommended.
The contracts with RBF and the addition of the environmental project manager would provide
the professional planning staff needed to accommodate the processing of the two added projects.
There is, however, an ongoing need for additional clerical support. There is currently only one
clerical position supporting sixteen Planning and Building Department professional positions in
the Lee/Mercy Building. This individual also acts as the receptionist for the entire building
(which includes the Parks and Recreation Department). The low professional staff to clerical
ratio means the professional staff are often times required to perform clerical duties. The
addition of the two major projects will exacerbate this situation. Salary savings will be utilized
to fund the temporary clerical position for the remainder of the fiscal year, and the position will
be included as a Temporary position for the next fiscal year.
Page 4, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
Fiscal Impact:
For fiscal year 2000-2001, only an appropriation of $4,500.00 from the available fund balance of
the Civic Center Expansion Development Impact Fee Fund for office equipment will be needed.
Services provided by RBF Consultants to McMillin Otay Ranch LLC and Bellagio Capitol, Inc.
will be passed through to the developers directly.
For fiscal year 2001-2002, $179,800.00 in appropriation will be included in the budget request,
with $146,100.00 offset by developer deposits. Once again, services provided by RBF
Consultants to McMillin Otay Ranch LLC and Bellagio Capitol, Inc. will be passed through to
the developers directly.
Attachments:
1. Freeway Commercial Locator Map.
2. Letter to Craig Fukiyama and Bob Pletcher, McMillin dated February 16, 2001.
3. Bella Lago Locator Map.
4. Letter to Tim Wilson, Bellagio Capital, Inc., dated February 16, 2001.
A:\COUNC1L AGENDA STATEMENT.doc
OTAY RANCH
~~ FREEWAY
~ COMMERCIAL
ii
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~'ROJ£CT P.OJECT D~SCR,P'r~O.:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale
h:Xhome[pla nningXcarlos[IocatorsXjimboO2.cdr 3.28.01
200 ]
\Vt ~viH, hov,,¢vm-, with thc above cawz~ in m~d m~k¢ o~ b~t cffo~ m m proErcss on
-'m~ .... ~ o~.ssm~' ~ of ~¢ Pr~y Comm~c~ Development propose. W~ w~ b~ contact yo~- ~
aon~t propos~ so ~s Ci~ Co~¢~ for rCvi¢w ~ k~ch 200~.
;:,. ..-? /
io~ L~p~ DL-~s~r of ~i]c
/
- BELLA
·. cOUNTY_ o~= _SAN. OJEGO
c,~ o~ ~,~,-~,,,~,.z-~ -- LAGO
AL LD , ,' .....~,.
G(~LF .: ,, :w :.,:
ROLLING HILLS
~NCH m
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR P.OJECT PROJEC'r DESCRm'rIo.:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No S~le
h:XhomeXpla nningXcarlosXlocatomXjimboO 1.cd r 3.28.01
CHULA VISTA
Feb,ru~'-yl6. 2001
.Mr. T~mothy Wilsom President
M~n~ng Member Bella Lago LLC
Bell~_~o Capital
13039 Brixmn Pla~
Sm Diego, CA 92130
D~ar
I ~ -~--ri., 'rkng La r~s~onse to our m~rip4f of Friday, F~bm~u-y 2nd ~nd 3'our subseque~ l~rmr
~ ~ro:.~ss~r~ of ~ B~lia 1~7o dcvelopm~t proposal. Your lerner (a=aah~d)
nezo~r:~, for ~e ::~r ro be a~rovefl bv ~e CiT< Co~:~ i would ~d=ma~ ~e Cir< Co~:fi
m~ a~on on ~ &~7 a~m¢nr ~ M~zh 2002.
P!~e :onm~ me ~ 69!-5002 ~ you ~ve ~y quesfio~ or comm~.
//
.A~'~ pt~n,,M5 E,~or
B~D ~. ~ Of Pl~,,~g ~d ~,~1~7
Jo~ 1 ~ ~ ~ W~
T ~iS H~d~. Pz~ Plnnner
M~ ~ ~o~me,,~l R~ Coor61naror
James Sandoval
Assistant Planning Director
City of Chula Vista
27~ 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Mr. George Krempl
Deputy City Manager
City of Chu!a Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 9191D
Dear Mr. Krempl,
i am writing to thank you, Bob Leiter, Jim Sandova! and Sohaib A!-
Agha for meeting with me and Tony Lettieri at the City Planning
Department on February 2, 2001 for the purpose of discussing the
processing of the entitlements for Be!!a Lago LLC.
Th~ letter will memcriaiize wha5 was discussed et the meeting and
clarify our understanding of the areas of discussion.
_ ~=?---== e=.~ the meeting'
The fot!owins was ....... n__m a~
, . A letter wi!! be fDrthcoming zrom the Cz~v .cf Chu!a V
outlining =he timelinas Be!!a La~o LLC can exDec5 re~ardin~ t
receipt of certain =~-~-]= =~=- for projeca.
understandin.~ rna5 Jim Sa~ndova! w~]] provide
_ ' ' ___ _ ~n~s letter to 'as
within the next few days.
-.? ~'.n = ..... B~] l~ ~ago- LLC .... r~Dect' seam will work with staff during the
month of February to scope, et-=_ ..... project to avoid tSe need f
3- No later ths~n the end of March, 2001 an Agreement for Extension
. ~h- City Council for their approval,
of Staff shall presented to ~ ~
thereby allowing Be!!a Lago I-~C to be processed to General]
Development Plan by an outside consultant.
4~ No later than the end of December, 2001 Bella Lago LLC should be
in receipt of ~n approved General Development Plain, assuming City
Council approval of the Extension of Staff Agreement and assuming
an EiR is _not necessary at this level of entitlements but instead
a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed satisfactory.
Page One of T-wo~
II --!t
was agreed by those representEng the City of Chu!a vista at
m=~mng that Belle Lago tLC should be able to secure those
entitlements no later than December of 2003, if not sooner, w±th
final map approval to follow within 12 months or less.
6. Construction of homes on our project is t±ed to a firm
commitment to build the SR--125 Freeway and to that end the City is
pursuing the possibility of a JPA to assure completion of ~'=un_
freeway. The timeline for completion of SR-125 is approximately
three years from commencement of construction and it is still
unclear when construction will begin.
We look forward to working with the City of Chula Vista and to the
timely receipt of development entitlements for Be!ia Lago. We feel
confident that our contribution to the City's overall development
plans will be a worthwhile and rewarding one and that Be!la Laao
will be one cf the ~n~st residential communities in the City of
Chu!a Vista.
Ti~oth~ Wi!son
President
5e!!agio CapLuai,
Managing Member
Bei!a Lago, 7.T.C
j. Douglass Jennings, Jr., Esq.
Anthony Lettieri, Planning Consu!%an5
Robert r=~= ~ '
~__~e_, Dzrecaor Z!~ning and Building
James Sandova!, A£sis%ant ?!~ning Directcr
Sohaib A!-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer
james Whalen, Environmental Consultant
Steve Estrade, Land Planning Consultant
Robert Haynes, Project Engineer
rage Two cf Two7
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDiNG THE FY 00/01 BUDGET OF THE
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO ADD AN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGER POSITION, AND
TO APPROPRIATE $32,250.00 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING
FOR THIS POSITION AND A TEMPORARY
ADM1NSTRATIVE OFFICE ASSISTANT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SERVICES OF WHICH
$6,458.00 IS FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE OF
THE GENERAL FUND, AND $4,500 OF WHICH IS FROM
THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE OF THE CIVIC CENTER
EXPANSION DEVELOPER IMPACT FEE FUND.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Department work program has increased; and
WHEREAS, the workload increase has been particularly high in the areas of
environmental analysis and clerical support; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that additional professional environmental assistance
and clerical support is needed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby amend the Fiscal Year 2000/2001 budget of the Planning and Building
Department to add one Environmental Project Manager position, and appropriate $32,250.00 in
additional funding for this position and a temporary administrative office assistant position and
two environmental consultants, of which $6,458.00 is from the available fund balance of the
General Fund, and $4,500.00 of which is from the available fund balance of the Civic Center
Expansion Developer Impact Fee Fund.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter John Wi. Kaheny ~,'
Planning and Building Director City Attorney
Resolution
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
· California, this 24th day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NAYS: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Shirlely Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular
meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 24th day of April, 2001.
Executed this 24th day of April, 2000.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
H:\Attomey\RESOLUTION NO.2000.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTIY OF
CHULA VISTA, APPROVING A THREE PARTY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; RBF
CONSULTING; BELLA LAGO, LLC, FOR VARIOUS
CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE
PREPARATION OF THE REZONING AND ASSOCIATED
ENVIRONMENTAL WORK FOR BELLA LAGO
DEVELOPMENT, AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the processing of the Bella Lago Development
proposal is desirable at this time; and
WHEREAS, it was determined by the Director of Planning and Building that staff does
not have the available time to perform the subject work; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has deposited or will deposit an initial sum for the consulting
services necessary for the analysis of the environmental and planning documents; and
WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal was distributed to nine persons or firms, and two
proposals were received by the City; and
WHEREAS, the selection committee recommended RBF Consultants perform the
required services for the City; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Building has negotiated the details of this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby approve a three-party agreement between the City of Chula Vista; RBF
Consulting ("Consultant"), and Bella Lago, LLC, ("Applicant") for various consulting services
related to the preparation of the rezoning and associated environmental work for Bella Lago
Development and other entitlements, a copy of which shall be kept 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 on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter ~ ~-~
Director of Planning and Building City Attorney
Three Party Agreement
Between
City of Chula Vista,
RBF Consultinq, Consultant, and
Bella Lago LLC, Applicant
For Consulting Work to be Rendered
with regard to Applicant's Project
1. Parties
This Agreement is made as of the reference date set forth in
Exhibit A, for the purposes of reference only, and effective as
of the date last executed by the parties hereto, between the City
of Chula Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the
State of California, the person designated on the attached
Exhibit A as "Consultant" RBF Consulting whose business form and
address is indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and the person
designated on the attached Exhibit A as "Applicant" Bella Laqo
LLC whose business form and address is indicated on the attached
Exhibit A, and is made with reference to the following facts:
2. Recitals, Warranties and Representations.
2.1. Warranty of Ownership.
Applicant warrants that Applicant is the owner of land
("Property") commonly known as, or generally located as,
described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 1, or has an option or other
entitlement to develop said Property.
2.2. Applicant desires to develop the Property with the
Project described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 2, and in that regard,
has made application ("Application") with the City for approval
of the plan, map, zone, or other permits ("Entitlements") -
described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 3.
2.3. In order for the City to process the Application of
Applicant, Work of the general nature and type described in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, ("Work") will need to be completed.
2.4. City does not presently have the "in-house" staff or
resources to process the application within the time frame
requested for review by the Applicant.
2.5. This agreement proposes an arrangement by which
Applicant shall retain, and be liable for the costs of retaining,
Consultant, who shall perform the services required of Consultant
by this Agreement solely to, and under the direction of, the
City.
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 1
2.6. Additional facts and circumstances regarding the
background for this agreement are set forth on Exhibit B;
3. Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED TO AND BETWEEN THE
CITY, CONSULTANT, AND APPLICANT AS FOLLOWS:
3.1. Employment of Consultant by Applicant.
Consultant is hereby engaged by the Applicant, not the City,
and at Applicant's sole cost and expense, to perform to, and for
the primary benefit of, City, and solely at City's direction, all
of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4,
entitled "General Nature of Consulting Services", ("General
Services"), and in the process of performing and delivering said
General Services, Consultant shall also perform to and for the
benefit of City all of the services described in Exhibit A,
Paragraph 5, entitled "Detailed Scope of Work", ("Detailed
Services"), and all services reasonable necessary to accomplish
said General Services and Detailed Scope of Work, and shall
deliver such documents required ("Deliverables',) herein, all
within the time frames herein set forth, and in particular as set
forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 6, and if none are set forth,
within a reasonable period of time for the diligent execution of
Consultant's duties hereunder. Time is of the essence of this
The Consultant does hereby agree to perform said General and
Detailed Services to and for the primary benefit of the City for
the compensation herein fixed to be paid by Applicant.
In delivering the General and Detailed Services hereunder,
the Consultant shall do so in a good, professional manner
consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised
by members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions and in similar locations, at its own cost and expense
except for the compensation and/or reimbursement, if any, herein
promised, and shall furnish all of the labor, technical,
administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies
and materials, machinery, equipment, printing, vehicles,
transportation, office space and facilities, calculations, and
all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly
specified to be furnished by the City or Applicant, necessary or
proper to perform and complete the work and provide the Services
required of the Consultant.
3.2. Compensation of Consultant.
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 2
Applicant shall compensate Consultant for all services
rendered by Consultant without regard to the conclusions reached
by the Consultant, and according to the terms and conditions set
forth in Exhibit C adjacent to the governing compensation
relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate
arrangement, by paying said amount to the City, within 15 days of
Consultant's billing, or in accordance with the security deposit
provisions of Paragraph 3.3 and Exhibit C, if checked, and upon
receipt of such payment by the City, City shall promptly, not
later than 15 days, or in accordance with the Bill Processin~
procedure in Exhibit C, if checked, pay said amount to the
Consultant. City is merely actin~ in the capacity as a conduit
for payment, and shall not be liable for the compensation unless
it receives same from Applicant. Applicant shall not make an~
payments of compensation or otherwise directly to the Consultant.
3.2.1. Additional Work. If the Applicant, with the
concurrence of City, determines that additional seI~vices
("Additional Services") are needed from Consultant of the type
Consultant is qualified to render or reasonably related to the
Services Consultant is otherwise required to provide by this
Agreement, the Consultant a~rees to provide such additional
services on a time and materials basis paid for by Applicant at
the rates set forth in Exhibit C, unless a separate fixed fee is
otherwise agreed upon in writing for said Additional Work between
the parties.
3.2.1.1. In the event that the City shall
determine that additional work is required to be performed
above and beyond the scope of work herein provided, City
will consult with Applicant regarding the additional work,
and if thereupon the Applicant fails or refuses to arrange
and pay for said Additional Services~ the City may, at ~ts
option, suspend any further processing of Applicant's
Application until the Applicant shall deposit the City's
estimate of the costs of the additional work which the C~ty
determines is or may be required. Applicant shall pay any
and all additional costs for the additional work.
3.2.2. Reductions in Scope of Work.
City may independently, or upon request from
Consultant, from time to time reduce the Services to be performed
by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and
Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose
of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation
associated with said reduction. Upon failure to a~ree, the Fixed
Fee may be unilaterally reduced by the City by the amount of time
and materials budgeted by Consultant for the Services deleted.
3.3. Security for Payment of Compensation by Applicant.
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party A~reement
April 10, 2001 Pa~e 3
3.3.1. Deposit. As security for the payment of
Consultant by Applicant, Applicant shall, upon execution of this
Agreement, deposit the amount indicated on E~chibit C as "Deposit
Amount" with the City, as trustee for Consultant, the conditions
of such trust being as indicated on Exhibit C and as hereiD-below
set forth:
3.3.1.1 Other Terms of Deposit Trust.
3.3.1.1.1. City shall also be entitled to
retain from said Deposit all costs incurred by City for which it
is entitled to compensation by law or under the terms of this
agreement.
3.3.1.1.2. Ail interest earned on the
Deposit Amount, if any, shall accrue to the benefit of, and be
used for, Trust purposes. City may, in lieu of deposit into a
separate bank account, separately account for said deposit in one
or more of its various bank accounts, and upon doing so, shall
proportionately distribute to the Deposit Trust, the average
interest earned during the period on its general fund.
3.3.1.1.3. Any unused balance of Deposit
Amount, including any unused interest earned, shall be returned
to Applicant not later than 30 days after the termination of this
Agreement and any claims resulting therefrom.
3.3.1.1.4. Applicant shall be notified
within 30 days after of the use of the Deposit in any manner.
Nothing herein shall invalidate use of the Deposit in the manner
herein authorized.
3.3.1.1.5. At such time as City shall
reasonably determine that inadequate funds remain on Deposit to
secure future compensation likely due Consultant or City, Cit~
may make demand of Applicant to supplement said Deposit Amount i~
such amount as City shall reasonably specify, and upon doing so,
Applicant shall, within 30 days pays said amount ("Supplemental
Deposit Amount") to City. Said Supplement Deposit Amount or
Amounts shall be governed by the same terms of trust governing
the original Deposit.
3.3.2. Withholding of Processing.
In addition to use of the Deposit as security, in order
to secure the duty of Applicant to pay Consultant for Services
rendered under this agreement, City shall be entitled to withhold
processing of Applicant's Application upon a breach of
Applicant's duty to compensate Consultant.
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 4
4. Non-Service Related Duties of Consultant.
4.1. Insurance.
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and
subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services
required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss
by the following insurance coverages, in the following
categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are
issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A,
Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City:
4.1.1. Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and
Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth
in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 10.
4.1.2. Commercial General Liability Insurance
including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount
set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, combined single limit
applied separately to each project away from premises owned or
rented by Consultant, which names City and Applicant as an
Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the
City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats
the employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as
members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage").
4.1.3. Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount
set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, unless Errors and Omissions
coverage is included in the General Liability policy.
4.2. Proof of Insurance Coveraqe.
4.2.1. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall
demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the
commencement of services required under this Agreement, by
delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and -
further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without
at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional
Insured.
4.2.2. Policy Endorsements Required. In order to
demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and
Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial
General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a
policy endorsement to the City and Applicant demonstrating same.
4.3. Public Statements.
Ail public statements and releases to the news media shall
be the responsibility of the City and the Applicant. The
Consultant shall not publish or release news items, articles or
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 5
present lectures on the Project, either during the course of the
study or after its completion, except on written concurrence of
the City and Applicant.
4.4. Communication to Applicant.
Consultant shall not communicate directly to the Applicant
except in the presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy
of which is simultaneously provided to City, except with the
express consent of City. The Consultant may request such
meetings with the Applicant to ensure the adequacy of ser~rices
performed by Consultant.
5. Non-Compensation Duties of the ADplicant.
5.1. Documents Access.
The Applicant shall provide to the Consultant, through the
City, for the use by the Consultant and City, such documents, or
copies of such documents requested by Consultant, within the
possession of Applicant reasonably useful to the Consultant in
performing the services herein required of Consultant, including
but not limited to those described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7.
5.2. Property Access.
The Applicant hereby grants permission to the City and
Consultant to enter and access the Property, to take any borings,
make any tests, conduct any surveys or reconnaissance necessary
to deliver the Services of Consultant, subject to the approval of
the Applicant. Consultant shall promptly repair any damage to
the subject property occasioned by such entry and shall
indemnify, defend, and hold Applicant harmless from all lossj
cost, damage, expenses, claims, and liabilities in connection
with or arising from any such entry and access.
5.3. Communication to Consultant.
Applicant shall not communicate directly to the Consultant
except in the presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy
of which is simultaneously provided to City, except with the
express consent of City. The Applicant may request such meetings
as they desire with the Consultant to ensure the adequacy of
services performed by Consultant.
6. AdministraLive Representatives.
Each party designates the individuals ("Administrators")
indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, as said party's contract
administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them
in the routine administration of this agreement.
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 6
7. Conflicts of Interest
7.1. Consultant is Desiqnated as an FPPC Filer.
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, as an
"FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the
purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and
disclosure provisions, and shall report his economic interests to
the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in
such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 9 of
Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the
City Attorney.
7.2. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in
any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a
governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to
know Consultant has a financial interest other than the
compensation promised by this Agreement.
7.3. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has
diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's
economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations
promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has
determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's
knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with
Consultant's duties under this agreement.
7.4. Promise Not to Acquire Conflictinq Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant
will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during
the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of
interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act.
7.5. Duty to Advise of Conflictinq Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is desi~nated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant
will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant
learns of an economic interest of Consultant,s which may result
in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political
Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
7.6. SDecific Warranties Aqainst Economic Interests.
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 7
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant,
nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant,s
employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any
interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in the property
which is the subject matter of the Project, or in any property
within 10 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of the
property which is the subject matter of the Project, or
("Prohibited Interest").
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise
of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or
other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant
Associates by Applicant or by any other party as a result of
Consultant's performance of this Agreement.. Consultant promises
to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the
Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not
acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this
Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this
Agreement.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any
party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in
conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement.
8. Default of the Consultant for Breach.
This agreement may be terminated by the CITY for default if
the Consultant breaches this agreement or if the Consultant
refuses or fails to pursue the work under this agreement or any
phase of the work with such diligence which would assure its
completion within a reasonable period of time. Termination of
this agreement because of a default of the Consultant shall not
relieve the Consultant from liability of such default.
9. City's Riqht to Terminate Aqreement for Convenience~
Documents.
9.1. Notwithstanding any other section or provision of this
agreement, the CITY shall have the absolute right at-any time to
terminate this agreement or any work to be performed pursuant to
this agreement.
9.2. In the event of termination of this agreement by the
CITY in the absence of default of the Consultant, the City shall
pay the Consultant for the reasonable value of the services
actually performed by the Consultant up to the date of such
termination, less the aggregate of all sums previously paid to
A:k3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 8
the Consultant for services performed after execution of this
agreement and prior to its termination.
9.3. The Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all
claims for damage or compensation arising under this agreement,
except as set forth herein, in the event of such termination.
9.4. In the event of termination of this agreement, and upon
demand of the City, the Consultant shall deliver to the City, all
field notes, surveys, studies, reports, plans, drawings and all
other materials and documents prepared by the Consultant in
performance of this agreement, and all such documents and
materials shall be the property of the City; provided however,
that the Consultant may retain copies for their own use and the
City shall provide a copy, at Applicant's cost, of all such
documents to the Applicant.
9.5. Applicant shall have no right to terminate Consultant,
and shall not exercise any control or direction over Consultant's
work.
10. Administrative Claims Requirement and Procedures
No suit shall be brought arising out of this agreement,
against the City, unless a claim has first been presented in
writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by
the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set
forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the
provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if set
fully set forth herein.
11. Hold Harmless and Indemnification
11.1. Consultant to Indemnify City and Applicant re
Injuries.
Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold
harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and
employees and Applicant from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation
attorneys' fees) arising out of the negligent, grossly negligent
or willful misconduct of the Consultant, or any agent or
employees, subcontractors, or others of City or Applicant in
connection with the execution of the work covered by this
Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole
negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers,
or employees, or Applicant, Consultant's indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and
liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or
employees or Applicant in defending against such claims, whether
the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 9
own expense shall, upon written request by the City or Applicant,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its
officers, agents, or employees or Applicant. Consultants'
indemnification of City and Applicant shall not be limited by any
prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant.
11.2. Applicant to Indemnify City re Compensation of
Consultant.
Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City
harmless against and from any and all claims, losses, damages,
expenses or expenditures of City, including its elected
officials, officers, employees, agents, or representatives of the
City ("City Indemnitees"), in any way resulting from or arising
out of the refusal to pay compensation as demanded by Consultant
for the performance of services required by this Agreement.
12. Business Licenses
Applicant agrees to obtain a business license from the City
and to otherwise comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 5.
Applicant further agrees to require Consultant to obtain such
business license and to comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 5.
13. Miscellaneous.
13.1. Consultant not authorized to Represent City.
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, neither
Consultant nor Applicant shall have authority to act as City's
agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
13.2. Notices.
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitte~
to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All
notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be
deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served
or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party,
postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt
requested, at the addresses identified for the parties in Exhibit
A.
13.3. Entitlement to Subsequent Notices.
No notice to or demand on the parties for notice of an event
not herein legally required to be given shall in itself create
the right in the parties to any other or further notice or demand
in the same, similar or other circumstances.
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 10
II
13.4. Entire Aqreement.
This Agreement, together with any other written document
referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement
and understanding between the parties relating to the subject
matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof
may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an
instrument in writing executed by the party against which
enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
13.5. Capacity of Parties.
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and
represents to the other party that it has legal authority and
capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this
Agreement; that all resolutions or other actions have been taken
so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement.
13.6. Governinq Law/Venue.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action
arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only
in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State
of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as
close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and
performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
13.7. Modification.
No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement
shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed
by the parties hereto, and then shall be valid only in the
specific instance and for the purpose for which given.
13.8. Counterparts. -
This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart,
each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which,
when taken together shall constitute but one instrument.
13.9. Severability.
In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall for
any reason, be determined to be invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable in any respect, the parties hereto shall negotiate
in good faith and agree to such amendments, modifications, or
supplements to this Agreement or such other appropriate action as
shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such
determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the
parties as reflected herein.
A:\3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 11
13.10. Headinqs.
The captions and headings in this Agreement are for
convenience only and shall not define or limit the provisions
hereof.
13.11. Waiver.
No course of dealing or failure or delay, nor the single
failure or delay, or the partial exercise of any right, power or
privilege, on the part of the parties shall operate as a waiver
of any rights herein contained. The making or the acceptance of
a payment by either party with knowledge of the existence of a
breach shall not operate or be construed to operate as a waiver
of any such breach.
13.12. Remedies.
The rights of the parties under this Agreement are
cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies which the
parties might otherwise have unless this Agreement provides to
the contrary.
13.13. No Additional Beneficiaries.
Despite the fact that the required performance under this
agreement may have an affect upon persons not parties hereto, the
parties specifically intend no benefit therefrom, and agree that
no perforr~ance hereunder may be enforced by any person not a
party to this agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this is
a three party agreement and the City is an express third party
beneficiary of the promises of Consultant to provide services
paid for by .Applicant.
(End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.)
Signature Page
Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and
understood the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby
express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand
hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto.
Dated: City of Chula Vista
by:
Shirley Horton
Mayor
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 12
Attest:
Susan Bigelow
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Jo~ ~. Kaheny
City Attorney
Dated: April 17, 2001 Consultant:
RBF Consulting
Ric~ 'Rubinz, Principal-in-Charge
Dated~ April 17, 2001 Applicant:
Bella La,o, LLC
Tim Wilson, PrEsident of
Bellagio Capitol Inc.
Managing Member
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 13
Exhibit B
Additional Recitals
WHEREAS, the Applicant has deposited an initial sum for the
processing of development applications, such as rezone,
environmental studies and precise plans and
WHEREAS, a request for proposal was given to nine qualified
consulting firms and
WHEREAS, a City of Chula Vista selection committee
recommended the above noted Consultant to perform the required
services for the City, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director has negotiated
the details of this agreement in accordance with procedures set
forth in the Chula Vista Municipal Code and
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning and Building Director recommends
that the City Council'authorize the Mayor to execute this
agreement
A:[3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 1
Exhibit A
Reference Date of Agreement:April 10, 2001
Effective Date of Agreement:
City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Consultant: RBF Consultinq
Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
(X) Corporation
Address: 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100, San
Diego, CA 92124
Applicant: Della Laqo, LLC
Business Form of Applicant:
) Sole Proprietorship
) Partnership
) Corporation
(X) Limited Liability Company
Address: 13039 Brixton Place, San Diego, CA 92130
1. Property:"Bella Lago" property, approximately 180 acres
known as Watson/McCoy located east of Rolling Hills Ranch,
north of Proctor Valley Road alignment.(see attached map)
2. Project Description ("Project"): Development through
tentative map stage of Bella Lago property.
3. Entitlements applied for: Rezone, precise plan, tentative
subdivision map, required environmental approvals.
4. General Nature of Consulting Services ("Services--General"):
Process under City's procedures the necessary planning and
environmental applications to rezone 180 acres known as
Watson/ McCoy Property located east of Rolling Hills Ranch,
north of Proctor Valley Road alignment. At the contract
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 2
administrator's discretion the consultant may also undertake
the review and processing of a precise plan, tentative
subdivision map and associated environmental documents.
Provide an independent evaluation of the project's
compliance with the City's General Plan and a detailed
assessment of the adequacy of the proposed zone change with
the surrounding land uses, particularly the westerly
adjacent Planned community. Provide findings and
recommendations to the Planning Commission, City Council and
other Boards and Commissions to justifying the zone change.
5. Detailed Scope of Work ("Detailed Services"): Ail of the
following shall be performed under the direction of and to
the satisfaction of the city's contract administrator.
A. Preliminary Research
As to the Project:
Gather and review all available data including, but not
limited to the annexation and Pre-zoning files. Review the
Rolling Hills Ranch General Development Plan (GDP);
Sectional Plarnning Area (SPA) plan and related documents;
related City Resolutions, Development Agreements and
environmental impact reports with all related back-up
technical reports; and any other environmental documentation
including subsequent and prior EIRs; review the City of
Chula Vista General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, particularly
Chapters 19.22, 19.48, review the City's report and
resolution format for Planning Commission and City Council
presentations.
B. Project Management
Prepare and maintain schedules, and organize meeting wit~
city staff, applicant and applicant's consultants as
determined necessary by city's contract administrator to
coordinate the different aspects of the overall entitlement
process.
C. Independent Evaluation.
Conduct an independent evaluation of the project compliance
with the City's General Plan, and a detailed assessment of
the adequacy of the proposed zone change with the
surrounding land uses, particularly the westerly adjacent
Planned community, and provide written findings and
recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council.
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 3
D. Reports and Public Hearing Presentations
Prepare Planning Commission and City Council agenda
statements, including resolutions and ordinances, and attend
public hearings as deemed necessary by the city's contract
administrator. After completion of the project, purge and
close file per City's format and procedure.
6. Schedule, Milestone, Time-Limitations within which to Perform
Services.
Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
(X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables:
Under direction of City Staff, and will function as an
extension of City Staff.
Dates for completion of all Consultant services:
Completion of scope of work tasks detailed in 5A - 5D above
shall be accomplished within the time frames as determined
by the city contract administrator and all work task shall
be diligently undertaken to assure expeditious completion in
light of the purpose of this agreement.
7. Documents to be provided by Applicant to Consultant:
( ) site plans ( ) grading plans ( ) architectural
elevations ( ) project description.
(X) other:
Rezone Application, Precise Plan, Tentative Map
8. Contract Administrators.
City: Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner, Planning Division,
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, Tel: (619)691-5090,
FAX: (619)409-5859, Email: lhernandez@ci.chula-vista.ca.us
Applicant: Bella Lago LLC
c/o Tim Wilson, (858)259-8922
Consultant: Jeff Barfield, Manager, Planning, RBF
Consulting, 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100, San
Diego, CA 92124, Tel: (858)614-5027, F~: (858)614-5001,
Email: jeffb@rbf.com
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 4
9. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting
Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code:
X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.~
) Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income.
Category No. 2. Interests in real property.
Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real
property and sources of income
subject to the regulatory, permit
or licensing authority of the
department,
Category No. 4. Investments in business entities
and sources of income which engage
in land development, construction
or the acquisition or sale of real
property.
Category No. 5~ Investments in business entities
and sources of income of the type
which, within the past two years,
have contracted with the City of
Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency)
to provide services, supplies,
materials, machinery or equipment.
Category No. 6. Investments in business entities
and sources of income of the type
which, within the past two years,
have contracted with the designated
employee's department to provide
services, supplies, materials,
machinery or equipment. ~
Category No. 7. Business positions.
10. Insurance Requirements:
(X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance
(X) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000.
1. If Consultant, in the performance of its services under this
agreement: 1) conducts research and arrives at conclusions with
respect to its rendition of information, advice, reco~endations
or counsel independent of the control and direction of the City
or of any City official, other than normal contract monitoring;
and 2) possesses no authority with respect to any City decision
beyond the rendition of information, advice, recon~nendations or
counsel, he should not be designated as an FPPC Filer.
A~ [3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 5
X) Commercial General Liabilisy Insurance: $1,000,000.
) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required
(included in Commercial General Liability coverage).
X) Errors and Omissions insurance: $250,000 (not included
in Commercial General Liability coverage).
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 6
Exhibit C
Compensation Schedule and Deposit: Terms and ConditionsJ
( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of all of the General and Detailed Services
of Consultant as herein required, Applicant shall pay a single
fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones set forth
below:
( ) Single Fixed Fee Amount: $
Milestone or Event Amount or Percent
of Fixed Fee
( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the performance of each phase or portion of the General
and Detailed Services of Consultant as are separately identified
in Exhibit C, under the category labeled "Phased Fixed Fee
Arrangement", Applicant shall pay the fixed fee associated with
each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or
milestones set forth hereinbelow ("Phase Fixed Fee Arrangement").
Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and
shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless
Applicant shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as
to said Phase.
(X) Time and Materials
For performance of the General and Detailed Services of
Consultant as herein required, Applicant shall pay Consultant [or
the productive hours of time and material spent by Consultant in
the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set
forth hereinbelow according to the following terms and
conditions:
( ) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials
Arrangement
Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and
materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount,
Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the
General and Detailed Services herein required of Consultant
for $ including all Materials, and other
"reimburseables" ("Maximum Compensation").
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 7
( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and
Materials Arrangement
At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and
materials equal to ("Authorization
Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional
compensation without further authorization issued in writing
and approved by the City Council. Nothing herein shall
preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at
Consultant's own cost and expense.
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10~ 2001 Page 8
Rate Schedule
Category of Employee Hourly
of Consultant Name Rate
_Proiect Manaqer __Jeff Barfield $120
Principal in Charqe _pick Rubin __170
_Senior Project Planner _Steve Wraqq 95
Project Planner _Danielle Putnam 9--0
Project Planner _Carol Chase 9Q
Urban Desiqn Manaqer _Ron Pfluqrath 120
_Senior Project Planner Ron Hiew 9~5___
Planner _binda Barnes 80
_Planninq Assistant _TBD 5~
Environmental Manager. _Glenn Lajoie 120
Sr Environmental Analyst Coltette Morse 95
Environmental Analyst Trevor Smith 80
Asst Environmental Analyst TBD 55
Project Enqineer Jim Hauqhey. __95
Asst Desiqn Engineer TBD 80
CADD Drafte~ TBD 68
Clerical Various 4__5
Materials Separately Paid For by Applicant
Cost or Rate
(X) Materials $600 maximum for all reimbursables Actual
Reports
Copies
( ) Travel Actual
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 9
Printing Actual
Postage Actual
Delivery Actual
Long Distance Telephone Charges Actual
Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs Actual
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 10
Deposit
(X) Deposit Amount: $20,000.00
(X) Use of Deposit to Pay Consultant.
Notwithstanding the sole duty and liability of Applicant to
pay Consultant, if this paragraph is "checked", upon City's
receipt of billing by Consultant, and determination by City in
good faith that Consultant's billing is proper, a judgment for
which Applicant agrees to hold City harmless and waive any claim
against City, City shall pay Consultant's billing from the amount
of the Deposit. If Applicant shall protest the propriety of a
billing to City in advance of payment, City shall consider
Applicant's protest and any evidence submitted prior to the due
date for the payment of said bill by Applicant in making its good
faith determination of propriety.
( ) Use of Deposit as Security Only; Applicant to Make Billing
Payments.
Upon determination by City made in good faith that
Consultant is entitled to compensation which shall remain unpaid
by Applicant 30 days after billing, City may, at its option, use
the Deposit to pay said billing.
( X Bill Processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following
period of time:
( X ) Monthly
( ) Quarterly
( ) Other:
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's
Billing:
( X ) Pirst of the Month ) 15th Day of each Month
) End of the Month
) Other:
C. City's Account Number:
A:~3ptyLago.doc Bellagio/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, APPROViNG A THREE PARTY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; RBF
CONSULTING; MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC APPLICANT
FOR VARIOUS CONSULTANT SERVICES RELATED TO
THE PROCESSiNG OF ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE OTAY
RANCH, FREEWAY COMMERCIAL PORTION OF
PLANNING AREA 12, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the processing of the freeway commercial
development proposals is desirable at this time; and
WHEREAS, it was determined by the Director of Planning and Building that staff does
not have the available time to perform the subject work; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has deposited or will deposit an initial sum for the consulting
services necessary for the analysis of the environmental and planning documents; and
WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal was distributed to nine persons or firms, and two
proposals were received by the City; and
WHEREAS, the selection committee recommended RBF Consulting to perform the
required services for the City; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Building has negotiated the details of this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby approve a three-party agreement between the City of Chula Vista; RBF
Consulting ("Consultant"), and McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC ("Applicant") for consulting services
for the analysis of environmental and planning documents for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12,
Freeway Commercial Property, a copy of which shall be kept 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 on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter J~tm qvlt. ('kaheny ~/
Director of Planning and Building City Attorney
Three Party Agreement
Between
City of Chula Vista,
RBF Consultinq, Consultant, and
McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, Applicant
For Consulting Work to be Rendered
with regard to Applicant's Project
1. Parties
This Agreement is made as of the reference date set forth in
Exhibit A, for the purposes of reference only, and effective as
of the date last executed by the parties hereto, between the City
of Chula Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the
State of California, the person designated on the attached
Exhibit A as "Consultant" RBF Consulting whose business form and
address is indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and the person
designated on the attached Exhibit A as "Applicant"
McMillin 0ray Ranch, LLC whose business form and address is
indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and is made with reference
to the following facts:
2. Recitals, Warranties and Representations.
2.1. Warranty of Ownership.
Applicant warrants that Applicant is the owner of~ land
("Property") commonly known as, or generally located as,
described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 1, or has an option or other
entitlement to develop said Property.
2.2. Applicant desires to develop the Property with t~e
Project described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 2, and in that regard,
has made application ("Application") with the City for approval
of the plan, map, zone, or other permits ("Entitlements',)
described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 3.
2.3. In order for the City to process the Application of
Applicant, Work of the general nature and type described in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, ("Work") will need to be completed.
2.4. City does not presently have the "in-house" staff or
resources to process the application within the time frame
requested for review by the Applicant.
2.5. This agreement proposes an arrangement by which
Applicant shall retain, and be liable for the costs of retaining,
Consultant, who shall perform the services required of Consultant
by this Agreement solely to, and under the direction of, the
City.
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 1
/ /
2.6. Additional facts and circumstances regarding the
background for this agreement are set forth on Exhibit B;
3. Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MLrl~JALLY AGREED TO AND BETWEEN THE
CITY, CONSULTANT, AND APPLICANT AS FOLLOWS:
3.1. Employment of Consultant by Applicant.
Consultant is hereby engaged by the Applicant, not the City,
and at Applicant's sole cost and expense, to perform to, and for
the primary benefit of, City, and solely at City's direction, all
of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4,
entitled "General Nature of Consulting Services", ("General
Services"), and in the process of performing and delivering said
General Services, Consultant shall also perform to and for the
benefit of City all of the services described in Exhibit A,
Paragraph 5, entitled "Detailed Scope of Work", ("Detailed
Services"), and all services reasonable necessary to accomplish
said General Services and Detailed Scope of Work, and shall
deliver such documents required ("Deliverables") herein, all
within the time frames herein set forth, and in particular as set
forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 6, and i~ none are set forth,
within a reasonable period of time for the diligent execution of
Consultant's duties hereunder. Time is of the essence of this
covenant.
The Consultant does hereby agree to perform said General and
Detailed Services to and for the primary benefit of the City for
the compensation herein fixed to be paid by Applicant.
In delivering the General and Detailed Services hereunder,
the Consultant shall do so in a good, professional manner
consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised
by members of the profession currently practicing under simila~
conditions and in similar locations, at its own cost and expense
except for the compensation and/or reimbursement, if any, herein
promised, and shall furnish all of the labor, technical,
administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies
and materials, machinery, equipment, printing, vehicles,
transportation, office space and facilities, calculations, and
all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly
specified to be furnished by the City or Applicant, necessary or
proper to perform and complete the work and provide the Services
required of the Consultant.
3.2. Compensation of Consultant.
Applicant shall compensate Consultant for all services
rendered by Consultant without regard to the conclusions reached
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 2
by the Consultant, and according to the terms and conditions set
forth in Exhibit C adjacent to the governing compensation
relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate
arrangement, by paying said amount to the City, within 15 days of
Consultant's billing, or in accordance with the security deposit
provisions of Paragraph 3.3 and Exhibit C, if checked, and upon
receipt of such payment by the City, City shall promptly, not
later than 15 days, or in accordance with the Bill Processing
procedure in Exhibit C, if checked, pay said amount to the
Consultant. City is merely acting in the capacity as a conduit
for payment, and shall not be liable for the compensation unless
it receives same from Applicant. Applicant shall not make any
payments of compensation or otherwise directly to the Consultant.
3.2.1. Additional Work. If the Applicant, with the
concurrence of City, determines that additional services
("Additional Services") are needed from Consultant of the type
Consultant is qualified to render or reasonably related to the
Services Consultant is otherwise required to provide by this
Agreement, the Consultant agrees to provide such additional
services on a time and materials basis paid for by Applicant at
the rates set forth in Exhibit C, unless a separate fixed fee is
otherwise agreed upon in writing for said Additional Work between
the parties.
3.2.1.1. In the event that the City shall
determine that additional work is required to be performed
above and beyond the scope of work herein provided, City
will consult with Applicant regarding the additional work,
and if thereupon the Applicant fails or refuses to arrange
and pay for said Additional Services, the City may, at its
option, suspend any further processing of Applicant's
Application until the Applicant shall deposit the City's
estimate of the costs of the additional work which the ~ity
determines is or may be required. Applicant shall pay any
and all additional costs for the additional work. -
3.2.2. Reductions in Scope of Work.
City may independently, or upon request from
Consultant, from time to time reduce the Sez-vices to be performed
by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and
Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose
of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation
associated with said reduction. Upon failure to agree, the Fixed
Fee may be unilaterally reduced by the City by the amount of time
and materials budgeted by Consultant for the Services deleted.
3.3. Security for Payment of Compensation by Applicant.
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 3
3.3.1. Deposit. AS security for the payment of
Consultant by Applicant, Applicant shall, upon execution of this
Agreement, deposit the amount indicated on Exhibit C as "Deposit
Amount" with the City, as trustee for Consultant, the conditions
of such trust being as indicated on Exhibit C and as hereinbelow
set forth:
3.3.1.1 Other Terms of Deposit Trust.
3.3.1.1.1. City shall also be entitled to
retain from said Deposit all costs incurred by City for which it
is entitled to compensation by law or under the terms of this
agreement.
3.3.1.1.2. All interest earned on the
Deposit Amount, if any, shall accrue to the benefit of, and be
used for, Trust purposes. City may, in lieu of deposit into a
separate bank account, separately account for said deposit in one
or more of its various bank accounts, and upon doing so, shall
proportionately distribute to the Deposit Trust, the average
interest earned during the period on its general fund.
3.3.1.1.3. Any unused balance of Deposit
Amount, including any unused interest earned, shall be returned
to Applicant not later than 30 days after the termination of this
Agreement and any claims resulting therefrom.
3.3.1.1.4. Applicant shall be notified
within 30 days after of the use of the Deposit in any manner.
Nothing herein shall invalidate use of the Deposit in the manner
herein authorized.
3.3.1.1.5. At such time as City shall
reasonably determine that inadequate funds remain on Deposi~ to
secure future compensation likely due Consultant or City, City
may make demand of Applicant to supplement said Deposit Amoun~ iD
such amount as City shall reasonably specify, and upon doing so,
Applicant shall, within 30 days pays said amount ("Supplemental
Deposit Amount") to City. Said Supplement Deposit Amount or
Amounts shall be governed by the same terms of trust governing
the original Deposit.
3.3.2. Withholding of Processing.
In addition to use of the Deposit as security, in order
to secure the duty of Applicant to pay Consultant for Services
rendered Under this agreement, City shall be entitled to withhold
processing of Applicant's Application upon a breach of
Applicant's duty to compensate Consultant.
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMiltin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 4
4. Non-Service Related Duties of Consultant.
4.1. Insurance.
Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and
subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services
required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss
by the following insurance coverages, in the following
categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are
issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A,
Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City:
4.1.1. Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and
Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth
in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 10.
4.1.2. Commercial General Liability Insurance
including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount
set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, combined single limit
applied separately to each project away from premises owned or
rented by Consultant, which names City and Applicant as an
Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the
City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats
the employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as
members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage").
4.1.3. Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount
set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, unless Errors and Omissions
coverage is included in the General Liability policy.
4.2_ Proof of Insurance Coverage.
4.2.1. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall
demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the
commencement of services required under this Agreement, by
delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and -
further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without
at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional
Insured.
4.2.2. Policy Endorsements Required. In order to
demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and
Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial
General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a
policy endorsement to the City and Applicant demonstrating same.
4.3. Public Statements.
All public statements and releases to the news media shall
be the responsibility of the City and the Applicant. The
Consultant shall not publish or release news items, articles or
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 5
present lectures on the Project, either during the course of the
study or after its completion, except on written concurrence of
the City and Applicant.
4.4. Communication to Applicant.
Consultant shall not communicate directly to the Applicant
except in the presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy
of which is simultaneously provided to City, except with the
express consent of City. The Consultant may request such
meetings with the Applicant to ensure the adequacy of services
performed by Consultant.
5. Non-Compensation Duties of the Applicant.
5.1. Documents Access.
The Applicant shall provide to the Consultant, through the
City, for the use by the Consultant and City, such documents, or
copies of such documents requested by Consultant, within the
possession of Applicant reasonably useful to the Consultant in
performing the services herein required of Consultant, including
but not limited to those described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7.
5.2. Property Access.
The Applicant hereby grants permission to the City and
Consultant to enter and access the Property, to take any borings,
make any tests, conduct any surveys or reconnaissance necessary
to deliver the Services of Consultant, subject to the approval of
the Applicant. Consultant shall promptly repair any damage to
the subject property occasioned by such entry and shall
indemnify, defend, and hold Applicant harmless from all loss~
cost, damage, expenses, claims, and liabilities in connection
with or arising from any such entry and access.
5.3. Communication to Consultant.
Applicant shall not communicate directly to the Consultant
except in the presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy
of which is simultaneously provided to City, except with the
express consent of City. The Applicant may request such meetings
as they desire with the Consultant to ensure the adequacy of
services performed by Consultant.
6. Administrative Representatives.
Each party designates the individuals ("Administrators")
indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, as said party's contract
administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them
in the routine administration of this agreement.
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 6
7. Conflicts of Interest
7.1. Consultant is Desiqnated as an FPPC Filer.
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, as an
"FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the
purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and
disclosure provisions, and shall report his economic interests to
the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in
such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 9 of
Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the
City Attorney.
7.2. Decline to Participate.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in
any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a
governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to
know Consultant has a financial interest other than the
compensation promised by this Agreement.
7.3. Search to Determine Economic Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has
diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's
economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations
promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has
determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's
knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with
Consultant's duties under this agreement.
7.4. Promise Not to Acquire Conflictinq Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant
will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during
the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of
interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act.
7.5. Duty to Advise of Conflictinq Interests.
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC
Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant
will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant
learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result
in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political
Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
7.6. ~ecific Warranties Against Economic Interests.
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 7
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant,
nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant,s
employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any
interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in the property
which is the subject matter of the Project, or in any property
within 10 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of the
property which is the subject matter of the Project, or
("Prohibited Interest").
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise
of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or
other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant
Associates by Applicant or by any other party as a result of
Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises
to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the
Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not
acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this
Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this
Agreement.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any
party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in
conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement.
8. Default of the Consultant for Breach.
This agreement may be terminated by the CITY for default if
the Consultant breaches this agreement or if the Consultant
refuses or fails to pursue the work under this agreement or any
phase of the work with such diligence which would assure its
completion within a reasonable period of time. Termination bf
this agreement because of a default of the Consultant shall not
relieve the Consultant from liability of such default. ~
9. City's Right to Terminate Aqreement for Convenience,
Documents.
9.1. Notwithstanding any other section or provision of this
agreement, the CITY shall have the absolute right at any time to
terminate this agreement or any work to be performed pursuant to
this agreement.
9.2. In the event of termination of this agreement by the
CITY in the absence of default of the Consultant, the City shall
pay the Consultant for the reasonable value of the services
actually performed by the Consultant up to the date of such
termination, less the aggregate of all sums previously paid to
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 8
the Consultant for services performed after execution of this
agreement and prior to its termination.
9.3. The Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all
claims for damage or compensation arising under this agreement,
except as set forth herein, in the event of such termination.
9.4. In the event of termination of this agreement, and upon
demand of the City, the Consultant shall deliver to the City, all
field notes, surveys, studies, reports, plans, drawings and all
other materials and documents prepared by the Consultant in
performance of this agreement, and all such documents and
materials shall be the property of the City; provided however,
that the Consultant may retain copies for their own use and the
City shall provide a copy, at Applicant's cost, of all such
documents to the Applicant.
9.5. Applicant shall have no right to terminate Consultant,
and shall not exercise any control or direction over Consultant's
work.
10. Administrative Claims Requirement and Procedures
No suit shall be brought arising out of this agreement,
against the City, unless a claim has first been presented in
writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by
the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set
forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the
provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if set
fully set forth herein.
11. Hold Harmless and Indemnification
11.1. Consultant to Indemnify City and Applicant re
Injuries.
Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold
harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and
employees and Applicant from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation
attorneys' fees) arising out of the negligent, grossly negligent
or willful misconduct of the Consultant, or any agent or
employees, subcontractors, or others of City or Applicant in
connection with the execution of the work covered by this
Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole
negligence or sole willful misconduct of-the City, its officers,
or employees, or Applicant, Consultant's indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and
liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or
employees or Applicant in defending against such claims, whether
the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 9
own expense shall, upon written request by the City or Applicant,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its
officers, agents, or employees or Applicant. Consultants'
indemnification of City and Applicant shall not be limited by any
prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant.
11.2. Applicant to Indemnify City re Compensation of
Consultant.
Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City
harmless against and from any and all claims, losses, damages,
expenses or expenditures of City, including its elected
officials, officers, employees, agents, or representatives of the
City ("City Indemnitees"), in any way resulting from or arising
out of the refusal to pay compensation as demanded by Consultant
for the performance of services required by this Agreement.
12. Business Licenses
Applicant agrees to obtain a business license from the City
and to otherwise comply with Chula vista Municipal Code, Title 5.
Applicant further agrees to require Consultant to obtain such
business license and to comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 5.
13. Miscellaneous.
13.1. Consultant not authorized to Represent City.
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, neither
Consultant nor Applicant shall have authority to act as City's
agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
13.2. Notices.
Ail notices, demands or requests provided for or permitte~
to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. Ail
notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be
deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served
or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party,
postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt
requested, at the addresses identified for the parties in Exhibit
A.
13.3. Entitlement to Subsequent Notices.
NO notice to or demand on the parties for notice of an event
not herein legally required to be given shall in itself create
the right in the parties to any other or further notice or demand
in the same, similar or other circumstances.
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 10
13.4. ~ntire Aqreement.
This Agreement, together with any other written document
referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement
and understanding between the parties relating to the subject
matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof
may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an
instrument in writing executed by the party against which
enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
13.5. ~apacit¥ of Parties.
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and
represents to the other party that it has legal authority and
capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this
Agreement; that all resolutions or other actions have been taken
so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement.
13.6. Governinq Law/Venue.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action
arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only
in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State
of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as
close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and
performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
13.7~ Modification.
No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement
shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed
by the parties hereto, and then shall be valid only in the
specific instance and for the purpose for which given.
13.8. Counterparts. -
This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart,
each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which,
when taken together shall constitute but one instrument.
13.9. Severability.
In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall for
any reason, be determined to be invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable in any respect, the parties hereto shall negotiate
in good faith and agree to such amendments, modifications, or
supplements to this Agreement or such other appropriate action as
shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such
determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the
parties as reflected herein.
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 11
13.10. Headinq~.
The captions and headings in this Agreement are for
convenience only and shall not define or limit the provisions
hereof.
13.11. Waiver.
No course of dealing or failure or delay, nor the single
failure or delay, or the partial exercise of any right, power or
privilege, on the part of the parties shall operate as a waiver
of any rights herein contained. The making or the acceptance of
a payment by either party with knowledge of the existence of a
breach shall not operate or be construed to operate as a waiver
of any such breach.
13.12. Re~medies.
The rights of the parties under this Agreement are
cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies which the
parties might otherwise have unless this Agreement provides to
the contrary.
13.13. No Additional Beneficiaries.
Despite the fact that the required performance under this
agreement may have an affect upon persons not parties hereto, the
parties specifically intend no benefit therefrom, and agree that
no performance hereunder may be enforced by any person not a
party to this agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this is
a three party agreement and the City is an express third party
beneficiary of the promises of Consultant to provide services
paid for by Applicant.
(End of Page. Next Page is Signature Page.) ~
Signature Page
Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and
understood the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby
express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand
hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto.
Dated: City of Chula Vista
by:
Shirley Horton
Mayor
Attest:
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 12
Susan Bigelow
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
JohnJ/~.~Kaheny
City Attorney
Dated: ^@vii 17, 2001 Consultant:
RBF Consultinq
Rick'~ubin~ Principal-in-Charge
Dated: April 17, 2001 Applicant:
McMillin Otay Ranch,LLC
A Delaware limited liability
compan~
By: McMillin Companies, LLC a
Delawa~ ~T~ited liability company
by:__~
its:' '
it ~
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 13
//P
Exhibit B
Additional Recitals
WHEREAS, the Applicant has deposited an initial sum for the
processing of development applications such as general
development plan sectional planning area plans, site utilization
plan, tentative map, environmental assessment and other
entitlements
WHEREAS, a request for proposal was given to nine qualified
consulting firms and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista recommended the above noted
Consultant to perform the required services for the City, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director has negotiated
the details of this agreement in accordance with procedures set
forth in the Chula Vista Municipal Code
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning and Building Director recommends
that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute this
agreement
A:[3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 1
Exhibit A
Reference Date of Agreement:April 10, 2001
Effective Date of Agreement:
City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Consultant: RBF Consultinq
Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
(X) Corporation
Address: 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100, San
Dieqo, CA 92124
Applicant: McMillin Otay Ranch_,
Business Form of Applicant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
(X) Corporation
Address: 2727 Hoover Ave., National City, CA 91950
1. Property:
Freeway Commercial area of Planning Area 12 of the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (see attached map).
2. Project Description ("Project"):
Entitlement through tentative map stage of Freeway Commercial
property.
3. Entitlements applied for:
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Map for the
Freeway Commercial area of Planning Area 12 of the 0ray
Ranch General Development Plan.
4. General Nature of Consulting Services ("Services--General"):
Consultant will review and make recommendations of approval,
and draft conditions of approval, for Freeway Commercial SPA
Plan.
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 2
5. Detailed Scope of Work ("Detailed Services"):
The consultant will work under the direction of city contract
administrator Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner. The consultant
will provide planning services all to the satisfaction of the
city contract administrator for the review and approval of a
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for the Freeway Commercial
area of Planning Area 12 of the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan to include but not limited to:
A. Review and provide written comments on the Project Description
of SPA Plan for consistency with Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (GDP) and any other docu3nents as determined
by the contract administrator.
B. Identify any amendments to the GDP or other relevant documents
necessary to approve and implement proposed SPA Plan.
C. Review and comment in writing on SPA Plan and related
documents including but not limited to:
1.Planning Area Design Plan
2.Pub!lc Facilities Finance Plan
3.SPA Master Plans required by GDP to include:
i. Air Quality,
ii. Animal Control,
iii. Drainage,
iv. Fire,
v. Law Enforcement,
vi. Library,
vii. Parks,
viii. Schools,
ix. Sewer,
x. Transportation,
xi. Water, -
xii. Reclaimed Water,
xiii. Water Conservation,
xiv. Child Care,
xv. Integrated Solid Waste Management
4.Regional Facilities Report
5.Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan
D. Review and comment on SPA Plan site Utilization Plan for the
Freeway CoImmercial area
E. Review and comment on any or all or one Tentative Subdivision
Map(s) for Freeway Commercial area as determined by city
contract administrator.
F. Review and comment on Enviror~mental Impact Report (screen
check(s) draft and final) on Freeway Commercial area
G.Prepare draft Planning Commission and City Council Agenda
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 3
Statements, Resolutiens with Cenditions ef Approval
H.Attend all reg~larlyscheduled meetings with the project
applicant and/er city staff.
I. Attend all Community Forums on the SPA Plan
Attend all planning Commission and City Council Public
· . Hearings en the SPA Plan
6. Schedule, Milestone, Time-Limitations within which to Perform
Services.
Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
(X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables:
Under direction of City Staff, and will function as an
extension of City Staff.
Dates for completion of all Consultant services: Completion of
the scope of work tasks detailed in 5A - 5I above shall be
accomplished within the time frames as determined by the city
contract administrator and all work task shall be diligently
undertaken to assure expeditious completion in light of the
purposes of this agreement.
7. Documents to be provided by Applicant to Consultant:
( ) site plans ( ) grading plans ( ) architectural elevations
( ) project description.
(X) other:
SPA Plan, Desiqn Plan, Tentative Map
8. Contract Administrators.
City: Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner, Planning Division, ~76
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, Te1:(619)476-5394,
FAX: (619)409-5859 Email: rrosaler@ci.chula-vista.ca.us
Applicant: Robert A. Pletcher, Vice President, Engineering,
McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City,
CA 91950, Te1:(619)336-3672, FAX:(619)336-3572, Email:
bpletcheremcmillin.com
Consultant: Jeff Barfield, Manager, Planning, RBF Consulting,
9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100, San Diego, CA
92124, Tel: (858)614-5027, FAX: (858)614-5001, Email:
jeffb@rbf.com
9. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting
Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code:
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 4
(X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.~
Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income.
Category No. 2. Interests in real property.
Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real
property and sources of income
subject to the regulatory, permit
or licensing authority of the
department.
Category No. 4. Investments in business entities
and sources of income which engage
in land development, construction
or the acquisition or sale of real
property.
Category No. 5. Investments in business entities
and sources of income of the type
which, within the past two years,
have contracted with the City of
Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency)
to provide services, supplies,
materials, machinery or equipment.
Category No. 6. Investments in business entities
and sources of income of the type
which, within the past two years,
have contracted with the designated
employee's department to provide
services, s~pplies, materials,
machinery or equipment.
Category No. 7. Business positions.
10. Insurance Requirements:
(X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance
(X) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000.
(X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000.
1. If Consultant, in the performance of its services under this
agreement: 1) conducts research and arrives at conclusions with
respect to its rendition of information, advice, recommendations
or counsel independent of the control and direction of the City
or of any City official, other than normal contract monitoring;
and 2) possesses no authority with respect to any City decision
beyond the rendition of information, advice, recommendations or
counsel, he should not be designated as an FPPC Filer.
A: ~3ptyMcMillin. doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10~ 2001 Page 5
//
( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required
(included in Commercial General Liability coverage).
(X) Errors and Omissions insurance: $250,000 (not included
in Commercial General Liability coverage).
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 6
Exhibit C
Compensation Schedule and Deposit: Terms and Conditions.
( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of all of the General and Detailed Services
of Consultant as herein required, Applicant shall pay a single
fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones set forth
below:
( ) Single Fixed Fee Amount: $
( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the performance of each phase or portion of the General
and Detailed Services of Consultant as are separately identified
in Exhibit C, under the category labeled "Phased Fixed Fee
Arrangement", Applicant shall pay the fixed fee associated with
each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or
milestones set forth hereinbelow ("Phase Fixed Fee Arrangement").
Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and
shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless
Applicant shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as
to said Phase_
(X) Time and Materials
For performance of the General and Detailed Services of
Consultant as herein required, Applicant shall pay Consultant for
the productive hours of time and material spent by Consultant in
the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set-
forth hereinbelow according to the following terms and
conditions:
X) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials
Arrangement
Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and
materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount,
Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the
General and Detailed Services herein required of Consultant
for $ including all Materials, and other
"reimburseables" ( Maximum Compensation") .
( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time ~and
Materials Arrangement
A: ~3ptyMcMillin. doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 7
At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and
materials equal to ("Authorization
Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional
compensation without further authorization issued in writing
and approved by the City Council. Nothing herein shall
preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at
Consultant's own cost and expense.
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 8
Rate Schedule
Category of Employee Hourly
of Consultant Name Rate
_Project Manaqer Jeff Barfield _$120
Principal in Charqe Rick Rubin 170
Senior Project Planner__ Steve Wraqg. 95
Project Planner Danielle Putnam 90
Project Planner Carol Chase 90
_Urban Desiqn Manaqer Ron Pfluqrath 120
Senior Project Planner Ron Hie~ 95
Planner Linda Barnes 80
_Planninq Assistant TBD 55
Environmental Manager _Glenn Lajoie 120
_Sr Environmental Analyst__ Collette Morse 95
Environmental Analyst Trevor Smith 8Q
Asst Environmental Analyst TBD 55
_project Enqineer Jim Hauqhey 95
Assr Desiqn Enqineer TBD 8~0
CADD Drafter TBD 68
Clerical Various 45
Materials Separately Paid For by Applicant
Cost or Rate
( X) Materials$1,000 maximum for all reimbursables Actual
Reports
Copies
( ) Travel Actual
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 9
Printing Actual
Postage Actual
Delivery Actual
Long Distance Telephone Charges Actual
Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs Actual
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 10
Deposit
(X) Deposit Amount: $40,000.00
(X) Use of Deposit to Pay Consultant.
Notwithstanding the sole duty and liability of Applicant to
pay Consultant, if this paragraph is "checked", upon City's
receipt of billing by Consultant, and determination by City in
good faith that Consultant's billing is proper, a judgment for
which Applicant agrees to hold City harmless and waive any claim
against City, City shall pay Consultant's billing from the amount
of the Deposit. If Applicant shall protest the propriety of a
billing to City in advance of payment, City shall consider
Applicant's protest and any evidence submitted prior to the due
date for the payment of said bill by Applicant in making its good
faith determination of propriety.
( ) Use of Deposit as Security Only; Applicant to Make Billing
Payments.
Upon determination by City made in good faith that
Consultant is entitled to compensation which shall remain unpaid
by Applicant 30 days after billing, City may, at its option, use
the Deposit to pay said billing.
) Bill Processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following
period of time:
( X ) Monthly -
( ) Quarterly
( ) Other:
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's
Billing:
( X First of the Month
15th Day of each Month
End of the Month
Other:
C. City's Account Number:
A:~3ptyMcMillin.doc McMillin/RBF Three Party Agreement
April 10, 2001 Page 11
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM
MEETING DATE: 4/24/01
ITEM TITLE: Resolution - Amending the FY 2000-2001
Budget to add 1 FTE Legal Assistant, I FTE
Deputy City Attorney and Reclassify one Deputy
City Attorney II Position to Assistant City
Attorney and Appropriating Funds Therefor
SUBMITTED BY: City Attorney 'yC2~
(4/Sths Vote: Yes X No__)
In FY97-98 the structure of the City Attorney's Office was changed to
support a full time in-house litigation program. As a result, the City
Attorney's Office has not only been able to defend the City in civil litigation
at a reduced expense, it has also been able to obtain significant civil
judgments or settlements in such matters as construction defect litigation and
the removal of environmentally hazardous materials. In response to an
anticipated increase in civil litigation cases and to the increasing demands
for legal services from an expanding City workforce, an increase in the
staffing level of the City attorney's Office is recommended.
RECOMENDATION: That the City Council accept the recommendation
and amend the FY 2000-2001 budget to add 1 FTE Legal Assistant, 1 FTE
Deputy City Attorney and reclassify one Deputy City Attorney II position to
Assistant City Attorney.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
Since the creation of the in-house litigation program in FY97-98, the Office
of the City Attorney has significantly decreased its reliance on outside
counsel to defend the City in civil litigation matters. By maintaining a
closer control over the litigation case load, the Office was able to contribute
to the City's successful claim management during the past year. As a result,
the City received an insurance premium refund in the amount of $212,000
from its carder SANDPIPA. The Office has also been able to aggressively
pursue civil remedies when the City suffers an economic loss through the
negligence of others. Within the past year, the City received over $2 million
dollars in awards and settlement from such cases. It is expected that the
future caseload will increase reflecting the continued growth of the City.
Because of impending mandatory trial dates, the number of cases going to
trial in the litigation division will also begin to expand rapidly in the near
future. This will place significant demands on the litigation program.
In addition, the activity of the Office in other areas such as land use and
planning, economic development, redevelopment, human resources, code
enforcement and general municipal law continues to mirror the expansion of
the City's workforce and operating programs. Furthermore, the City needs
to be prepared to respond to new regulatory programs at the state and federal
levels, the latest being the impending National Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES).
The recommended increase in staffing level will enable the Office to
maintain its level of support to the City, especially the operating
departments. It is envisioned that the proposed Assistant City Attorney will
oversee both the litigation and code enforcement programs to include the
NPDES program. The additional deputy city attorney position will be
assigned to the litigation division but will have additional municipal law
responsibilities. The proposed legal assistant will support both the deputy
city attorney and the current contract attorney who currently shares a legal
assistant with two other attorneys.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of the additional Deputy City Attorney II at "C" Step with benefits
is $99,410.48. If approved, this position is not expected to be filled until
June, 2001 resulting in a FY 00/01 cost of $8,284.20. The proposal Legal
Assistant at "C" Step with benefits has an annual cost of $50,800.64 and is
also not expected to be filled until June. The FY00/01 cost would be
$4,166.00. The cost of the reclassification of the Deputy City Attorney II
position to Assistant City Attorney is projected to cost an additional $6,200
in FY 2001-02. If effective by June, the current cost would be $520.00.
Therefore, it is necessary to appropriate $12,970.20 from the over realized
revenue to City Attorney Account 04300.
J:\Attorney\staffing.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY 2000-2001 BUDGET TO
ADD 1 FTE LEGAL ASSISTANT, 1 FTE DEPUTY CITY
ATTORNEY AND RECLASSIFY ONE DEPUTY CITY
ATTORNEY II POSITION TO ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
WHEREAS, in FY97-98 the structure of the City Attorney's Office was changed to
support a full time in-house litigation program; and
WHEREAS, as a result, the City Attorney's Office has not only been able to defend the
City in civil litigation at a reduced expense, but has also been able to obtain significant civil
judgments or settlements in such matters as construction defect litigation and the removal of
environmentally hazardous materials; and
WHEREAS, in response to an anticipated increase in civil litigation cases and to the
increasing demands for legal services from an expanding City workforce, an increase in the
staffing level of the City Attorney's Office is recommended; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to add 1 FTE Legal Assistant, 1 FTE Deputy City Attorney
and reclassify one Deputy City Attorney II position to Assistant City Attorney.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby amend the FY 2000-2001 budget in the City Attorney's Office to add 1 FTE Legal
Assistant, 1 FTE Deputy City Attorney and the reclassification of one Deputy City Attorney II
position to Assistant City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 2000-2001 budget is hereby amended by
appropriating $12,970.20 from the over realized revenue to City Attorney Account 04300.
Presented and Approved as to form by
J:\attorney\reso\ staffing (April 19, 2001 (10:IOAM)I
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: /3
Meeting Dute: 4/24/01
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-01-22; Request to amend the Sunbow II Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan to revise the easterly SPA boundary of Sunbow II
with Village One West of Otay Ranch to accommodate a boundary
adjustment to reflect a land exchange agreement between Ayres Land
Development Company and Otay Project, L.P.
Applicant - The Otay Ranch Company
Resolution No. ; Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista approving an amendment to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan to adjust the easterly Sunbow II SPA boundary adjustmem
with the Otay Ranch SPA One.
Public Hearing: PCM-01-09; Request to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, and adopt an Ordinance to modify the Otay
Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations Zoning District
boundaries within Village One West.
Applicant - The Otay Ranch Company
Resolution No. ; Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista approving an amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) One Plan modifying neighborhood boundaries in Village One
West.
Ordinance No. .; Ordinance of the City Council of the City Of
Chula Vista approving the amended Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area
(Spa) One Planned Community District Regulations to modify the Zoning
District Map for Village One West.
Public Hearing: PCS-98-06A; Request to approve a Revised Tentative
Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 98-06A) for Village One West of the Otay Ranch
Sectional Planning Area One, Chula Vista Tract 98-06A.
Applicant - The Otay Ranch Company
Resolution No. .; Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista approving a Revised Tentative Subdivision Map for Village One
West of the Otay Ranch, Sectional Planning Area One Plan, Chula Vista
Tract 98-06A.
Page 2, Item/3
Meeting Date 4/24/01
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager '~
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and Sunbow II SPA
Plan to adjust the boundary between the two master planned communities and to revise the approved
subdivision on the south portion of Village One West in Otay Ranch into 523 lots on approximately
147.7 acres of land. The two SPA amendments and Tentative Map implements the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP) and SPA One Plan amendments adopted by City Council on
November 10, 1998 and February 16, 1999, respectively.
The City' s Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has determined that it is
in substantial conformance with the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR 90-01, SPA One Plan FEIR 95-
01, amended SPA One Plan FEIR 97-03, Stmbow II EIR 88-01, and other related environmental
documents, and that any impacts associated with the proposed project have been previously
identified in amended SPA One Plan FEIR 97-03, Sunbow II EIR 88-01, and has, therefore, prepared
addendnms to SPA One Plan FEIR 97-03 and Sunbow II EIR 88-01, attached to the City Council
resolutions as Exhibit "B" in the Sunbow II SPA Plan Amendment, Resolution No. _, and as
Exhibit "D" in the Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment, Resolution No
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve:
· The attached resolution amending the Sunbow II SPA Plan boundaries with the Otay Ranch;
and adopting the addendum to the Sunbow II EIR 88-01; and,
· The attached resolution amending the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan neighborhood boundaries
and adopting the addendum to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 97-03; and,
· The attached ordinance to modify the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations
Zoning District boundaries within Village One West; and
· The attached resolution approving the Revised Tentative Subdivision Map for Village One
West (C.V.T. 98-06A).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
On March 28, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously (6-0-
0-1) to recommend approval of the SPA Plan amendments and tentative map to the City Council.
Page 3, Item//._.4
Meeting Date 4/24/01
DISCUSSION:
The proposed amendments to the Sunbow II SPA Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, and approval of
the Revised Tentative Map for Village One West is essentially a procedural clean-up of prior
approvals for Village One West in Otay Ranch SPA One (See Exhibit #1). These applications
implement the approved land uses for Village One West and includes a Revised Tentative
Subdivision Map for Village One West south of East Palomar Street (See Exhibit #2). The proposed
amendment to the Sunbow II SPA Plan implements a boundary adjustment between the two master
planned communities (See Exhibit #3 & #4). The two SPA amendments and Revised Tentative Map
implements the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and SPA One Plan amendments
adopted by City Council on November 10, 1998 and February 16, 1999, respectively.
1. Site Characteristics
Village One West is the western-most development area in Otay Ranch SPA One, and is
characterized by rolling hills with canyons and undulating edge conditions. The northern portion
of Village One West is currently under development. The south portion (south of East Palomar
Street) of Village One West has several canyons and slopes that contain native habitat located in a
portion of Poggi Canyon on the southern boundary of the project. As part of the Otay Ranch GDP
and SPA One amendments approved by the City Council in November of 1998, the resoume
agencies have authorized the development of this area by the applicant in exchange for preserving
habitat in Villages 13 and 15 of Otay Ranch.
This portion of Village One West is located west of Paseo Ranchero, south of East Palomar Street,
north of Olympic Parkway and east of the existing Sunbow II Planned Community. The balance of
the Village One West project area is north of East Palomar Street. East Palomar Street will be
extended through Village One West, and connect Otay Ranch to Sunbow. Paseo Rancbero
currently provides the main connection to Telegraph Canyon Road to the north, and is under
construction to Olympic Parkway to the south. In addition, the proposed future extension of the
light rail transit system will eventually travel through the northern section of Village One West
from Telegraph Canyon Road southeast to connect into East Palomar Street and travel along the
center median.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
General Plan
Otay Ranch General Development Plan policies require the Village One West project area to be
compatible with the adjacent Sunbow Planned Community as a "transition area" between Sunbow
and the rest of Otay Ranch SPA One. The City's General Plan identifies Village One West as a
Low-Medium Residential land use with densities ranging from three to six dwelling units per acre.
The Otay Ranch GDP was originally approved with densities in Village One West at three units
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 4/24/01
per acre (299 dwelling units), and 4.5 units per acre (144 dwelling units), for a total of 443 units.
In 1999, the Otay Ranch GDP and SPA One Plan were amended to add Village One West to the
SPA One project area and reflected the authorization for the applicant to develop natural habitat
along Poggi Canyon while preserving additional land area in Villages 13 and 15 of Otay Ranch.
This resulted in expanding the overall development area in Village One West and, therefore,
increasing the densities for the project. (The GDP designation for the Village One West area was
amended to expand the Low-Medium development area from approximately 154 acres to
approximately 296 acres with a density of up to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. A maximum of 845
units were approved for Village One West in the GDP and SPA amendments.)
Village One of the Otay Ranch is located to the east and is designated as an "urban village"
containing more intense uses in the "village core". Village Two West is located to the south and
also has similar designations, except that a portion of Village Two West is located within the Otay
Landfill buffer and is designated Industrial. The Sunbow Master Planned Community is located to
the west of Village One West and is designated for single-family homes on 5,000 and 6,000
square-foot lots.
Zohing
Otay Ranch is zoned Planned Community (PC) as are the other master planned communities such
as Sunbow and Eastlake. Land development regulations are contained in the Planned Community
District Regulations within each master planned community SPA plan. Unlike most villages in
Otay Ranch, Village One West was not designed as an "urban village" (containing mixed uses and
a village core); it is instead required to be compatible with the adjacent single-family designation
in the Sunbow development. The Otay Ranch SPA One Plan requires the land area in Village One
West to be comprehensively planned. The proposed SPA One Plan Zoning Districts Map for
Village One West include; Single-Family Three (SF3), Single-Family Four (SF4), Open Space and
Parks. Neighborhoods R-50, R-51A, R-52A, R-58, R-59 and R-60 are zoned SF3 allowing single-
family lots averaging 5,000 to 8,000 square feet; and Neighborhoods R-49A, R-55, R-56, and R-57
are zoned SF4 allowing single-family attached and detached lots averaging 3,000 to 4,900 square
feet.
The area adjacent to Village One West in Sunbow is planned for the development of an elementary
school and single-family homes. To the north, Rancho del Rey contains single-family residential,
an elementary school, a middle school, and a neighborhood park site. Currently, development
regulations have not been proposed for Village Two and Village Two West in the Otay Ranch
since a SPA Plan has yet to be prepared.
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 4/24/01
Current Land Use
The northern portion of Village One West is currently under development for single-family
residences, totaling 400 homes at build-out. The south portion is currently vacant and much of the
project is undisturbed area of rolling hills and native habitat. The eastern portion of the Sunbow II
development lies directly adjacent to Village One West and is also vacant and unimproved.
Village Two and Village Two West, located to the south, are still used for agricultural purposes.
3. Proposed Plan
Proposed Sunbow II SPA Plan Amendment
This application includes an amendment to the Sunbow II SPA Plan to revise the Site Utilization
Plan (See Exhibit #5) and legal description of the Sunbow II project area to reflect a "boundary
adjustment" of the Sunbow II SPA shared with Otay Ranch Village One West, south of East Palomar
Street. This boundary adjustment was agreed to between Ayres Land Development Company
(Sunbow Developer) and Otay Project, L.P (The Otay Ranch Company). This agreement between
the two developers resulted in providing each land owner with 0.5 acres of open space slopes in
order to accommodate single-family lots for both developments.
The boundary adjustment was included in the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan approved by City
Council in 1999. The original approved Tentative Map for Village One West also included the
boundary adjustment on the map identified as the "Sunbow Proposed Lot-line Adjustment",
however, was conditioned to require additional environmental review prior to development.
Environmental review has been included in the Sunbow II SPA Plan amendment as part of this
application. An addendum has been prepared for the Sunbow II EIR-88-01. The amendment to the
Sunbow II SPA Plan for the boundary adjustment would be consistent with the Otay Ranch SPA
One Plan and consistent with the land transfer agreement between the two developers. Both
developers have signed the Sunbow II SPA Plan amendment application. The application results in
an overall reduction to the Sunbow II SPA project area by approximately 0.5 acres. This area was
transferred to Village One West. Sunbow received a ½ acre of off site slope rights in exchange for
the boundary adjustment.
Proposed Otav Ranch SPA One Plan Amendment
The Otay Ranch SPA One Plan was amended in 1999 to plan the land uses authorized by the 1998
Otay Ranch General Development Plan amendment, which added Village One West to the SPA One
project area. In addition, a Tentative Map for Village One West was approved by City Council on
August 28, 1999. Originally, Village One West contained "Out-parcel" land areas under different
ownership than the applicant (The Otay Ranch Company). These out-parcels were included on the
amended SPA One Plan approved by City Council in 1999. At the time, the applicant intended on
purchasing these out-parcels, and developing them consistent with the SPA One Plan land uses for
Page 6, Item /~4
Meeting Date 4/24/01
Village One West. Two of these out-parcels were located north of East Palomar Street, and a third
out-parcel was located just south of East Palomar Street adjacent to the S unbow development.
The original Tentative Map for Village One West did not include the out-parcel south of East
Palomar Street within the subdivision boundary. The SPA One Plan requires a 5.1-acre
neighborhood park. This park was originally located the P-13 park site on the out-parcel south of
East Palomar Street. The applicant, however, was required by the City's Parkland Dedication
Ordinance (PLDO) to locate the neighborhood park on a site within the subdivision boundary. The
original Tentative Map included a park site across Santa Sierra Drive next to the elementary school
site (S-3) to satisfy the PLDO requirement in the subdivision boundary. Realizing that the applicant
was in the process of purchasing the out-parcels, staff was aware that a revision to the original
Tentative Map was necessary. The proposed Revised Tentative Map application includes the
development of the final out-parcel, which is now owned by the applicant, and locates the park site
in the approved SPA One Plan location. The purchase of the last out-parcel by The Otay Ranch
Company requires the applicant to revise the original Tentative Map, and implement the approved
Land Use Plan for the Village One West area.
In addition to the park site, the approved SPA One Plan for Village One West authorizes the
development of 845 single-family lots, as well as an elementary school site. The original Tentative
Map (C.V.T. 98-06) subdivided 774 single-family lots for all of Village One West. The balance of
the available units authorized by the SPA One Plan for Village One West have now been allocated to
the neighborhoods south of East Palomar Street on the proposed Revised Tentative Map (C.V.T. 98-
06A). As a result, the proposed Revised Tentative Map has modified the neighborhood boundaries
south of East Palomar Street as depicted on the proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan (See
Exhibit #6), Village One West Land Use Plan (See Exhibit #7) and SPA One Zoning District Map
(See Exhibit #8). The boundary changes to the Zoning District Map require an ordinance change to
the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations. These changes to the neighborhood
boundaries include Neighborhoods R-54, R-55, R-56, R-57, R-58, R-59, P-13 and S-3. The
neighborhood boundary adjustments require the proposed Otay Ranch SPA One amendment,
Revised Tentative Map
The Revised Tentative Map for the south portion of Village One West proposes to subdivide
approximately 147.7 acres into a total of 523 lots; 445 single-family lots, 62 homeowner's
maintenance lots, a 5.1-acre neighborhood park site, 6 open space lots and a 10-acre elementary
school site. The map utilizes the balance of the available units for single-family residences, and
locates the public neighborhood park site on the approved SPA Plan location, previously the last out-
parcel.
Page 7, Item ./(.6
Meeting Date 4/24/01
The Revised Tentative Map is consistent with the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP policies for
landform grading. The landform grading approved on the original Tentative Map has also been
included on the Revised Tentative Map. The slope edges have been pulled back from Telegraph
Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway to create undulation along the north and south slope of Village
One West. This design will create habitat preservation in the canyons, and provides slope gradients
of less than 2:1 along the perimeter slopes, which will result in a superior design. This effect
maintains greater distances between ridge development and street corridors.
East Palomar Street provides access to Village One West and will connect the Sunbow development
and the rest of Otay Ranch SPA One. Telegraph Canyon Road, Pasco Ranchero and Olympic
Parkway surround the project. The applicant proposes all of the residential lots in the project be
located on private streets and accessed from two major points of entry offofthe south side of East
Palomar Street. Two attended Entry Cottages (guard houses), of a similar design to those currently
used in Village One, are proposed at the entrances. The future elementary school site (S-3) is
proposed adjacent to an Entry Cottage on Santa Sierra Drive. Each of the two entries will be
designed as "Secondary Village Entry Streets", as described in the SPA One Plan, utilizing wider 8-
foot parkways for street trees and a 6-foot sidewalk on one side. This design encourages pedestrian-
friendly movement and an inviting streetscape. An open space lot adjacent to the Entry Cottage off
of Santa Carina Drive will be private and likely developed as a private swim club facility for
residents of the Project's Homeowners Association. Vehicle access to the school site will be taken
from Santa Sierra Drive. The Chula Vista Elementary School District is satisfied with the access
proposed for the school site. Vehicle access to the 5.1 net acre public neighborhood park (Park P- 13)
is proposed to be located at the western boundary of the project from East Palomar Street.
The southem portion of the project proposes an all-weather gated emergency access road to the site
from Olympic Parkway on the south to accommodate emergency vehicles. A pedestrian trail is
proposed at the southeast portion to connect into the Regional Trail at Pasco Ranchero and Olympic
Parkway.
The Revised Tentative Map proposes six neighborhoods designed for varying densities of single-
family residential land use south of East Palomar Street: Neighborhoods R-54, R-55, R-56, R-57, R-
58 and R-59. Lot sizes on the Village One West Revised Tentative Map have not changed from the
original approved Tentative Map. The Tentative Map proposes thc following densities in each
residential neighborhood:
Page 8, Item
Meeting Date 4/24/01
REVISED TENTATIVE MAP
Neighborhood Land Use Total Area DUs Avg. Lot Size Density
SOUTH OF EAST PA£OMAR STREET
R-54 SF 6.3 ac. 38 5,008 6.0 DUs/ac
R-55 SF 21 ac. 87 8,529 4.1 DUs/ac
R-56 SF 16.5 ac. 75 6,900 4.5 DUs/ac
R-57 SF 19.9 ac. 94 7,105 4.7 DUs/ac
R-58 SF 18.2 ac. 60 9,512 3.3 DUs/ac
R-59 SF 16.2 ac. 91 6,023 5.6 DUs/ac
TOTAL 98.1 ac. 445
4. Analysis:
The proposed amendments to the Sunbow II SPA Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and Revised
Tentative Map application for Village One West implements the approved SPA One Land Use Plan
and are consistent with prior approvals including the GDP amendment approved by City Council on
November 10, 1998. Staff concerns have been concentrated on respecting the Otay Ranch GDP
policies for Village One West including:
· Designing Village One West to be compatible with the adjacent Sunbow
development and acting as a transition between Sunbow and the remainder of Otay
Ranch SPA One.
The Otay Ranch GDP allowed Village One West to differ from the rest of Village
One in design by not providing a village core with a transit station. Lot sizes in
Village One West average between 5,000 - 9,700 square feet, which are similar to
Sunbow and larger than those in Village One. Lot sizes on the Village One West
Revised Tentative Map have not changed from the original approved Tentative Map.
· Utilizing the landform grading policies of the City's General Plan and the Otay
Ranch GDP, as well as respecting the densities approved in the GDP and SPA One
amendments.
The General Plan designates Olympic Parkway as a "Scenic Corridor" requiring the
implementation of the General Plan landform grading policies. These policies allow
development on the ridgelines while requiring conservation of canyons, rounding of
graded contours and slopes with a ratio of less than 2:1. Slopes along Olympic
Parkway comply with these policies. In addition, a section of the north Poggi
Canyon slope that contains Maritime succulent scrub has been left in natural
Page 9, Item
Meeting Date 4/24/01
condition, including the landform of several natural canyons preserved at cul-de-sacs
proposed on the ridges. Staffbelieves the design is superior to Village One grading
and complies with the General Plan landform grading policies and is consistent with
the SPA One Plan for Village One West.
· Complying with the Otay Ranch SPA One requirement to provide a 5.1-acre net
useable neighborhood park site (P-13).
The SPA One Plan was approved locating the Neighborhood Park P-13 site on an
Out-parcel at the western boundary of the project. The original Tentative Map did
not include the Out-parcel in the subdivision, however, the applicant indicated their
intention of acquiring the out-parcel property and processing a revised Tentative Map
in the future. The applicant has purchased the out-parcel, which has been included
on the proposed Revised Tentative Map. The proposed location of the Park P-13 site
is consistent with the SPA One Land Use Plan
5. Conclusion:
Staff believes that the amendments to the Sunbow II SPA Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and
Revised Tentative Map application for Village One West are consistent with the approved Sunbow
GDP, the Otay Ranch GDP goals and objectives and the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan policies and
recommends approval of the proposed SPA amendments, addendums to the Sunbow II EIR 88-01
and Otay Ranch SPA One 97-03, and Revised Tentative Map subject to the Revised Tentative Map
(C.V.T. 98-06A) Conditions of Approval (See Council Resolution, Exhibit 'B').
FISCAL IMAPCT:
The SPA amendments for both the Sunbow II and Otay Ranch and the Revised Tentative Map are
included within the scope of the Staffing Agreement with the Otay Ranch Company. All cost
associated with the project are cover by the existing deposit account established by the Staffing
Agreement.
Exhibits
1. Locator Map
2. Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 98-06A)
3. Sunbow II Boundary Adjustment
4. Otay Ranch Village One West Boundary Adjustment
5. Sunbow Site Utilization Plan
6. Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan
7. Proposed Village One West Land Use Plan
8. Proposed SPA One Zoning District Map
9. Sunbow II SPA Plan Amendment Planning Commission Resolution (PCM 01-22)
10. Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment Planning Commission Resolution (PCM 01-09)
11. Otay Ranch Village One West Revised Tentative Map Planning Commission Resolution (PCS 98-06A)
12. Disclosure Statement
PROJECT BOUNDARY
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: T~
APPLICANT: OTAY PROJECT L.P.
· ~ PROJECT Otay Ranch Village One West (S) SPA AMENDMEN REVISED
~:~ Pal°mar & n°~ °f Olympic Par'YFrEE NUMBE~: ~ec°"figure reside~' neighb°rh°~ '~
~ LOCATOR
No Scale PCM - 01-09
C:~m~iles~Jocato~PCMO !-09 cdr !2/20/00~ ~ EXHIBIT ~1
/ OTAY RANCH
P-3 NEIGHBORHOOD~
PARK
FUTURE SUNBOW II
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
----PROJECT
BOUNDARY
OTAY
RANCH
VILLAGE ONE WEST
SUNBOW
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT OTAY PROJECT L.P. PROJECT DESCRIPTION;
,APPLICANT: South Of East Palomar Street SPA AMENDMENT
PROJECT OR the eastedy boundary of the
ADDRESS: Sunbow tl Planned Community Request: Approval of an amendment to the Sunbow II
SPA Plan to revise the Site Utilization Plan to reflect
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: the easterly boundaPJ adjustment of the Sunbow II
NORTH No Scale PCM-01-22 SPA area.
h:\home\plan ning\cados\locators\pcm0122.cdr 3.12.01
EXHIBIT ~3
EXHIBIT 'D'
PROPOSED LAND SWAP EXHIBIT
Iii1111 I
:0.5 ACRES TO 07
,.GRADING EA
:RESERVED TO A YRES~
--'0,5 ACRES TO A
--- GRADING
--...RESERVED TO OTAY
EXISTING BOUNDARY.
EXHIBIT #4
No Scale
/
/
BOUNDARY
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
13 RS 26.2 112 ROADS .~ CANDIDA;E CHURCH $~'E
Site Utilization Plan Revised 6/20/00
**Revised 12/19/00
EXHIBIT ~5
EXHIBIT ~6
EXHIBIT ~8
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-01-22
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT
TO THE SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN TO REVISE
THE EASTERLY SUNBOW II SPA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT WITH THE
OTAY RANCH SPA ONE.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" and described on Chula Vista Tract 90-07, and is commonly known as Sunbow II
("Property"); and
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a SPA amendment was filed with the
Planning and Building Department on December 20, 2000 by The Otay Ranch Company (Otay
Project L.P.) with authorized signature from Ayres Land Development Company ("Developer");
and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to amend the Sunbow II Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan to revise the easterly SPA boundary with Otay Ranch resulting in an
overall reduction in the Sunbow II SPA area by 0.5 acres; and,
WHEREAS, the boundary adjustment is located at the easterly property line of Sunbow
II south of East Palomar Street in Planning Area 19 of the Sunbow II SPA Plan south of Plarming
Area 18 in the Sunbow II Planned Community; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on
the SPA amendment, and notice of said heating, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners
within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing;
and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.,
March 28, 2001 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City of Chula Vista
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development
environmentally evaluated under the Sunbow II EIR 88-01, that is virtually identical in all
relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers, lot configurations, transportatiOn corridors, etc.,
to the project descriptions in said former environmental evaluations; and
EXHIBIT #9
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that
any impacts associated with the proposed Sunbow II SPA Plan amendment modifying the
easterly boundary adjacent to the south portion of Otay Ranch Village One West have
been previously identified in Sunbow II SPA EIR 88-01 and has therefore, prepared an
addendum to that document; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista
Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt th~ attached draft
City Council Resolution approving the SPA amendment to the Sunbow II SPA Plan to
revise the Site Utilization Plan and legal description of the project to reflect the easterly
boundary adjustment of the Sunbow II SPA area in Planning Area 19 south of East
Pa]omar Street consistent with the land transfer agreement between Ayres Land
Development Company and Otay Project, L.P. resulting in and overall reduction to the
Sunbow II SPA area by approximately 0.5 acres in accordance with the findings therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted
to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of March 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Diana Vargas, Secretary Bob Thomas, Chairperson
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-01-09
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN MODIFYING
NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES, AND ADOPT THE O ~RDINANCE
TO MODIFY THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No. __ and described on Chula Vista Tract
98-06A, and is commonly known as Village One West (South) ("Property"); and
WHEREAS, an application to amend the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan portion
of Otay Ranch Village One West was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department on December 6, 2000 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant");
and
VOIEREAS, the application requests to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan including the
SPA One Planned Community District Regulations modifying the SPA One Zoning District Map,
SPA One Land Use Map, and Village One West Land Use Map to reflect neighborhood boundary
adjustments to Neighborhoods R-54, R-55, R-56, R-57, R-58, R-59, P-13 and S-3, located in south
portion of Otay Ranch Village One West; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No. 19375, wherein
the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR
95-01 "), and the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03,
SCH #97091079 ("EIR 97-03"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an amendment to the SPA One Plan, PCM 97-11, and sad
amendment was adopted by the City Council on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No. 19375; and
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development
environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01, FEIR 97-03, that is virtually
identical in all relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers, lot configurations~ transportation
corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said former environmental evaluations; and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts
associated with the proposed Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One (SPA) Plan amendment and
amended Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations modifying the SPA One
Zoning District Map, SPA One Land Use Map, and Village One West Land Use Map to reflect
EXHIBIT
neighborhood boundary adjustments to Neighborhoods R-54, R-55, R-56, R-57, R-58, R-59, P-13
and S-3, located in south portion of Otay Ranch Village One West have been previously identified in
amended SPA One Plan FEIR 97-03 and has therefore, prepared an addendum to that document; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-01-09) and notice of said
heating, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project
site at least ten days prior to the heating; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
March 28, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from tlie facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval of an amendment to Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan (PCM-01-09) is consistent with the City of Chula
Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, and all
other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning
practice support the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
Plan amendment (PCM-01-09) in accordance with the findings contained in the attached City
Council Resolution No.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of March, 2001 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Bob Thomas, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-98-06A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A REVISED TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR VILLAGE ONE WEST OF THE
OTAY RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE PL. AN,
CHULA VISTA TRACT 98-06A.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No. and described on Chula Vista Tract
98~06A, and is commonly known as Village One West (South) ("Property"); and
WHEREAS, The Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant") filed a duly verified application for
the subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known as "Revised
Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 98~06A", ("Project"), with the Planning and Building Department
of the City of Chula Vista on August 31, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the application requested the approval for the subdivision of approximately
147.7 acres located west of Paseo Ranchero, north of Olympic Parkway, south of East Palomar
Street, and east of the Sunbow Plarmed Community into 445 residential lots, 8 private street lots, 62
common lots, one neighborhood park, one elementary school, and 6 open space lots for a total of'
523 lots; and
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993
by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on November 10, 1998 by Resolution No. 19253 ("GDP
Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part
on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH
#9010154 ("Program EIR 90-01"); and
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No. 19375, wherein
the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR
95-01"), and the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03,
SCH #97091079 ("EIR 97-03"); and
WHEREAS, the Applic~-nt filed an amendment to the SPA One Plan, (PCM-01-09), and
said amendment was adopted by the City Council on April 21,2001 by Resolution No. ; and
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development
environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01, FEIR 97-03, and addendum
thereto, that is virtually identical in all relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers, lot
EXHIBIT
configurations, transportation corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said former environmental
evaluations; and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has
determined that it is in substantial conformance with the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and the
related environmental documents and that the Project would not result in any new environmental
effects that were not previously identified, nor would the proposed Project result in a substantial
increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified; and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has
determined that any impacts associated with the proposed Otay Ranch Village One West (South)
"Revised Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 98-06A", have been previously identified in amended
SPA One Plan FEIR 97-03 and has therefore, prepared an addendum to that document; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Revised
Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-98-06A) and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property
owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
March 28,2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval of Revised Tentative
Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 98-06A) is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and
that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice support the
approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 98-
06A) in accordance with the findings contained in the attached City Council Resolution No.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of March, 2001 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Bob Thomas, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
Appendix B
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments,
or campaign contributions, on all matters which will required discretionary action on the part of the City
Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is subject of the
· application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, matedal supplier.
JIM BALDWIN
AL BALDWIN
2. If any person* identifies pursuan[ to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
N/A
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving ass director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
N/A
4_ Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No X
If yes, please indicate person(s): N/A
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
JIM BALDWIN, THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY RANIE HUNTER, THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY
AL BALDWIN, THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY CHUCK CATER, THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY
KlM KILKENNY, THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY TROY BURNS, HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
KENT ADEN, THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY LEX WILLIMAN, HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election pedod? Yes__ No X If yes, state which
councilmember(s): N/A
(NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NEC~~
Date: ~ ~'~__o-~o Signature~------~'~ ~::~'of con'actor/apPlicant
CHUCK CATER, THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
* Person is defined c~s: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation.
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any
other group or combination acting as a unit." EXH I B I T # ]- ~-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUNBOW II
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN TO ADJUST THE
EASTERLY SUNBOW BOUNDARY WITH THE OTAY RANCH SPA
ONE.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is
identified as Exhibit "A" and described on Chula Vista Tract 90-07, and is commonly
known as Sunbow II ("Property'!); and
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a SPA amendment was filed with the
Planning and Building Department on December 20, 2000 by The Otay Ranch Company
(Otay Project L.P.) with authorized signature from Ayres Land Development Company
("Developer"); and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to amend the Sunbow II
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to revise the easterly SPA boundary with Otay
Ranch resulting in an overall reduction in the Sunbow II SPA area by 0.5 acres; and,
WHEREAS, the boundary adjustment is located at the easterly property line of
Sunbow II south of East Palomar Street in Planning Area 19 of the Sunbow II SPA Plan
south of Planning Area 18 in the Sunbow II Planned Community; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said Sunbow II SPA Amendment (PCM-01-22) and notice of said hearing, together with
its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City
and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the
Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m, March 28, 2001 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City
of Chula Vista Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, by a vote of 6-0-0-1, the Planning Commission recommended
approval the project; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista on the Sunbow II Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development
environmentally evaluated under the Sunbow II EIR 88-01, that is virtually identical in
all relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers, lot configurations, transportation
corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said former environmental evaluations; and
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that
any impacts associated with the proposed Sunbow II SPA Plan amendment modifying the
easterly boundary adjacent to the south portion of Otay Ranch Village One West have
been previously identified in Sunbow II SPA EIR 88-01 and has therefore, prepared an
addendum to that document identified as Exhibit "C", in this resolution; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on held on this Project on March 28, 2001, and the minutes
and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the resolution amending the Sunbow II SPA
Plan and Site Utilization Plan, identified as Exhibit "B", in this resolution, finding
it is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Sunbow General
Development Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support their
approval and implementation.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the
Sunbow II FEIR 88-01, would have no new effects that were not examined in said
FEIR [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)]; and
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR
EIR
The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the Project from
the Sunbow II FEIR 88-01 which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which
the Project is undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new information
of substantial importance to the Project has become available since the issuance
and approval of the prior reports; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur
or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to those already in
existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City
Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project
covered by the Sunbow II FEIR 88-01 [Guideline 15168(c)(2) and 15162(a)].
Resolution No.
Page 3
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Addendum prepared to Sunbow II EIR 88-01,
identified as Exhibit "C", in this resolution, reflects the independent judgement of
the City Council of thc City of Cbula Vista and hereby adopts the Addendum to
Sunbow II EIR 88-01.
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for
this approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in
the findings adopted in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Sunbow II FEIR
88-01.
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this
Project was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the Sunbow II
FEIR 88-01 adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes of
CEQA [Guideline 15168(e)].
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following
reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Sunbow II SPA Plan Amendment reflects the General Development
Plan Amendment and SPA Amendment for Otay Ranch SPA One that
adjusted the lot line boundary. This revision to the boundary is consistent
with the Sunbow General Development Plan and Chula Vista General
Plan.
B. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AMENDMENT WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY
SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The Sunbow II SPA Plan Amendment does not modify the approved
provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of
the project.
Resolution No.
Page 4
C. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AMENDMENT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT
LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The single-family residential land uses within Sunbow and the adjacent
Otay Ranch will maintain an open space buffer adjacent to each boundary,
and does not affect developments off-site and within the Sunbow II SPA
area. The proposed plan closely follows all existing environmental
protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site impacts through
the provision and implementation of mitigation measures specified in
Sunbow II EIR 88-01.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter Johd4~. KS~h~ny ~/
Planning and Building Director City Attorney
Resolution No.
Page 5
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 24th day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Rindone, Padilla, Salas and
Horton
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAiN: Councilmembers: None
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 24¢hday of
April, 2001.
Executed this 24th day of April, 2001.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
OTAY RANCH
P-3
PARK S
FUTURE SUNBOW II
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
w,. s, BOUNDARY
OTAY
RANCH
VILLAGE ONE WEST
SUNBOW
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT 0TAY PROJECT L.P. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
APPUC. ANT: South of East Palomar Street SPA AMENDMENT
PROJECT on the easterly boundar~ of the
ADDRESS: Sunbow II Planned Community Request: Approval of an amendment to the Sunbow II
SPA Plan to revise the Site Utilization Plan to reflect
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: the eastedy boundary adjustment of the Sunbow II
NORTH No Scale PCM-01-22 SPA ama.
h:\home\planning\cados\locators\pcm0122.cdr 3.12.01 E×HZBTT "A"
SUNBOW
No Scale
~UgDARY
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
t3 ~:~ 2e.2 ~ ~ ROADS .~ CANDIDATE CHURCH
Site Utilization Plan Revised 6/20/00
**Revised 12/19/00
EXHIBIT "B"
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-88-1
PROJECT NAME: Sunbow II SPA Boundary Revision
· PROJECT LOCATION: North of Olympic Parkway, south of Telegraph Canyon Road,
and East of Medical Center Drive
PROJECT APPLICANT: Otay Project LP
CASE NO: EIR-88-1
DATE: March 22, 2001
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of a revision to the easterly boundary of the Sunbow II SPA area,
removing 0.5 acre from the gross SPA land area. The 0.5-acre area is proposed to be
added to the Otay Ranch SPA One.
Ayers Land Company, owners of the Sunbow II project, and Otay Project L.P., owners of
the Otay Ranch Village One West project (directly adjacent to Sunbow's easterly boundary)
have reached an agreement whereby Otay Project L.P. will acquire the subject property
from Ayers Land Company. The Otay Project L.P. proposes to develop the 0.5 acre of
land as single family residential uses. The land is currently designated as single family
residential use on the Site Utilization Plan for the Sunbow II SPA Plan. The necessary
actions to accomplish the proposed amendments include modifications to the boundaries of
the Sunbow II Site Utilization Plan and legal description to reflect the O.5-acre reduction.
A Final Environmental Impact Report for the Sunbow II SPA plan, EIR 88-1 (State
Clearinghouse No. 88121423 was prepared and was certified on December 5, 1989. The
proposed action is considered in relationship to the analysis and documentation contained
in that Final EIR.
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (§15162) establishes the conditions
under which a subsequent EIR shall be prepared.
A. When an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be
prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
EIR-97-03 Addendum #2 1 03/22/01
EXHIBIT "C"
3. New information of substantial importance which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
the EIR was prepared.
B. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes
available after preparation of an EIR, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent
EIR if required under subsection A. Otherwise the lead agency shall determine
whether to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum or no
further documentation (Guidelines § 15162).
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that:
A. The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some
changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
B. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or
attached to the final EIR.
C. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to
making a decision on the project.
D. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to
Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's
required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation
must be supported by substantial evidence.
This addendum has been prepared to pursuant to the requirements of Section 15164 of
the State CEQA Guidelines. The boundary modification proposed for the Sunbow II SPA
would not result in any environmental effects that were not considered in EIR-88-1, nor
would the changes increase the severity of any of the impacts identified in EIR 88-1. The
mitigation measures identified in EIR-88-1 would be equally applicable to the revised
project.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
City has prepared the following addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
for the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR-97-03.
III. ANALYSIS
An Environmental Checklist Form was completed to determine if the modifications to the
project would change any of the analyses contained in EIR-88-1. The conclusion is that
previously identified environment impacts would not be intensified as a result of the
changes, nor would any new impacts result. A copy of the checklist is attached.
EIR-97-03 Addendum #2 2 03/22/01
IV. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CFOA Guidelines, and based upon the above
discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only
minor technical chan§es or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental
Impact Report adequate under CEOA.
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
References: General Plan, City of Chula Vista
Title 1 9, Chula Vista Municipal Code
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures
Sunbow II SPA Plan
EIR-97-03 Addendum #2 3 03/22/01
Case No. IS-
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: Otay Project LP
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 350 W. Ash St. Ste 730
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 234-4088
(619) 234-4050 (fax)
4. Name of Proposal: Sunbow SPA Plan II Amendment
5. Date of Checklist: March 22, 2001
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or tn tn [] []
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [] r~ [] []
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations [] [] [] []
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of tn [] [] []
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Comments: Development of Sunbow II development was evaluated in the Final EIR for the Sunbow
General Development Plan (Sunbow EIR) that was certified on December 5, 1989. ~l~e
proposed amendment would remove a 0.5 acre area in the southeast corner of the site,
to allow that area to be added to the Otay Ranch SPA One (Village One West South)
area. The 0.5 acre area is shown as single-family residential on the Sunbow II SPA
Plan, Site Utilization Plan. The proposed use for this area according to the revised
Tentative Map for the Otay Ranch Village One West South is single-family residential.
The removal of the 0.5-acre area from the Sunbow planning area would not affect the
land use type or number of dwelling units proposed for the Sunbow II SPA Plan.
1
The proposed boundary modification to the Sunbow II SPA Plan would not affect
agricultural uses, as none are present on the site. The modification does not involve an area
that is part of any environmental plan or is subject to any specific environmental policies,
nor would it disrupt or divide an existing community. The modification would be
consistent with the adopted SPA Plan land use designations because the proposed uses and
intensity of development would remain the same.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. WouM the Pot,.t~Dy s~,t u~ t~
proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Imlmct
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] [] [] a
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either [] [] [] []
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [] [] [] []
housing?
Comments: The proposed modifications to the Sunbow II SPA boundaries would not substantially
change the overall level of development proposed for Sunbow II SPA area, from what was
evaluated and approved for the SPA Plan. Therefore, the proposed modifications would
not induce growth into the area, cause population projections to be exceeded, or displace
housing.
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Poten~uy si~r,~a~t ~ t~.
expose people to potential impacts involving: lml~et Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic [] [] [] []
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] [] [] []
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief [] [] [] []
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any [] [] [] []
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, [] [] [] []
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, [] [] [] []
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or
lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic [] [] [] []
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
2
Comments: The Sunbow EIR identified no significant impacts related to geologic or soils conditions,
but did require measures identified in the Soil and Geologic Report to ensure appropriate
design and grading considerations. The proposed modifications to the SPA Plan would
remove development area from the Sunbow ii planning area, and would not alter the
existing development plans for the Sunbow II project, or result in any new development
within the Sunbow II area. The analysis of geologic and soils conditions and the mitigation
measures identified in the Sunbow EIR would remain valid for the proposed SPA
boundary adjustment.
IV, WATER. Would the proposal result in: si~i~t Unles~ Signifi~nt No
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, rn [] [] []
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related [] [] [] []
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration [] [] [] []
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] [] [] []
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of
water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either c~ [] [] []
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? t~ [] [] []
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? [] c~ [] []
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? [] [] [] []
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water [] [] [] []
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The Sunbow EIR identifies significant impacts related to water quality and erosion, and
recommends mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. The
proposed modifications to the SPA Plan would remove development area from the Sunbow
II planning area, and would not alter the existing development plans for the Sunbow
project, or result in any new development within the Sunbow II area. The analysis of
surface and groundwater resources and the mitigation measures identified in the Sunbow
EIR would remain valid for the proposed SPA boundary adjustment.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
3
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or [] [] [] []
cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] []
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non- [] [] [] []
stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The Sunbow E1R identifies significant short-term and long-term impacts to air quality and
recommends mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels.
The proposed modifications to the SPA Plan would remove development area from the
Sunbow II planning area, and would not alter the existing development plans for the
Sunbow II project, or result in any new development within the Sunbow II area. The
analysis of air quality impacts and the mitigation measures identified in the Sunbow EIR
would remain valid for the proposed SPA boundary adjustment.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would got~,,taay s~=nt t~t~.
the proposal result in: ~ct ~t~at~d ~.~ct h,~ct
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] [] []
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., [] [] [] []
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby [] [] [] []
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [] [] [] []
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [] [] [] []
13 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [] [] [] []
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [] [] [] []
h) A "large project" under the Congestion [] [] [] []
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: The Sunbow E1R identifies significant impacts to traffic and circulation as a result of
project construction, and requires mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than
significant levels. The proposed modifications m the SPA Plan would remove development
area from the Sunbow II planning area, and would not alter the existing development plans
for the Sunbow II project, or result in any new development within the Sunbow II area.
The analysis of traffic and circulation impacts and the mitigation measures identified in the
Sunbow EIR would remain valid for the proposed SPA boundary adjustment.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the vo~tmy s~,a ~ ~i,
proposal result in impacts to: Imtmct Mifiga/ed Impact Impact
4
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of [] [] [] []
concern or species that are candidates for listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? [] [] [] []
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., [] [] [] []
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal [] [] [] []
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [] [] [] []
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning [] [] [] []
efforts?
Comments: The area proposed for removal from the Sunbow II SPA boundaries has been
grading and does not contain any natural vegetation, or support
any native plant or animal species. The proposed action would,
therefore, not result in any new or intensified impacts to biological
resources beyond what was analyzed in the Sunbow EIR.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant Unles~ Significant No
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation [] r~ [] []
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] [] []
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] [] [] []
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: The proposed modifications to the Sunbow II SPA Plan boundaries would not result in any
energy and mineral resource impacts. The Sunbow EIR did not identify any significant
impacts related to these issues.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: eot,~aauy Significant Less than
Impact Mitigated ImlmCt lmgact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [] []
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency [] [] [] []
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential [] [] ~ []
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of [] [] [] []
potential health hazards?
5
e) Increased fke hazard in areas with flammable [] [] [] []
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The Sunbow EIR did not identify any public safety (hazards) impacts associated with the
proposed development of the Sunbow II SPA area. Modifications to the SPA boundaries
would not result in any additional impacts.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: ~,ot~t~Uy s~,,~,t r~ ~
a) Increases in existing noise levels? [] [] [] []
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] []
Comments: The Sunbow EIR identified significant impacts related to traffic noise for portions of the
SPA 1I area. The 0.5-acre area proposed to be removed from the Sunbow li SPA
boundaries was not shown to experience significant noise impacts. Removal of the area
from the SPA II boundaries would not result in any new or increased significant impacts,
or require any new mitigation measures.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an PolentialiySignificant Less than
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? [] [] [] []
b) Police protection? [] [] [] []
c) Schools? [] [] [] []
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] [] [] []
roads?
e) Other governmental services? [] [] [] []
Comments: The proposed modification of the SPA II boundaries to remove the 0.5-acre development
ama would not affect the provision of fire or police services, public facilities, or other
services. The Sunbow EIR did not identify any adverse public service impacts associated
with development of the Sunbow II SPA.
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the [] [] [] []
City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold
Standards.
a) Fire/EMS [] [] [] []
The City's Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
6
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the
cases.
Comments: The Sunbow EIR indicates thai this threshold standard will be met through the provision of
fees/equipment and adherence to the requirements of the Fire Department. The SPA One
EIR states that potential impacts to lire protection and emergency medical services would
be mitigated by compliance with the Master Plan and payment of fees. The proposed
boundary adjustment would not affect this conslusion.
Potentially
b) Police [] [] [] []
The City's Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of
4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7
minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or
less.
Comments: The Sunbow EIR states that the SPA II project will comply with this Threshold Standard
through the provision of fees and generation of project revenue. The proposed boundary
adjustment would not affect this conclusion.
c) Traffic [] [] [] []
The City's Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805
are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or
"F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are
exempted from this Standard.
Comments: The Sunbow EIR determined that the implementation and construction of roadways and
circulation improvements specified in the Sunbow GDP would reduce traffic impacts to a
level less than significant. Removal of the 0.5-acre of development area would not result
in any potential impacts not previously considered.
d) Parks/Recreation [] [] [] []
The City's Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The removal of the 0.5-acre development area from the Sunbow II SPA boundary would
not increase the demand for additional parkland or recreational services. No changes in the
total acreage of park land for either the Sunbow or Otay Ranch communities would result.
e) Drainage [] [] [] []
The City's Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The removal of the 0.5-acre development area from the Sunbow Il SPA boundaries would
not impede the project' s ability to comply with City Engineering Standards, and would not
result in any impacts not previously considered.
Potentially
f) Sewer [] D [] []
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The removal of the 0.5-acm development area from the Sunbow II SPA boundaries would
not impede the project's ability to comply with City Engineering Standards, and would not
result in any impacts not previously considered.
g) Water [] [] [] []
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards
are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with
this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The removal of the 0.5-acm development area from the Sunbow 1I SPA boundaries would
not impede the project's ability to comply with City Engineering Standards, and would not
result in any impacts not previously considered.
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would ~ot~.t~ny stg~iclat r,~t~n
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? [] [] [] []
b) Communications systems? [] [] [] []
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution [] [] [] []
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? [] [] [] []
e) Storm water drainage? [] [] [] []
8
f) Solid waste disposal? [] 13 [] []
Comments: The removal of the 0.5-acre development area from the Sunbow II SPA boundary would
not require new systems or substantial alterations to any of the planned service systems.
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: ~t ~tto~ Xm~,t h~p~ct
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the [] [] [] []
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic [] [] [] []
route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] [] []
d) Create added light or glare soumes that could [] [] [] []
increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause
this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 197
e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? [] [] [] []
Comments: The proposed project results in transfer of development area from
the Sunbow II SPA area to the Otay Ranch SPA One area. The uses
that are proposed for the site are the same as those identified and
analyzed in the Sunbow EIR and as shown on the Sunbow II SPA
Plan Site Utilization Plan. There would be no substantial change in
the visual character of the proposed development from that
previously analyzed in the Sunbow EIR.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: eo~ny si~,,m~nt 1~ ~.
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the [] [] [] []
destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or [] [] [] []
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a [] [] [] []
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or [] [] [] []
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan [] [] [] []
9
E1R as an area of high potential for archeological
resources?
Comments: The 0.5-acre area proposed to be removed from the Sunbow II SPA area has been
previously graded as part of the existing development for the Sunbow II SPA, The removal of this area
from the SPA boundaries would not affect any cultural resources because of the site's disturbed state.
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the [] [] [] []
proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction
of paleontological resources ?
Comments: The 0.5-acre area proposed to be removed from the Sunbow li SPA area has been
previously graded as part of the existing development for the Sunbow 1I SPA. The
removal of this area from the SPA boundaries would not affect any paleontological
resources because of the site's disturbed state.
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Pot~y s~t~c~,~t ~.~
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or [] [] [] []
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [] rn [] []
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans [] [] [] []
or programs?
Comments: The removal of the 0.5-acm development area from the Sunbow II SPA boundary would
not increase the demand for parkland or recreational services. No changes in the total
acreage of park land or other recreational facilities for either the Sunbow or Otay Ranch
communities would result.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF i~ot~n~l~y SignificantLessthan
SlgnllleantUnle~ Signfficant No
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for h,~ct M~t~t~ ~,,~ct ~mpact
mandatory findings of significance, lf an EIR is
needed, this section should be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade [] [] [] ~
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods or California history or prehistory?
Comments: The proposed removal of 0.5-acre of development area from the Sunbow II SPA plan
10
boundaries would not degrade the quality of the environment because the proposed uses for
the site are consistent with the land use types, quantities and intensities as those analyzed in
the Sunbow EIR.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve rn [] [] []
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
envkonmental goals?
Comments: The proposed removal of 0.5-acrea of development area from the Sunbow II SPA boundmy
would be consistent with the approved land use plan, as analyzed in the Sunbow EIR, with
respect to relationship of short-term and long-term environmental goals.
c) Does the project have impacts that are c~ [] [] []
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
Comments: Cumulative effects related to the removal of the 0.5-acre development area from the
Sunhow II SPA area would not result in any cumulative effects that were not considered in
the Sunhow EIR.
Potentially
d) Does the project have environmental effects, [] r~ [] []
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: Removal of the 0.5-acre development area would not result in any adverse effects on
human beings that were not considered in the Sunbow EIR.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
No mitigation measures are required.
11
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective companyDs authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained
herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign
the line(s) provided below prior to adoption of the Addendum shall indicate the ApplicantsD and/or Operator's
desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval.
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Signature of Authorized Representative of Date
[Property Owner's Name]
Printed Name and Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Signature of Authorized Representative of Date
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
D Land Use and Planning [] Transportation/Circulation II Public Services
['lPopulation and Housing D Biological Resources [] Utilities and Service
Systems
D Geophysical ~ Energy and Mineral Resources ~ Aesthetics
~ Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources
~ Air Quality D Noise [3 Recreation
~ Paleontological Resources ['1Mandatory Findings of Significance
12
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGAT1VE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to
provide a record of this determination.
"d Date /
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN
MODIFYING NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES IN
VILLAGE ONE WEST.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is
identified as Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No. __ and described
on Chula Vista Tract 98-06A, and is commonly known as Village One West (South)
("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application to amend the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
Plan portion of Oily Ranch Village One West was filed with the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department on December 6, 2000 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay
Ranch Company ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
including the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations modifying the SPA One
Zoning District Map, SPA One Land Use Map, and Village One West Land Use Map to
reflect neighborhood boundary adjustments to Neighborhoods R-54, R-55, R-56, R-57,
R-58, R-59, P-13 and S-3, located in the south portion of Otay Ranch Village One West;
and,
WI-IEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a
Sectional Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City
Council on June 4, 1996 by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999
by Resolution No. 19375, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of
said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR 95-01"), and the
amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03, SCH
#97091079 ("EIR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an amendment to the SPA One Plan, PCM 97-
11, and said amendment was adopted by the City Council on February 16, 1999 by
Resolution No. 19375; and,
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development
environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01, FEIR 97-03, that is
virtually identical in all relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers, lot
configurations, transportation corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said former
environmental evaluations; and,
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that
any impacts associated with the proposed Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One
(SPA) Plan amendment modifying the SPA One Land Use Map, and Village One West
Land Use Map to reflect neighborhood boundary adjustments to Neighborhoods R-54, R-
55, R-56, R-57, R-58, R-59, P-13 and S-3, located in south portion of Otay Ranch Village
One West have been previously identified in amended SPA One Plan FEIR 97-03 and has
therefore, prepared an addendum to that document, identified as Exhibit "D" in this
resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-01-09) and
notice of said heating, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500
feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing;
and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m. March 28, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, by a vote of 6-0-0-1 the Planning Conmaission approved the project;
and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista on the Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment modifying the neighborhood
boundaries in Village One West, and adopting the ordinance to modify the Otay Ranch
SPA One Planned Community District Regulations Zoning District Map for Village One
West; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing held on March 28, 2001, and the minutes and resolutions
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers,
shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
Resolution No.
Page 3
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the resolution amending the Otay Ranch SPA
One Plan modifying the SPA One Land Use Plan, identified as Exhibit "B", in
this resolution, and the Village One West Land Use Plan, identified as Exhibit
"C", in this resolution, finding it is consistent with the City of Chula Vista
General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and all other applicable
Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
planning and zoning practice support their approval and implementation.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the
FEIR 97-03, would have no new effects that were not examined in said FEIR
(Guideline 15168 (c)(2)).
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR
EIR
The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the Project from
the FEIR 97-03 which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial
changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project
is undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new information of substantial
importance to the Project has become available since the issuance and approval of
the prior reports; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur or no new
mitigation measures will be required in addition to those already in existence and
made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City Council
approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered
by the FEIR 97-03 (Guideline 15168(c)(2) and 15162(a)).
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Addendum prepared to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR
97-03, identified as Exhibit "D" in this resolution reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts the
Addendum to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 97-03.
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for
this approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in
the findings adopted in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR 90-01, Otay Ranch
SPA One EIR 95-01, and amended Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 97-03.
Resolution No.
Page 4
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this
Project was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the FEIR 97-
03 adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA
(Guideline 15168(e)).
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following
reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED SPA ONE PLAN AMENDMENT IS 1N
CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment reflects
the land uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and
public facility uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan and Chula Vista General Plan.
B. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) PLAN AMENDMENT WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY
SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA One Plan Amendments contain provisions and requirements to
ensure the orderly, phased development of the project.
C. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) PLAN AMENDMENT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT
ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT,
CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer
adjacent to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and
within the Otay Ranch Planning Area One. A neighborhood park will be
located within the Village One West area to serve the project residents,
and the project will provide housing types compatible with Sunbow
Master Planned Community, as required by the General Development
Plan. A comprehensive street network serves the project and provides for
access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan closely follows
all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid
unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures
specified in the Otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report.
Resolution No.
Page 5
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter John M. Kaheny
Planning and Building Director City Attomey
Resolution No.
Page 6
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 24th day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Rindone, Padilla, Salas and
Horton
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 24th day of
April, 2001.
Executed this 24~ day of April, 2001.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
PROJECT BOUNDARY
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
APPLIC~Fr: OTAY PROJECT L.P. SPAAMENDMENT//]~VISED
Otay Ranch Village One West (S)
I ' PROJECT eastofPaseoRanchero, south of East REQUEST: T 7I'ENTATIVE MAP
ADDRESS: Palomar & north of Olympic Park~vay ~econflgure resider~l neighborho~c!~ '
FILE NUMBER:
No Scale LOCATOR PCM - 01-09 ·
C m'~l_s,~a,om,, CMO.-O~dr 12/20/00 EXHIBIT "A"
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-97-03
PROJECT NAME: Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment and Village One West South
Revised Tentative Tract No. 98-06
PROJECT LOCATION: North of Olympic Parkway, south of East Palomar Street, West
of Paseo Ranchero and East of the Sunbow planned
community
PROJECT APPLICANT: Otay Project LP
CASE NO: EIR-g7-03
DATE: March 22, 2001
I. BACKGROUND
The Otay Ranch SPA One plan was amended in 1998 to include an approximately 308-
acre area known as Vill~ige One West. A Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report
(EIR-97-03) for the Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments was certified at the
same time.
Minor boundary adjustments and changes in the layout and configuration of land uses are
proposed for an approximately lO0-acre portion of the amended SPA area, known as
Village One West South. An approximately lO-acre parcel in the northwest portion of
Village One West South was not owned by the Otay Ranch developer at the time that the
SPA One Amendments were approved. Planning for the Village One West South area was
undertaken for the entire area, regardless of ownership. Since that time, the Otay Project
LP now has ownership of all of the land within the Village One West South boundaries,
and is proposing to reconfigure land uses within the planning area.
I1. PROPOSED PROJECT
Otay Project LP proposes to amend the Otay Ranch Section Planning Area (SPA) One Plan
and to revise Tentative Tract No. 98-06. The changes to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map
include the following:
1) Relocation of a proposed neighborhood park (P13) from the east side of the
project area (consistent with the approved SPA Plan) to the west side of the
project area;
2) Reconfiguration of the residential neighborhood layout and inclusion of the
approximately lO-acre property adjacent to Sunbow ("out-parcel") that was
excluded from Tentative Tract Map No. 98-06;
3) Adjustment of the number of dwelling units to include the lO-acre out-parcel
EIR-97-03 Addendum #2 1 03/22/01
~ ~ EXHIBIT "D"
4) Addition of an approximately 0.5 acre area of land that is currently part of
the Sunbow II SPA, and is identified as Single-Family Residential on the Site
Utilization Plan for that SPA.
This amendment is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP approved by the City Council in 1993, and requires minor amendments to the
amended SPA One plan that was approved in 1998. A Final Second Tier Environmental
Impact Report (EIR-97-03) for the Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments was
certified on November 10, 1998.
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (§15162) establishes the conditions
under which a subsequent EIR shall be prepared.
A. When an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be
prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
the EIR was prepared.
B. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes
available after preparation of an EIR, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent
EIR if required under subsection A. Otherwise the lead agency shall determine
whether to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum or no
further documentation (Guidelines § 15162).
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that:
A. The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some
changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
B. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or
attached to the final EIR.
C. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to
making a decision on the project.
EIR-97-03 Addendum //2 2 03/22/01
D. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to
Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's
required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation
must be supported by substantial evidence.
This addendum has been prepared to pursuant to the requirements of Section 15164 of
the State CEQA Guidelines. Moving the neighborhood park site from one side of the site to
the other, with the accompanying modifications to land use layout, and the addition of 0.5
acre of development area does not constitute a substantial change to the previously
approved project, nor would there be a substantial change in circumstances under which
the project would be constructed, and no new information of substantial importance has
been presented. The modifications proposed for Village One West South would not result
in any environmental effects that were not considered in EIR-97-03, nor would the
changes increase the severity of any of the impacts identified in EIR-97-03. The mitigation
measures identified in EIR-97-03 would be equally applicable to the revised project.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
City has prepared the following addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
for the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR-97-03.
III. ANALYSIS
An Environmental Checklist Form was completed to determine if the modifications to the
project would change any of the analyses contained in EIR-97-03. The conclusion is that
previously identified environment impacts would not be intensified as a result of the
changes, nor would any new impacts result. A copy of the checklist is attached.
EIR-97-03 Addendum #2 3 03/22/01
IV. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based upon the above
discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only
minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental
Impact Report adequate under CEQA.
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
References: General Plan, City of Chula Vista
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures
Otay Ranch General Development Plan
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendments
EIR-97-03 Addendum #2 4- 03/22/01
Case No. IS-
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: Otay Project LP
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 350 W. Ash St. Ste 730
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 234-4088
(619) 234-4050 (fax)
4. Name of Proposal: Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment
and Village One West South Revised
Tentative Tract No. 98-06
5. Date of Checklist: March 22, 2001
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. WouM the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or [] D D []
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [] [] [] []
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations [] ~ ~ []
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of [] [] [] []
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Comments: Development of Village One West South was evaluated in the Final Second Tier EIR for
the Ota¥ Ranch SPA One Plan (SPA One EIR) that was certified on November 10,
1998. The proposed project would add an additional 0.5 acre in the northwest corner of
the proposed site that is currently part of the Sunbow planned community, and is
designated as single-family residential on the Sunbow II SPA Plan, Site Utilization Plan.
Development of the 0.5-acre area as proposed by the project, would be consistent with
the land use designation identified in the Sunbow II SPA Plan. The reconfiguration of
1
in any new or changed land use compatibility issues. The SPA One EIR also concluded
that agricultural impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level by
implementation of the Agricultural Plan for SPA One (p. 10-30). The proposed
reconfiguration of uses and addition of the 0.5 -acre area would not disrupt an established
community because the area is undeveloped.
The proposed modifications to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map would be consistent with
the adopted SPA One Plan land use designations because the proposed uses and intensity
of development would remain the same.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. WouM the ~,,,..t~y sioaac~t L~. ~
proposal: l,~,~c, Mitigated Ih~act Impact
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] [] r2 []
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either [] [] ~ []
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [] [] ~ []
housing?
Comments: The proposed modifications to the SPA One Plan would not substantially change the
overall level of development proposed for Village One West South, from what was
evaluated and approved for the SPA One Plan. Therefore, the proposed modifications
would not induce growth into the area, cause population projections to be exceeded, or
displace housing.
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or ~'ot~n~ny s~vanc~t L~. ~n
expose people to potential impacts involving: ~a~t Mi~g~t~d ~v.~ct ~,~t
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic [] [] c~ []
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] [] ~ ~
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief [] [] t~ []
features?
d) The destruction, coveting or modification of any [] [] D []
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, [] [] [] []
either on or off the site?
t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, [] [] t~ []
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a fiver or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or
lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic [] [] [] []
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The SPA One EIR determined that the development of residences, schools, and community
facilities for Village One West South would result in structures that are at risk due to
geologic and seismic hazards (p. 5.5-5). While the changes proposed in the SPA plan and
Tentative Map involve minor changes to the grading plan for the project, the changes to the
grading plan would not result in any previously unidentified geophysical impacts, and the
mitigation measures would be equally applicable to the new location. Geologic and Soils
impacts were also addressed for the 0.5-acre area to be added from the Sunbow II SPA area
in the Final EIR for the Sunbow GDP (Sunbow EIR). The conclusions and mitigation
measures identiifed in the Sunbow E1R were similar to those in the SPA One EIR. No
major geologic conditions would constrain the development of the site in the manner
proposed by the revised Tentative Tract Map. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-
1 through 5.5-4 in the SPA One E1R would reduce potential impacts to below a level of
significance (p. 10-29).
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, [] [] [] []
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related [] ra [] []
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration [] [] [] []
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] [] [] []
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of [] [] [] []
water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either [] [] [] []
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? [] [] [] []
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? [] [] [] []
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? [] [] [] []
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water [] [] [] []
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The proposed reconfiguration of lots and the relocation of the
proposed park (P13} would result in changes to the grading plan for
3
the Village One West South site that would affect the drainage
patterns as previously analyzed. However, the grading plan
modifications do not represent substantial changes in drainage
patterns or in the quality of the runoff from the proposed uses. On-
site drainage facilities would be constructed as part of the site development. Potentially
significant hydrology/water quality impacts associated development of the Village One
West South site would be mitigated to a less than significant level by mitigation measures
5.9-1 and 5.9-2 (p. 10-31). Water-related impacts were also addressed for
the 0.5-acre area to be added from the Sunbow II SPA area in the
Final EIR for the Sunbow GDP (Sunbow EIR). The conclusions and
mitigation measures identified in the Sunbow EIR were similar to
those in the SPA One EIR. Modifications to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map for
Village One West South would not result in any previously unidentified water impacts, and
the mitigation measures identified in the SPA One EIR would be equally applicable to the
revised configuration of land uses.
IV. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Signffielmt U~less Significant No
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to [] [] [] []
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [] [] []
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or [] [] [] []
cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] []
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non- [] [] [] []
stationary sources of ak emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The SPA One EIR determined that significant, unmitigated air quality impacts would occur
as a result of implementing the entire SPA One Plan Amendment (p. 10-31 ). Modifications
to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map for Village One West South, including reconfiguration
of land uses and addition of a 0.5-acre area to the total development area would not result
in any substantial additional air quality impacts. Short-term construction and long-term
traffic impacts would not be exacerbated by the proposed changes. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted at the time the EIR was certified.
V. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would PotentiallySignificant Less than
the proposal result in: h,~¢t Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] [] []
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., [] [] [] []
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby [] [] [] []
uses?
[] I3 [] I~
4
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [] [] [] []
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [] [] [] []
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [] [] [] []
h) A "large project" under the Congestion [] [] [] []
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: The proposed modifications to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map for Village One West
South would not result any substantial changes to the types or quantities of land uses that
were analyzed for traffic and circulation impacts in the SPA One EIR. The
reconfiguration of street patterns within the project would not
substantially change circulation patterns, either within or outside
the project area. The SPA One EIR determined that the implementation and
construction of the roadways specified in the Ota¥ Ranch SPA One Circulation Plan would
reduce traffic impacts to a level less than significant and no project-specific mitigation
measures would be required (p. 10-27).
VI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to: ~mvac~ mae, aM Im~ct lm~ct
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of [] [] [] []
concern or species that are candidates for listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? [] r2 [] []
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., [] c~ [] []
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal [] r2 [] []
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [] [] [] []
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning [] [] [] []
efforts?
Comments: Within the SPA One boundaries, the proposed revisions to the project are entirely within
the footprint of the previously analyzed and approved SPA One plan. The 0.5-acre area to
be added from the Sunbow II SPA Plan area has been previously graded and is devoid of
any native plant or animal species or habitats. Addition of the 0.5-acre area and the
proposed reconfiguration of land uses would not change any of the conclusions or
mitigation measures of the SPA One EIR with respect to biological resources, since that
EIR assumed that the entire site would be graded.
VII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. sig,,~Rt tJ,ae~ s~,~t So
Would the proposal:
5
a) Conflict with adopted ~nergy conservation [] [] [] []
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] [] []
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] [] [] []
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: The proposed modifications to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map for Village One West
South would not result in any energy and mineral resource impacts. The SPA One EIR
Initial Study checklist concluded them would be no significant impacts related to these
issues (p. 9-1).
VIII. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: ~o~y s~c~ Less
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [] []
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency [] [] [] []
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential [] [] [] []
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing soumes of [] [] [] []
potential health hazards?
e) Increased tim hazard in areas with flammable [] [] [] []
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The SPA One EIR did not identify any public safety (hazards) impacts associated with the
proposed development of the Village One West South area. Reconfiguration of the land
uses and addition of 0.5-acm of development area from The Sunbow II SPA Plan ama
would not result in any additional impacts.
IX. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: eo~nti~ny Significant Less than
Siguillcant Unlesz Sigl~ficant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels? [] [] [] []
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] []
Comments: The SPA One EIR determined that residential development within the SPA One area
would be exposed to significant impacts from roadway noise and requires mitigation
measures to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The proposed
reconfiguration of land uses within Village One West South would not substantially
change the relationship of sensitive noise receptors to noise sources. Therefore, application
of the noise mitigation measures required in the EIR would be required for the modified
project, and would reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels.
Construction noise would have potentially significant impacts on surrounding residential
6
areas. Construction noise impacts for the modified plan for Village One West South would
be the same as those analyzed in the SPA One EIR. Implementation of mitigation measure
5.11-1 would minimize the impact, but not to a less than significant level (p. 10-31). A
Statement of OvenSding Considerations was adopted when the EIR was certified.
X. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an Pot,ntan~ s~t ~ a~
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? [] [] [] []
b) Police protection? [] [] [] []
c) Schools? [] [] [] ~
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] [] [] []
roads?
e) Other governmental services? [] [] [] []
Comments: The proposed reconfiguration of land uses and addition of a 0.5-acre development area to
Village One West South would not affect the provision of fire or police services, public
facilities, or other services. The SPA One EIR did not identify any adverse public service
impacts associated with development of Village One West South.
XI. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the [] [] [] []
City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold
Standards.
a) Fire/EMS [] [] [] []
The City' s Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the
cases. The City of Chula Vista has determined that this threshold standard will be met because
fire services would be provided in accord with the Otay Ranch Fire Master Plan and EMS
Master Plan.
Comments: The SPA One EIR states that potential impacts to fire protection and emergency medical
services would be mitigated by compliance with the Master Plan and payment of fees. The
proposed modifications to land use configurations and addition of a 0.5-acre area of
development would not result in substantial changes in the ability to deliver adequate
services to the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts to fire protection and
emergency medical services are anticipated with the proposed changes.
The Findings of Fact adopted for the SPA One EIR found that the SPA One Plan and the
Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) would achieve mitigation
measures and performance standards set forth in the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Findings for
7
fire and EMS services. The City also found that performance of referenced mitigation
measures and performance standards for fire are assured through required applicant
participation in the City's development impact fee program (Findings, p. 53).
b) Police [] [] [] []
The City's Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of
4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7
minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or
less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The SPA One EIR states that potential impacts to law enforcement services would be
mitigated by compliance with the Law Enforcement Services Master Plan for Otay Ranch
and payment of mitigation fees. The proposed modifications to land use configurations and
addition of a 0.5-acre area of development would not result in substantial changes in the
ability to deliver adequate services to the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts to
law enforcement services are anticipated with the proposed changes.
The Findings of Fact adopted for the SPA One EIR found that the SPA One Plan and the
PFFP achieve mitigation measures and performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP
Findings for law enforcement services. The City also found that performance of referenced
mitigation measures and performance standards for law enforcement is assured through
required applicant participation in the City's development impact fee program (Findings, p.
52).
c) Traffic [] [] [] []
The City's Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805
are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or
"F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are
exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Comments: The SPA One EIR determined that the implementation and construction of roadways
specified in the Ota¥ Ranch SPA One Circulation Plan would reduce traffic impacts to a
level less than significant and no project specific mitigation measures are required (p. 10-
27). Reconfiguration of land uses within Village One West South and the addition of 0.5-
acre of development area would not result in any potential impacts not previously
considered.
d) Parks/Recreation [] [] [] []
The City's Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
8
Comments: The reconfiguration of land uses and addition of a 0.5-acre development area within
Village One West South would not increase the demand for additional parkland or
recreational services. Moving the neighborhood park site from the eastern area of Village
One West South to the western area would not result in any impacts not previously
considered, since the total acreage of park land would not be reduced.
e) Drainage [] [] [] []
The City's Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The reconfiguration of land uses and addition of a 0.5-acre development area within
Village One West South would not impede the project's ability to comply with City
Engineering Standards, and would not result in any impacts not previously considered. The
project site, including the additional 0.5-acre area to be added from the Sunbow 1I SPA
area would be served by drainage infrastructure to be provided through the development of
Village One West South.
f) Sewer [] [] [] []
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The SPA One EIR determined that the SPA One Plan Amendment would not result in a
substantial increase in sewer flows and that no significant impacts would occur (p. 5.12-
12). The reconfiguration of land uses and addition of a 0.5-acre development area within
Village One West South would not result in any sewer impacts not previously considered.
The project site, including the additional 0.5-acre area to be added from the Sunhow II
SPA area would be served by sewer infrastructure to be provided through the development
of Village One West South.
g) Water [] [] [] []
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards
are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with
this Threshold Standard.
9
Comments: The SPA One EIR determined that the SPA One Plan Amendment would not result in
substantial increase in water demand and that no significant impacts would occur (p. 5.12-
4). The reconfiguration of land uses and addition of a 0.5-acre development area within
Village One West South would not result in any new impacts not previously considered.
The project site, including the additional 0.5-acm area to be added from the Sunbow II
SPA area would be served by water infrastructure to be provided through the development
of Village One West South.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would ~o~nt~ny Signi~ant Lessthan
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or ~n,~ct mag~d ~,act ~,,~ct
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? [] [] [] []
b) Communications systems? [] [] [] []
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution [] [] [] []
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? [] [] [] []
e) Storm water drainage? [] [] [] []
f) Solid waste disposal? [] [] [] []
Comments: Public service demands were analyzed in the SPA One EIR (see Section 12). The
mconfiguration of land uses and addition of a 0.5-acre development area within Village
One West South would not require new systems or substantial alterations to any of the
planned service systems. The project site, including the additional 0.5-acre area to be
added from the Sunbow ll SPA area would be served by utility and service system
infrastructure to be provided through the development of Village One West South.
XIII. AESTHETICS. WouM the proposal: ~,~ct ~ti~t.a ~,..ct ~,~ct
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the [] [] [] []
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic [] [] [] []
mute?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] [] []
d) Create added light or glare sources that could [] [] [] []
increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause
this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 197
e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? [] [] [] []
Comments: The proposed project is a reconfiguration of lotting and street
patterns previously proposed and evaluated for environmental
10
impacts. The recortfiguration of uses would not substantially
change the visual character of the proposed development from that
previously analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for the
proposed Otay Ranch SPA One project.
The proposed modifications would not result in any impacts not previously considered and
the mitigation measures would be equally applicable to the new configuration of uses. The
location of the neighborhood park site and its orientation to residential land uses would be
similar to the previously identified location, and would require similar impact avoidance
measures, such as shielding of lighting. Implementation of mitigation measures 5.4-1
through 5.4-3 of the SPA One EIR (EIR 97-03 ) would reduce the impacts, but not to below
a level of significance. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted when the'
EIR was certified.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: rot~Uy Sig~m~t L~t~
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the [] r~ [] []
destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or [] [] [] []
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a [] [] [] []
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or [] [] [] []
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan [] [] [] ~
EIR as an area of high potential for archeological
Comments: Within the SPA One boundaries, the proposed changes to the plan would not involve
grading beyond the area previously analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Otay
Ranch SPA One project or the Sunbow GDP EIR. The SPA One EIR determined that no significant
cultural resources existed within this area. Therefore, the proposed revisions to the project would not have a
significant effect on cultural resources. The 0.5-acre area to be added from the Sunbow II SPA has been
previously graded and disturbed as part of the Sunbow development.
XV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the [] [] [] []
proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction
of paleontological resources ?
Comments: The Village One West South site is underlain by alluvium (Qal), Otay Formation (Oo), and
11
San Diego Formation (Tsd). Both Oo and Tsd formations are likely to contain fossil resoumes (see SPA
One EIR, p. 5.7-3). Implementation of mitigation measures 5.7-1 through 5.7-4 would reduce potential
impacts to below a level of significance (p. 10-30). The 0.5-acre area to be added from the Sunbow II SPA
has been previously graded and disturbed as part of the Sunbow development.
XVI. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less than
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or [] [] [] []
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? r3 [] [] []
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans t~ [] [] []
or programs?
Comments: The changes to the project involve a relocation of the neighborhood park
site to a different portion of the project. The changes would not affect the
amount of park acreage proposed for the project, nor would it
substantially increase demand for recreational facilities.
Potentially
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Po~.t~ny Slgniflcaat Less tha.
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for ~p~ct Mitigated Impact Impact
mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is
needed, this section shouM be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade [] r~ [] []
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods or California history or prehistory?
Comments: The proposed reconfiguration of land uses and addition of 0.5-acre of development area
within Village One West South would not degrade the quality of the environment because
the changes are consistent with the land use types, quantities and intensities of those
analyzed in the SPA One EIR and in the Sunbow EIR.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve [] [] [] []
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: The reconfiguration of land uses and addition of 0.5-acre of development area would be
consistent with the approved land use plan, as analyzed in the SPA One EIR, and in the
12
Sunbow EIR, with respect to relationship of short-term and long-term environmental goals.
c) Does the project have impacts that are [] [] [] []
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
Comments: Cumulative effects related to the development of Village One West South were considered
in the SPA One EIR, and no adverse cumulative effects were identified (SPA One EIR,
Section 6). Reconfiguration of land uses and addition of a 0.5-acre development area
would not result in any cumulative effects that were not considered in the SPA One EIR.
Signi~aat Ual~ss $ignl~aat No
d) Does the project have environmental effects, [] [] [] []
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: Reconfiguration of land uses and addition of a 0.5-acre development area would not result
in any adverse effects on human beings that were not considered in the SPA One EIR.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
No mitigation measures are required.
13
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective companyl~s authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained
herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign
the line(s) provided below prior to adoption of the Addendum shall indicate the ApplicantsD and/or OperatorDs
· desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval.
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Signature of Authorized Representative of Date
[Property Owner's Name]
Printed Name and Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Signature of Authorized Representative of Date
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning fl Transportation/Circulation ~ Public Services
Population and Housing I] Biological Resources [1 Utilities and Service
Systems
Geophysical ~ Energy and Mineral Resources ~ Aesthetics
Water [~ Hazards ~ Cultural Resources
Air Quality [~ Noise [']Recreation
PaleontologicalResources ~ Mandatory Findings of Significance
14
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and ~
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ~
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an []
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at []
least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects ·
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to
provide a record of this determination.
Signatut~ -
/) Date ,~/~,~/~/
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDED OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS TO MODIFY THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP FOR
VILLAGE ONE WEST.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this ordinance is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 98-06A, and is commonly known as
Village One West (South) ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application to amend the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Planned
Community District Regulations Zoning District Map was filed with the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department on December 6, 2000 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay Ranch
Company ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the modified Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations
Zoning District Map is intended to ensure that the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan is prepared in
accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), to implement the City of Chula
Vista General Plan for eastern Chula Vista, to promote the orderly planning and long term phased
development of the Otay Ranch GDP and to establish conditions which will enable the amended
Otay Ranch SPA One area to exist in harmony within the community ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations
and Zoning District Map is established pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
specifically Chapter 19.48 (PC) Planned Community Zone, and are applicable the Otay Ranch SPA
One Land Use Plan of the amended SPA One Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations
modifies the SPA One Zoning District Map to reflect zoning district boundary adjustments to the
Single-Family Three, Single-Family Four, and Open Space/Park One Zoning Districts located in
south portion of Otay Ranch Village One West; and,
WHEREAS, the developmem of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No. 19375, wherein
the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH//94101046 ("EIR
95-01"), and the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03,
SCH #97091079 ("EIR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP was approved by the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista on November 10, 1998 and an amendment to the SPA One Plan was
approved by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
19375 (PCM 97-11), which added Village One West to the Otay Ranch SPA One area; and,
WHEREAS, the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan refmes and implements the land plans,
goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista on October, 23, 1993, and as amended on May 14, 1996, and November 10, 1998; and,
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development
environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01, FEIR 97-03, that is virtually
identical in all relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers, lot configurations, transportation
corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said former environmental evaluations; and
VqHEREAS, the City' s Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts
associated with the proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One (SPA)
Planned Community District Regulations modifying the SPA One Zoning District Map, to reflect
zoning district boundary adjustments to the Single-Family Three, Single-Family Four, and Open
Space/Park One Zoning Districts located in south portion of Otay Ranch Village One West have
been previously identified in amended SPA One Plan FEIR 97-03 and has therefore, prepared an
addendum to that document, identified as Exhibit "D" in the amended Otay Ranch SPA One
Resolution No. ; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-01-09) and notice of said
hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project
site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
March 28, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed.
WHEREAS, by a vote of 6-0-0-I, the Planning Commission recommended approval the
project; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista on the Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment modifying the neighborhood boundaries on the SPA
One Land Use Map, and Village One West Land Use Map, and adopting the ordinance to modify the
Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations Zoning District Map for Village One
West; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
Ordinance No.
Page 3
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on the amended SPA One Plan held on March 28, 2001 and the minutes and
resolutions therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These
documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the
entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
claims.
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves an amendment to the SPA One Planned Community
District Regulations modifying the Zoning District Map of the SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations, identified as Exhibit "B" in this ordinance, finding that
they are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the
public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice
support their approval and implementation.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the FEIR 97-03,
would have no new effects that were not examined in said FEIR [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)];
and
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT 'vVITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR
The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the Project from the FEIR
97-03 which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial changes have
occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken since the
previous reports; (3) and no new information of substantial importance to the Project has
become available since the issuance and approval of the prior reports; and that, therefore, no
new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to those
already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City
Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered by
the FEIR 97-03 [Guideline 15168(c)(2) and 15162(a)].
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council found that pursuant to Resolution No. that the Addendum
prepared to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 97-03 identified as Exhibit "D" in the amended Otay
Ranch SPA One Resolution No. reflects the independent judgement of the
Ordinance No.
Page 4
City Council of the City of Chula Vista and adopted the Addendum to Otay Ranch SPA One
EIR 97-03.
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES
The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this approval
all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings adopted in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for FEIR 97-03.
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project was
fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the FEIR 97-03 adequately describes
and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA [Guideline 15168(e)].
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED SPA ONE PLAN AMENDMENT MODIFYING THE SPA ONE
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS ZONING DISTRICT
MAP IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment modifying the
Otay Ranch SPA One Zoning District Map reflects the land uses, cimulation system,
open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses consistent with the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan.
B. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN
AMENDMENT WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA One Plan Amendments contain provisions and requirements to ensure the
orderly, phased development of the project.
C. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN
AMENDMENT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE,
RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer adjacent to
other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay Ranch
Ordinance No.
Page 5
Sectional Planning Area One. A neighborhood park will be located within the
Village One West area to serve the project residents, and the project will provide
housing types compatible with Sunbow Master Planned Community, as required by
the General Development Plan. A comprehensive street network serves the project
and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan closely
follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable
off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay
Ranch Environmental Impact Report.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter John M. Kaheny
Planning and Building Director City Attorney
Ordinance No.
Page 6
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 24~ day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Rindone, Padilla, S alas and Horton
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAiN: Councilmembers: None
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular
meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 24~hday of April, 2001.
Executed this 24th day of April, 2001.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
P-13
PARK SITE
S-3
FUTURE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOI
PROJECT BOUNDARY
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: T~
APPLICANT: OTAY PROJECT L.P,
Otay Ranch Village One West (S) SPA AMENDMEN REVISED
~ ADDREss:PROJECT eastofPaseoaanchero, southofEast REQUEST: /FENTATIVE MAP
Palomar & no~th of Olympic Parkway ~econ§gure residen~l neighborhoods
" ~ LOCATOR FILE NUMBER:
No Scale PCM - 01-09
C:\myfile$'J-~cato~s~PCM01-09 cdr 12/20/00 E×HIBIT "A'
o ~ -~'
0
EXHIBIT
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A REVISED TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR VILLAGE ONE WEST OF THE
OTAY RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE
PLAN, CHULA VISTA TRACT 98-06A AND MAKING THE
NECESSARY FINDINGS.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 98-06A, and is commonly
known as Village One West (South) ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, The Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant") filed a duly verified application
for the subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known as
"Revised Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 98-06A", ("Project"), with the Planning and Building
Department of the City of Chula Vista on August 31, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the application requested the approval for the subdivision o£ approximately
147.7 acres located west of Paseo Ranchero, north of Olympic Parkway, south of East Palomar
Street, and east of the Sunbow Planned Community into 445 residential lots, 8 private street lots,
62 common lots, one neighborhood park, one elementary school, and 6 open space lots for a total
of 523 lots; and,
WHEREAS, thc development of the Property has been the subject matter of the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan ("GDP') previously approved by the City Council on October
28, 1993 by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on November 10, 1998 by Resolution No.
19253 ("GDP Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said
GDP, relied in part on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report
No. 90-01, SCH #9010154 ("Program EIR 90-01"); and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4,
1996 by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No. 19375,
wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part
on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH
#94101046 ("EIR 95-01"), and the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 97-03, SCH #97091079 ("EIR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an amendment to the SPA One Plan, (PCM-01-09), and
said amendment was adopted by the City Council on April 24, 2001 by Resolution No. __3
and,
WItEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development
environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01, FEIR 97-03, and addendum
Resolution No.
Page 2
thereto, that is virtually identical in all relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers,
lot configurations, transportation corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said former
environmental evaluations; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and
has determined that it is in substantial conformance with the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
and the related environmental documents and that the Project would not result in any new
environmental effects that were not previously identified, nor would the proposed Project result
in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and
has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed Otay Ranch Village One West
(South) "Revised Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 98-06A" have been previously identified in
amended SPA One Plan FEIR 97-03 and has therefore, prepared an addendum to that document,
identified as Exhibit "D" in the Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment, Resolution No. ;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Village One West (South) "Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 98-06A)" and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
March 28, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, by a vote of 6-0-0-1 the Planning Commission approved the project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay Ranch
Village One West (South) "Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 98-06A)" 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, a hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on April 24, 2001 in
the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was
thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL finds, determines, and resolves as
follows:
Resolution No.
Page 3
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on this project held on March 28, 2001, and the minutes and resolution
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE VqITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Program
EIR 90-01, Second-Tier FEIR 95-01, subsequent Second-Tier FEIR 97-03, would have
no new effects that were not examined in the preceding Program EIR 90-01, Second-Tier
FEIR 95~01, and subsequent Second-Tier FEIR 97-03 [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)]; and
III. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR
The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the Project from the
Program EIR and the FEIR which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circttmstances under which the
Project is undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new information of
substantial importance to the Project has become available since the issuance and
approval of the prior reports; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur or no new
mitigation measures will be required in addition to those already in existence and made a
condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City Council approves the Project as
an activity that is within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR and FEIR,
and an Addendum has been prepared [Guideline 15168 (c)(2) and 15162 (a)].
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council found pursuant to SPA One Amendment, Resolution No. that
the addendum prepared to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 97-03, identified as Exhibit "D" in
the Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment, Resolution No. reflects the
independent judgement of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista a~d adopted the
Addendum.
V. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES
The City Council does hereby readopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this
approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings
adopted in the Otay Ranch GDP approval (90-01) and SPA One Plan approval (95-01),
and subsequent SPA One Plan approval (97-03).
Resolution No.
Page 4
VI. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project
was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the GDP EIR (90-01), the
original SPA One Plan EIR (95-01), and the subsequent SPA One Plan EIR (97-03)
adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA [Guideline
15168 (e)].
VII. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the Otay Ranch Village One West (South) "Revised Tentative
Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 98-06A) as conditioned, attached as Exhibit "B", herein for
The Otay Ranch Company, is in conformance with all the various elements of the City's
General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area
One Plan as amended, based on the following:
1. Land Use
The Project is in a planned community that provides single-family
residential uses, parkland uses, school uses, and open space. The Project
is also consistent with General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP, and Otay Ranch
SPA One Plan policies related to grading and landforms.
2. Circulation
All of the on-site and off-site public and private improvements required to
serve the subdivision are part of the project description or are conditioned
consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and the Otay
Ranch SPA One Plan. The Applicant shall construct those facilities in
accordance with City and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan standards.
3. Housing
An affordable housing agreement between the City and The Otay Ranch
Company (Master Developer) has been executed and is applicable to
subject Project providing for low and moderate income households.
Resolution No.
Page 5
4. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Parks, recreation and open space will be conditioned under "A" Map
conditions to dedicate a 5.1-net acre minimum park site. Construction of
Park and open space and programmable recreation facilities are the
responsibility of the Applicant.
5. Conservation
The Program EIR and FEIR's addressed the goals and policies of the
Conservation Element of the General Plan and found development of this
site to be consistent with these goals and policies. The Otay Ranch Phase
Two Resource Management Plan requires conveyance of 1.18 acres of
land to the Otay Ranch Preserve for every one-acre of developed land
prior to approval of any Final Map.
6. Seismic Safety
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of
the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site. No seismic faults
have been identified in the vicinity of the Project according to the Otay
Ranch SPA One Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report.
7. Public Safety
All public and private facilities are expected to be reachable within the
threshold response times for fire and police services.
8. Public Facilities
The Applicant will provide all on-site and off-site streets, sewers and
water facilities necessary to serve this Project. The developer will also
contribute to the Otay Water District's improvement requirements to
provide terminal water storage for this Project as well as other major
projects in the eastern territories.
9. Noise
The Project may include noise attenuation walls under review in an
acoustic study currently being prepared for the Project. In addition, all
units are required to meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code
with regard to acceptable interior noise levels.
Resolution No.
Page 6
10. Scenic Highway
The roadway design provides wide landscaped buffers along Olympic
Parkway (formerly Orange Avenue) the only General Plan, GDP/SRP
scenic highways adjacent to the Project.
11. Bicycle Routes
The Project is required to provide on-site bicycle routes on East Palomar
Street, Pasco Ranchero, and Olympic Parkway as indicated in the regional
circulation system of the General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP.
12. Public Buildings
Public buildings are not proposed on the Project site as part of the
community purpose facility locations. The Project is subject to
appropriate residential fees prior to issuance of building permits.
The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlemem herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created
by the proposed development.
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE WEST (SOUTH) REVISED
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (C.V.T. 98-06A) IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE OTAY RANCH GDP/SRP, AND OTAY RANCH SPA ONE
AMENDMENTS, AND IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA
GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch Village One West (South) Revised Tentative Map (C.V.T. 98-
06A) implements the recently approved Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan Amendment, and reflects the land uses, circulation system, open space
and recreational uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
and Chula Vista General Plan.
B. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE WEST (SOUTH), REVISED
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (C.V.T. 98-06A) WILL PROMOTE THE
ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
Resolution No.
Page 7
The proposed Otay Ranch Village One West (South) Revised Tentative Map
(C.V.T. 98-06A) implements the SPA One Plan amendment and SPA One Public
Facilities Financing Plan containing provisions and requirements to ensure the
orderly, phased development of the project.
C. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE WEST (SOUTH), REVISED
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (C.V.T. 98-06A) IMPLEMENTATION
WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer adjacent
to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay
Ranch SPA One. A comprehensive street network serves the Project and provides
for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan closely follows all
existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site
impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch
Environmental Impact Report(s).
IX. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "B", attached hereto.
X. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
The City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the conditions set forth in
Section VII and Section IX listed above and based upon the findings and determinations
on the record for this Project.
XI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further condition issuance
of all future building permits issued under the authority of approvals herein granted,
institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek
damages for their violation.
XII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and
that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a
Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution
shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
Robert A. Leiter J0hI~eny
Director of Planning and Building City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 24th day of April, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Rindone, Padilla, Salas and Horton
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAiN: Councilmembers: None
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 24th day of April, 2001.
Executed this 24th day of April, 2001.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
P-13
PARK SITE
S-3
FUTURE
ELEMENTARY SCH
PROJECT BOUNDARY
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
~ .~ APPLICANT: OTAY PROJECT L.P. SPA T_/ REVISED
PROJECT O~y Ranch Village One West (S) AMENDMEN
ADDRESS: east of Paseo Ranchero, south of East REQUEST: /TENTATIVE MAP
Palomar & north of Olympic Parkway ~econfigure residerf~l neighborhond~
FILE NUMBER: :
· No Scale LOCATOR PCM- 01-09
C \myfiles~J3cators~PCM01-09 cd r ~ ,
,2:2000 EXHIBIT "A"
Exhibit "B'
Village One West (South) Revised Tentative Subdivision Map
(C.V.T. 98-06A)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the conditions and Code requirements set forth
below shall be completed prior to the related final map as determined by the Director of Planning
and Building and the City Engineer (b) unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the
appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is required the applicant shall be
required to provide subordination of any prior lien and easement holders in order to ensure that the
City has a first priority interest and rights in such land unless otherwise excused by the City. Where
fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free and clear of all encumbrances,
unless otherwise excused by the City.
Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict
shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee.
GENERAL/PRELIMINARY
1. Comply with all requirements and guidelines of the SPA One Parks, Recreation Open Space
and Trails Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA
One Affordable Housing Plan, and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, as
amended from time to time, unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head,
with the approval of the City Manager. These plans may be subject to minor modifications
by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager, however, any
material modifications shall be subject to approval by the City Council.
2. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any
or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean
"Applicant".
3. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are,
by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to
be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny,
or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein
granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or
seek damages for their violation. The applicant shall be notified 10 days in advance prior to
any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to
remedy any deficiencies identified by the City.
4. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any
and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the
1
Environmental Impact Report and subsequent environmental review for the Project and any
or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project.
5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable SPA One conditions of approval, as may be
amended from time to time.
6. Any and all agreements that the applicant is required to enter in hereunder, shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
7. The terms, conditions and time limits associated with this tentative map shall be consistent
with the Development Agreement approved by Ordinance No. 2679 by the City Council on
July 16, 1996 ("Development Agreement") and as amended on October 22, 1996.
8. The applicant shall comply with the terms of the Conveyance Agreement, as may be
amended from time to time, adopted by Resolution No. 18416 by the City Council on
October 22, 1996 ("Conveyance Agreement").
ENVIRONMENTAL
9. The applicant shall implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01,
subsequent EIR 97-03, the CEQA Findings of Fact for this Project (on file in the City Clerk's
Office) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (on file in the City Clerk's
Office).
10. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by the City
Council on June 4, 1996 and as may be amended from time to time by the City.
11. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant shhll comply with the Otay Ranch
Resource Preserve Conveyance Plan.
12. The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the Califomia Department
offish and Game, the U.S. Department offish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
13. All on-site locations of vernal pools and Otay Tarplant shall be depicted on all grading plans
as sensitive areas, and if to be preserved, shall be preserved in perpetuity, and shall be
appropriately fenced and buffered. The location and preservation of these resources shall be
verified by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
The applicant shall not "take" the Otay Tarplant or disturb the vernal pools until such time as
authorization for such action, if necessary, is obtained from the appropriate resource agency.
2
S~'ECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
14. The following conditions of approval are based upon the project having multiple Final Maps
for the entire subdivision, which shall be referenced hereinafter as "Final 'B' Maps". Unless
otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully
completed to the City's reasonable satisfaction prior to approval of the first Final 'B' Map.
15. Prior to approval of the first final "B"map within the tentative map, the developer shall
submit and obtain the approval of the City of a master final map ("A" Map) over the portion
of the tentative map within each area showing "super block" lots corresponding to the units
and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof. Said "A" map shall also show open
space lot dedications, the backbone street dedications and utility easements required to serve
the "super block" lots created by this "A" Map. All "super block" lots created by this "A"
Map or parcel map shall have access to a dedicated public street. A lot line adjustment, if
utilized in accordance with City standards and procedures, shall not be considered the first
"A" Map. The "A" Map may contain single-family residential units.
16. The subsequent development of a multi-family lot which does not require the filing ofa "B"
map shall meet, prior to issuance of a building permit for that lot, all the applicable
conditions of approval of the tentative map, as determined by the City Engineer.
Construction of non-backbone streets adjacent to multiple-family lots will not need to be
bonded for with the final "A" map, which created such lot. However, such improvements
will be required to be constructed under the Municipal Code provisions requiring
construction of street improvements under the design review and building issuance permit
processes.
17. In the event of a filing of a final 'B' map which requires oversizing of the improvements
necessary to serve other properties, said final map shall be required to install all necessary
improvements to serve the project plus the necessary oversizing of facilities required to serve
such other properties (in accordance with the restrictions of state law and City ordinances).
DESIGN
18. Any proposed monumentation/signage shall be consistent with the SPA One Village Design
Plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to
approval of the appropriate final map.
19. In addition to the requirements outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual,
privately maintained slopes in excess of 25 feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated to
soften their appearance as follows: one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of
slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and
appropriate groundcover. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften
and vary the slope plane. Landscape and irrigation plans for private slopes shall be reviewed
and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of the appropriate
final map.
3
20. A comprehensive wall plan for the Project, except for lots #16-#29 in Neighborhood R-54,
indicating color, materials, height and location shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of the first final "B" Map for the Project_.
Materials and color used shall be compatible and all walls located in comer side-yards or rear
yards facing public or private streets or pedestrian connections shall be constructed of a
decorative masonry and/or wrought iron material. A revised acoustical analysis indicating if
view fencing, such as a combination of masonry and wrought iron, is allowable at the ends of
cul-de-sacs and other lots backing up to Telegraph Canyon Road, East Palomar Street,
Olympic Parkway, and Paseo Ranchero, shall be prepared prior to submittal of the wall plan
indicated above. If such fencing is allowable per the final acoustical analysis it shall be
provided at the ends of such streets as determined by the Directors of Public Works and
Planning and Building. View fencing shall be provided at the ends of all other open cul-de-
sacs where a sound wall is not required. Any combination free standing/retaining walls shall
not exceed 8.5 feet in height. The applicant shall submit a detail and/or cross section of the
maximum/minimum conditions for all "combination walls" which include retaining and free
standing walls. Said detail shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and
Building prior to the approval of the first final "B" map. The maximum height of all
retaining walls shall be 2.5 feet in height when combined with freestanding walls, which are
six feet in height. A 2-3 foot separation shall be provided between free standing and
retaining walls where the combined height would otherwise exceed 8.5 feet.
21. As to those walls located within lots 16 through 29 in Neighborhood R-54 the following
shall apply: The applicant shall submit to and obtain approval of the Directors of Planning
and Building and Parks and Recreation plans for the design of said walls within 60 days of
approval of the first "A" map for the Project. The applicant shall construct the approved
walls, which shall be a maximum of 6 feet in height, prior to issuance of building permits for
said lots. Said walls and related footings shall not be located on park property. The CC&R's
for the Project shall provide for HOA maintenance including graffiti removal of both sides of
the walls. A minimum 2-foot access easement subject to the approval of the City Engineer
and Director of Parks and Recreation shall be provided by applicant, prior to approval of the
B Map for Neighborhood R-54, on both side of the walls to facilitate such maintenance.
22. Prior to the approval of the final 'B' map for Neighborhood R-57, the applicant shall submit
and obtain approval of the site plan, and such approval shall be at the discretion of the
Zoning Administrator.
23. A minimum of thirty percent of all 60xl 10 feet lots in each final map shall be provided with
Hollywood driveways, and comply with the requirements of the Otay Ranch SPA One
Planned Community District Regulations as may be amended from time to time.
24. The developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the Otay Ranch SPA One,
Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) as may be amended from time to time or as required
by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The
4
City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the
sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
25. Prior to the approval of a rough grading permit for the Project, the Developer shall submit
and obtain the approval of the City Engineer of a design study for the proposed joint access
from East Palomar Street to the P-13 park site and the adjacent school site (Sunbow II Unit
11). The study shall address the location, dimensions and intersection design and
signalization of the access at East Palomar Street. The study shall also discuss the timing of
construction of the access relative to the development of the park and school sites, provide
an estimate of the cost and propose financing of the access improvements acceptable to the
City and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. Prior to the approval of the first final
"A" Map, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City and in the City's
discretion, the Chula Vista Elementary School District and Ayres Land Development
Company (Sunbow Master Developer), to construct the access improvements in
conformance with the approved study and in accordance with plans approved by the City
and the Chula Vista Elementary School District.
STREETS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
26. Developer shall dedicate for public use all the public streets shown on the tentative map
within the subdivision boundary. Prior to the approval of the first "A" map, the applicant
shall construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure o£all street improvements
as required by the PFFP, for each particular phase, as may be amended from time to time.
The Developer shall construct the public improvements and provide security satis£actory to
the City Engineer and City Attorney, as set forth in Table "A' below. The City Engineer and
Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence, schedule,
alignment and design ogimprovement construction should conditions change to warrant such
a revision.
TABLE A
FACILITY/ AGREE TO CONSTRUCT
LIMITS AND GUARANTEE
STREET NAME CONSTRUCTION BY
East Palomar St. Existing Improvements (in Sunbow) Per PFFP &
to Pasco Ranchero Olympic Parkway Agreement
Open Space Landscape All Open Space Lots in Concurrent with each Rough
and Irrigation Improvements Village One West 2 Grading Permit
Olympic Parkway Financing and Construction Agreement approved by Council Resolution 19410.
For any open space lot within the project for which a rough grading permit has been issued prior to the
approved Landscape and Irrigation plans for such lot, security shall be provided prior to issuance of the
rough grading permit, and to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, City Engineer, and the
City Ailomey.
5
27. Secure in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, as necessary, the
construction and/or construct full street improvements for all on-site and off-site streets as
identified in the Otay Ranch SPA One PFFP, as may be amended from time to time deemed
necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision. Said improvements shall include, but
not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer,
reclaimed water and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, traffic signals, signs,
landscaping, irrigation, fencing and fire hydrants. Street light locations shall be approved by
the City Engineer.
Street cross sections shall conform to the cross sections shown on the tentative map, unless
otherwise conditioned or approved herein. All other design criteria shall comply with the
current Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Design Standards, and the Chula
Vista Subdivision Manual unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein.
29. As part of the improvement plans associated with the final "B" Map which triggers the
installation of the related street improvements, install a fully activated traffic signal including
interconnect wiring at the following intersections:
a. East Palomar and Santa Carina
b. East Palomar and Santa Sierra
c. East Palomar Street at Park P-13
Install underground improvements, standards and luminaries with construction of street
improvements, and install mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment as determined
by the City Engineer.
30. Submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping plans for all collector or
higher classification streets simultaneously with the associated improvement plans.
31. Construct a temporary turnaround or street improvements, upon the request of and as
determined necessary by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal, at the end of temporarily
stubbed streets greater than 150 fi. in length (as measured from the nearest street centerline
intersection.
32. Design all vertical and horizontal curves and intersection sight distances to conform to the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual. All streets, which intersect other streets at or near
horizontal or vertical curves must meet intersection design sight distance requirements in
accordance with City standards. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to
comply with the requirements in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and City of Chula
Vista policies, where a conflict exists, the City of Chula Vista policies shall prevail. Lighted
SAG vertical curves will be permitted, with the approval of the City Engineer, at
intersections per AASHTO standards.
33. Waiver Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8 are approved as requested on the tentative map. Waiver No. 7 is
approved only in situations where it is not otherwise possible to attain sidewalk grades that
comply with American with Disability Act standards at street intersections. The maximum
super-elevation allowed on any street shall not exceed two-thirds the grade of the intersection
street. Waiver No. 6 is not approved.
34. Waiver Nos. 1 and 2, as indicated on the cover sheet of the tentative map, are approved,
subject to the provision that the design speed for horizontal and vertical curves on private
streets shall be 25 mph in lieu of 15 mph as provided for in the Chula Vista Subdivision
Manual. Waiver No. 9 shall have a design waiver submitted by the Engineer-of-Work to the
City Engineer stating the deviations from City standards and explaining that, in their
professional opinion, no safety considerations will be compromised. The waivers will be
subject to approval or disapproval at the discretion of the City Engineer.
35. Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to the approval of the first final map where the
developer agrees to the following:
a. Fund and install Chula Vista transit stop facilities within the tentative map boundary
when directed by the Director of Public Works. The improvement plans for said
stops shall be prepared in accordance with the transit stop details described in the
Village Design Plans and approved by the Directors of Planning and Building and
Public Works.
b. Not protest the formation of any future regional benefit assessment district to finance
the MTDB San Diego Trolley LRT System.
36. The applicant shall install all street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code. All street trees shall be planted in parkways, or as otherwise
approved by the Director of Planning and Building. Street trees, which have been selected
from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan, shall be
approved by the Director of Planning and Building and Director of Public Works. The
applicant shall provide root control methods per the requirements of the Director of Planning
and Building, and provide a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. A street tree
improvement plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Planning and Building
and the City Engineer prior to or concurrent with the second submittal of street improvement
plans withinthe subdivision. Approval of the street tree improvement plans shall constitute
final approval of the selection of street trees for the street parkways.
37. The developer shall construct sidewalks and construct pedestrian ramps on all walkways to
meet "Americans with Disabilities Act" standards and as approved by the City Engineer. In
the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of-way, which are
in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting
with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise required
by federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal
regulations, only after construction has commenced.
7
38. Prior to the issuance of any rough grading permit for the Project, the applicant shall submit a
study showing that all curb returns for any intersections in excess of 4% located within the
permit boundaries comply with all "Americans with Disabilities Act" standards at the front
and back of sidewalks.
39. The applicant shall construct two 20-foot wide, concrete (6 inch minimum depth) emergency
access roads from Olympic Parkway to Santa Sierra Drive in Neighborhood R-58 as depicted
on the Tentative Map. The emergency access roads shall be secured by a bond or as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to the approval of the first
final map for the project. The emergency access road shall be constructed concurrent with
the first rough grading for any land within the tentative map. The cross-section of the
emergency access road shall be as shown on the tentative map. Prior to the approval of the
applicable rough grading permit, the applicant shall submit a full set of road improvement
plans; including but not limited to: horizontal alignment, vertical profiles, intersection
details, drainage appurtenances and access control, all as approved by the City Engineer and
the Fire Marshal. Emergency entrances shall be provided with mechanical gates and an
"Opticom" system, or some other automated system with backup and/or fail safe features
acceptable to the Police and Fire Chief.
40. On streets where cul-de-sacs are 150 feet or less in length, the applicant shall provide a
twenty-foot setback on driveways from property line to garage and sectional roll-up type
garage doors except as provided for in the Planned Community District Regulations or
approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building.
41. Residential Street Condition 'A' as denoted on the cover page of the tentative map is the
preferred section and shall be implemented on all residential streets, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. Except that Santa
Sierra Drive between East Palomar Street and Mount Whitney, and Santa Sierra Drive,
between East Palomar and Mount Whitney, shall be a Secondary Village Entry Street as
defined in the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan.
42. In addition to those fire hydrants depicted on the tentative map, the applicant shall install
additional fire hydrants to the satisfaction of the Fire Department as follows:
a. Neighborhood R-60 Berry Creek Court, Lot #22, Lot #81
Liberty Creek Court, Lot #29
b. Neighborhood R-56 Foxtail Canyon Street, Lot # 47, Lot # 52,
Autumn Hills Drive, Lot # 33, Lot # 63
Warm Springs Circle, Lot # 72
c. Neighborhood R-58 Mount Whitney Street, Lot # 21, Lot #54
Wind River Court, Lot # 97, Lot # 74
d. Neighborhood R-55 Red Granite Drive, Lot # 36
The developer may request that the Fire Marshal in his/her sole discretion reconsider the
locations of any of the above hydrants.
43. The developer shall not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities
crossing any public street. This shall include the prohibition of the installation of sleeves for
future construction of privately owned facilities. The City Engineer may waive this
requirement if the following is accomplished:
a. The developer enters into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to
the following:
(i) Apply for an encroachment permit for installation of the private facilities
within the public right-of-way.
(ii) Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert
Service.
(iii) Mark out any private facilities owned by the developer whenever work is
performed in the area.
The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the
developer.
b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations
where private facilities traverse public streets.
44. Street names shall be as on the approved tentative map.
45. The typical cross section of Olympic Parkway including the right-of-way, regional trail, and
meandering sidewalks shall conform to the final Olympic Parkway Master Landscape Plan
by Estrada Land Planning, Inc, as may be amended from time to time. The Regional Trail
shall be located on the north side of Olympic Parkway as determined by the Director of
Planning and Building.
46. Prior to the issuance of any rough grading permit for the Project area, the applicant shall
submit and obtain the approval of a traffic study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, of
the adequacy of the paved street width and right-of-way of the entrances to the project area
from East Palomar Street at: Santa Carina Drive, Santa Sierra Drive as depicted on the
tentative map. The study shall address expected traffic volumes, available stacking distances
and turning movement volumes at each of the four locations. The study shall also
specifically consider the entrance to the elementary school site (S-3), from Santa Sierra
Drive. The study shall make specific recommendations for additional protected turn lanes at
any or all of the locations. The traffic study shall demonstrate the adequacy of Santa Sierra
9
Drive to handle school-generated traffic for the school site (S-3), to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, minimum right-of-way width and location details for points of ingress/egress.
The applicant shall comply with alt of the study recommendations. These recommendations
shall be incorporated into the design of the street improvements at these locations.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
47. Storm drain systems that collect water from private property shall be designated private on
grading and drainage and/or improvement plans to the point of connection with a public
system or to the point at which storm water that is collected from public street right-of-way,
public park or open space areas is first introduced into the system. Downstream from that
point, the storm drain system shall be public. An encroachment permit shall be processed
and approved by the City for private storm drains within the public right-of-way or within
C.F.D. maintained Open Space lots.
48. Submit with grading and drainage and/or improvement plans, as applicable, hydrologic and
hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations for all public streets.
Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage
structures, pipes and inlets.
49. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit which impacts off-site property, the applicant
shall deliver to the City, a notarized letter of permission to grade and drain for all off-site
grading.
50. Prior to the approval of any rough grading permit for Neighborhoods R-56 and R-55, if the
applicant does not secure offsite grading authority from responsible public agencies, the
applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Director of Public Works, an altemative
design for a Substantial Conformity Finding.
51. Storm drain design shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the
Grading Ordinance as may be amended from time to time.
52. Provide improved all-weather access with H-20 loading to all storm drain clean-outs or as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
53. Provide a setback, as determined by the City Engineer, between the property lines of the
proposed lots and the top or toe of any slope to be constructed where the proposed grading
adjoins undeveloped property or property owned by others. The City Engineer will not
approve the creation of any lot that does not meet the required setback.
54. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the grades and elevations shown on
the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of
Planning and Building.
10
55. Submit a list of proposed lots with the appropriate grading plan indicating whether the
structure will be located on fill, cut or a transition between the two situations unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
56. Grant on the appropriate final "B" map a 15 feet minimum drainage and access easement for
storm drain lines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City
Engineer. All other easements shall meet City standards for required width.
57. Provide runoff detention basins or other facilities approved by the City Engineer to reduce
the quantity of runoff from the development to an amount equal to or less that the present
100-year frequency runoff.
58. Development of the subdivision shall comply with all applicable regulations established by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N.P.D.E.S.) permit requirements for urban runoff
and storm water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant
to the N.P.D.E.S. regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of
Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the N.P.D.E.S.
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall
implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the
commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post
construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding
mechanisms for post construction control measures. The developer shall comply with all the
provisions of the N.P.D.E.S. and the Clean Water Program during and after all phases of the
development process, including but not limited to: mass grading, rough grading, construction
of street and landscaping improvements, and construction of dwelling units. The applicant
shall design the Project's storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best
Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City
Engineer. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued a new Municipal
Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2001-01). The permit includes regulations such as
implementation of Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPS) and Numeric
Sizing Criteria for new residential development. The applicant shall comply with all relevant
City regulations, when they become effective, including but not limited to incorporation into
the design and implementation of the Project temporary and permanent structural Best
Management Practices and non-structural mitigation measures that would reduce pollution of
storm water runoff to the maximum extent practicable.
59. Storm drain clean outs shall not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas for maintenance
equipment. Public storm drains shall be installed as close to perpendicular to the slope
contours as possible but in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the
contours.
60. Brow ditches that cross over slopes greater than 10 feet in height and steeper than 3:1
gradient shall not be allowed. Drainage shall be collected in an inlet and carried via
underground storm drain to the bottom of the slope or a drain inlet counected to an
3_3_
underground storm drain. The applicant shall ensure that brow channels and ditches
emanating from and/or running through City Open Space are not routed through private
property. Brow ditches and channels from private property shall not be routed through City
open space unless approved by the City Engineer.
61. Designate all drainage facilities draining private property to the point of connection with
public facilities as private.
62. Obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
revising the current National Flood Insurance Program maps of the downstream end of Poggi
Canyon Channel east of Brandywine Avenue to reflect the effect of the proposed drainage
improvements. The LOMR shall be completed prior to acceptance by the City of the
proposed detention facility.
63. Obtain, prior to approval of the first final "B" Map, the approval of the Director of Public
Works of any amendment necessary to make the Master Drainage plan consistent with the
approved Tentative Map. Prior to issuance of each grading permit for the Project, prepare
and obtain approval by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Building of an erosion
and sedimentation control plan.
64. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls, which are to be maintained by open space
district's shall be constructed entirely within open space lots dedicated to the City.
65. Unless otherwise provided by the Olympic Parkway Financing and Construction Agreement
dated April 20, 1999, prior to issuance of any grading permit for any land that is contained
within the Tentative Map and within the Poggi Canyon Basin, the applicant shall secure the
required permits from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Department
ofFish and Game (CDFG). No grading adjacent to the Poggi Canyon shall occur without
prior consultation with the City Mitigation Monitor, and the City Engineer.
SEWER
66. All sewer access points (manholes) shall be located at the centerline of streets or cul-de-sacs
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of Public Works.
67. Provide sewer access points at all changes of alignment of grade unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer. Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a
minimum grade of 1%.
68. Design and construct all sewers ending in a cul-de-sac with a sewer access points placed in
the center of the cul-de-sac, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
69. Provide an access road with a minimum width of 12 feet to all sanitary sewer access points
using such construction material as approved by the Director of Public Works. The roadway
shall be designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer.
12
Sewer lines shall be installed as close to perpendicular to the slope contours as possible but
in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours.
70. Grant on the appropriate final "B" Map a 20 feet minimum sewer and access easement for
sewer lines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
All other easements shall meet City standards for required width.
71. No diversion from the natural boundaries of the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin will be allowed
unless approved by the City Engineer. Only temporary diversion may be approved and only
in the event of lack of capacity for the Project in the Poggi Canyon trunk sewer or sewer
facilities farther downstream. Prior to the approval of any diversion by pumping to the
Telegraph Canyon Basin, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to finance
the costs associated with the installation, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and
eventual decommissioning and removal of any required pumping station and connection of
the Project to the Poggi Canyon trunk sewer (when capacity is available), in accordance with
City Council Policy 570-03 (Sewage Pump Station Financing Policy). The applicant shall
pay the Telegraph Canyon Pumped Flow Sewer DIF prior to the issuance ofbnilding permits
for any dwelling units in the Project pumping to the Telegraph Canyon Basin.
PARKS/OPEN SPACE/WILDLIFE PRESERVATION
72. The Village One West (C.V.T. 98-06A) Project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park
Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the
project provide three (3) acres of local parks and related improvements per 1,000 residents.
Local parks are comprised of community parks and neighborhood parks. The Project's
Neighborhood Park portion of the local park requirement shall be satisfied through the
provision ora 5.1 net-acre Neighborhood Park (P-13). The remaining requirement shall be
satisfied in a future Community Park through the payment of fees, dedication of land, or a
combination thereof.
73.
a. The applicant shall grant to the City, prior to the first Final "A" Map for the Project,
an irrevocable offer of dedication for a minimum 5.1 net acre P-13 park site which is
acceptable to the Director of Parks and Recreation. Prior to the approval of said map, the
applicant shall submit and obtain approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation of an
updated construction schedule for Park P- 13. The applicant shall commence construction of
Park P-13 to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation by the issuance of the
400th building permit within the boundaries of this Tentative Map (C.V.T 98-06) and
complete construction of the park within nine months of commencement of construction.
The term "complete construction" shall mean park construction has been completed
according to the City approved construction plans and accepted by the Director of Parks and
Recreation. Furthermore "complete construction" shall mean prior to and shall not include
the City's established maintenance period required prior to acceptance by the City for Public
use.
~_3
b. Except as set forth in this paragraph, Developer agrees that at no time shall there be a
deficit in "constructed neighborhood park" based upon 2 acres/1,000 residents. Developer
further agrees that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project,
should said deficit occur. For purposes of this paragraph the term "constructed neighborhood
park" shall mean the construction of the park has been completed and accepted by the City as
being in compliance with the Park Master Plan, but prior to the City's required mandatory
maintenance period. This is not intended to supersede any of the City's maintenance
guarantee requirements.
74. All local parks shall be designed and constructed consistent with the provisions of the Chula
Vista Landscape Manual and related Planning and Building Department specifications and
policies.
75. The applicant shall enter into a Chula Vista standard three party agreement with the City of
Chula Vista and design consultant(s), for the design of all aspects of the neighborhood and
community parks in accordance with the Master Plan whereby the Director of Parks and
Recreation shall have the right to select the design consultant(s), to be funded by the
applicant. The cost for the consultant(s) shall be established and said amount deposited into
an account prior to any work being initiated by the consultant. The agreement shall include,
but not be limited to, master planning, design development phase, construction document
phase and construction supervision phase for the park sites. The construction documents
shall reflect the then current requirements of the City's Code/Landscape Manual
requirements.
76. The Applicant shall receive surplus park credit to the extent the combined park credit for
neighborhood park, and the community park exceeds the 3 acres per 1,000 residents
standard. This surplus park credit may be utilized by the Applicant to satisfy local park
requirements in future SPA's located within the City's corporate boundaries.
77. The applicant shall pay PAD fees for park P- 13 development improvements to the City in
accordance with the PLDO. The Applicant and the City shall mutually agree on a PAD fee
reimbursement schedule in coordination with the adopted construction schedule for Park P~
13. Milestones will be established for partial reimbursement during the construction process.
The City may withhold up to 20% of the park construction funds until the park has been
completed and accepted. Reimbursement of PAD fees shall include the interest accrued by
the City on said PAD fees minus the City's cost of processing and administering this
reimbursement program.
78. Community Parks:
a. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map the Applicant shall pay PAD fees~
dedicate land, or a combination thereof, for the Community Park based upon a
formula of 1 acre per 1,000 residents, until such time as a tm-key facility has been
constructed by the applicant and accepted by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
Said turn-key facility is subject to the reimbursement mechanism set forth below.
14
b. Notwithstanding that the community park requirement (1 acre/1,000 residents) shall
be satisfied through the payment of PAD Fees, dedication of land, or a combination
thereof, within 120 days of approval of this tentative map the Applicant shall enter
into an agreement with the City whereby the applicant agrees to satisfy the Village
One West (C.V.T. 98-06A) Community park obligation of3.11 acres in a manner
acceptable to the Director of Parks and Recreation.
Said Agreement shall identify the future location of the Village One West (C.V.T.
98-06A) Community Park demand of3.11 acres within a service radius of SPA One,
as set forth in the GDP, and deemed acceptable by the Director of Parks and
Recreation. The agreement shall include a community park delivery schedule that
demonstrates delivery of the community park within a time frame deemed reasonable
by the Director of Parks and Recreation. Said community park location may
ultimately be aggregated with other parkland. The GDP shall be amended to reflect
the actual location of the community park, at the applicant's expense, as deemed
necessary by the City.
c. If the Applicant fails to enter into an agreement within 120 days of approval of this
tentative map as outlined above, then the City shall have the discretion to utilize the
PAD fees for said improvements, or to construct another park facility, east of the 1-
805 Freeway within an acceptable service radius of the Project, as set forth in the
GDP.
d. The Applicant shall provide a maintenance period for the Community Park of 9-12
months in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department policy.
e. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees, proportionate to what has
been constructed, excluding the cost of construction of an all weather access road, for
the community park should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance
with the agreement described above, subject to the approval of the Director of Parks
and Recreation.
80. Trails/Open Space:
a. All trails shall be bonded/secured and constructed with the approved rough grading,
and connect to adjoining existing and/or proposed trails in neighboring development
projects, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation
b. The applicant shall construct the Regional Trail on the north side of Poggi Canyon
(Olympic Parkway) for the entire length of Olympic Parkway in Village One, and
shall be designed to incorporate the Olympic Parkway Landscape Master Plan by
Estrada Land Planning, Inc. as approved by the City and as amended from time to
time, including the "tree planting nodes" as specified in the Olympic Parkway
Landscape Master Plan. The Regional Trail shall meander away from the curb as
much as possible avoiding the "tree planting nodes". If retaining walls are necessary,
they should be kept to a minimum and/or ifa grading solution can be found, retaining
walls will not be used to gain additional space for the street corridor. The retaining
walls are to be located and detailed on the Grading Plans for Olympic Parkway
and/or the Poggi Canyon Drainage Channel, and subject to the approval of the
Directors of Planning and Building and Public Works. Slopes gradients may be
increased to the maximmn permitted in the grading ordinance in limited locations to
accommodate the "tree planting nodes" and maintenance access ways. Landform
grading policies shall be observed. If a combination of low retaining walls and
modified landform grading cannot accommodate "tree planting nodes" and
maintenance access areas, the top of slope shall be adjusted as necessary.
c. The maximum gradient for the connector trails located in open space lot #34_shall be
10%. Steeper grades ofup to 12% forruns ofupto 50 feet may be permitted subject
to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building.
d. The graded section upon which the connecting trails are constructed shall be 10 feet
in width. Six feet shall be provided for the trail bed, with a 2 foot graded shoulder on
either side. All trail portions, which contain sewer easements shall be constructed to
meet H-20 loading, and shall be 12 feet wide. Trail construction materials shall be
subject to the approval of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Building.
e. If the two trail connections located in open space lot #34 adjacent to Olympic
Parkway, are located behind attended entry cottages, adequate public signage and
direction shall be provided by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building, to encourage public access for pedestrians to enter through or
adjacent to the attended_entry areas to access the public trail connections.
f. Applicant shall provide public pedestrian, bicycle, cart ingress and egress easements
upon over and across Santa Sierra Drive, and Sparrow Lake Road and shall install
appropriate signage indicating location of trail connections, handicap access, and
bikeway locations to the Regional Trail, and, developer shall obtain approval by the
Director of Parks and Recreation prior to the approval of the first final "B" map for
Village One West (C.V.T. 98-06A). Signage shall be installed upon the request of
the Director of Parks and Recreation.
g. Prior to the installation of the regional trail, install a fence along those portions of the
proposed maintenance access roads of the Poggi Canyon Channel, which are
proposed to be incorporated into the Regional Trail System. The fence shall be
erected only at those locations where its installation will not interfere with the normal
channel maintenance. The specific locations where the fence will be allowed and the
fence details shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and
Recreation.
~_6
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
81. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the developer shall:
a. Submit and obtain approval of the Village One West (C.V.T. 98-06A) Maintenance
Responsibility Map from the Director of Planning and Building, which shall include
delineation of private and public streets.
b. Submit evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and
Building prior to approval of the first "B" Map of the formation of a Master
Homeowner's Association (MHOA), or another financial mechanism acceptable to
the City Manager. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of those
landscaping improvements that are not to be included in the proposed Open Space
District. The City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building may require
that some of those improvements shall be maintained by the Open Space District.
The final determination of which improvements are to be included in the Open Space
District and those to be maintained by the MHOA shall be made during the Open
Space District Proceedings. The MHOA shall be structured to allow annexation of
future tentative map areas in the event the City Engineer and Director of Planning
and Building require such annexation of future tentative map areas. The MHOA
formation documents shall be approved by the City Attorney.
c. Submit and obtain approval of the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and
Building of a list of all Otay Ranch SPA One and MHOA facilities and other items to
be maintained by the proposed district. Separate lists shall be submitted for the
improvements and facilities to be maintained by the Open Space District and those to
be maintained by a Master Homeowner's Association. Include a description, quantity
and cost per year for the perpetual maintenance of said improvements. These lists
shall include but are not limited to the following facilities and improvements:
(i) All facilities located on open space lots to include but not be limited to:
walls, fences, water fountains, lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads,
drainage structures and landscaping. Each open space lot shall also be
broken down by the number of acres of: 1) turf, 2) irrigated, and 3) non-
irrigated open space to aid in the estimation of a maintenance budget thereof.
(ii) Medians and parkways along Olympic Parkway, Paseo Ranchero, East
Palomar Street, (onsite and offsite) and all other street parkways proposed for
maintenance by the open space district or Homeowners' Association.
(iii) The proportional share of the proposed detention basin and naturalized
channel in Poggi Canyon. This includes but is not limited to the cost of
maintenance and all cost to comply with the Department of Fish and Game
and the Corps of Engineers permit requirements.
3_7
(iv) The proportional share of the maintenance of the median and parkways along
that portion of Telegraph Canyon Road adjoining the development as
determined by the City Engineer.
82. Offer for dedication in fee interest to the City on the first "A" map, all numbered open space
lots shown on the tentative map. Execute and record an irrevocable offer of dedication of fee
interest for each of the lots to be maintained by the City through the open space district.
83. The applicant shall agree to create a Master Homeowner's Association ("MHOA') to own
and maintain in a professional manner open space areas, medians, and parkways not
maintained by the Community Facility District or the City (referred to collectively as "open
space areas"). Developer shall complete the formation of the MHOA prior the first final "B"
map. The MHOA shall be structured to allow annexation of future tentative map areas in the
event the City Engineer and Director of Planning require such annexation of future tentative
map areas. On or before 60 days from the date of Council approval of this tentative map, the
developer shall submit for City's approval the CC&R's, grant of easements and maintenance
standards and responsibility of the MHOA's for the Open Space Areas within the Project
area. Developer shall acknowledges that the MHOA's maintenance of public open space,
trails, etc. may expose the City to liability. Developer agrees to establish a MHOA that will
hold the City harmless from any actions of the MHOA in the maintenance of such areas.
84. Submit and obtain approval of a revised Village One West (C.V.T. 98-06A) Maintenance
Responsibility Map prior to the approval of the first "A" map for the Project including the
out-parcels from the Director of Planning and Building which shall include delineation of
private and public streets.
85. Prior to the approval of each Final "B" Map, Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. The CC&R's
shall include the following obligations of the Master Homeowners Association:
a. A requirement that the MHOA shall maintain comprehensive general liability
insurance against liability incident to ownership or use of the following areas:
i. All open space lots that shall remain private,
ii. Other Master Association property.
b. Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&R's that may particularly affect the
City can become effective, said revisions shall be approved by the City. The MHOA
shall not seek approval from the City of said revisions without the prior consent of
100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the MHOA.
3_8
c. The MHOA shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims, demands,
causes of action liability or loss related to or arising from the maintenance activities
of the MHOA.
d. The MHOA shall not seek to be released by the City from the maintenance
obligations described herein without the prior consent of the City and 100 percent of
the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the MHOA.
e. The MHOA is required to procure and maintain a policy of comprehensive general
liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than one
million dollars combined single limit. The policy shall be acceptable to the City and
name the City as additionally insured.
f. The CC&R's shall incorporate restrictions for each lot adjoining open space lots
containing walls maintained by the open space district to ensure that the property
owners know that the walls may not be modified or supplemented nor may they
encroach on City property.
g. The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways,
drainage and sewage systems which are private.
h. The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring MHOA membership in an advance
notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service in perpetuity.
i. The CC&R's shall include provisions that provide the City has the right to enforce
the CC&R provisions same as any owner in the project.
j. The CC&R provisions setting forth restrictions in these Tentative map conditions
may not be revised at any time without prior written permission of the City.
k. The MHOA shall not dedicate or convey for public streets, land used for private
streets without approval of 100% of all the HOA members or holder of first
mortgages within the MHOA.
86. Future property owners shall be notified during escrow, by a document to be initialed by the
owners, of the maintenance responsibilities of the MHOA and their estimated annual cost.
Developer shall submit the document and obtain the approval of the City Engineer and
Director of Planning and Building prior to distribution through escrow.
87. Grade a level, clear area at least three feet wide (face of wall to top of slope), along the
length of any wall abutting an open space district lot, as measured from face-of-wall to
beginning of slope. Said area shall be as approved by the City Engineer and the Director of
Planning and Building.
88. Ensure that all buyers of lots adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the
open space district sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that they are
aware that the walls are on City property and that they shall not modify or supplement the
wall or encroach onto City property. These restrictions shall also be incorporated in the
CC&R's for each lot.
89. The developer agrees to not protest formation or inclusion in a maintenance district or zone
for the maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic corridors along streets within or
adjacent to the subject subdivision.
90. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which includes Landscaping and Irrigation (L&I)
improvements to be installed in an open space lot to be maintained by the Community
Facility District (CFD), the developer shall place a cash deposit with the City which will
guarantee the maintenance of the L&I improvements until the City accepts said
improvements. In the event the improvements are not maintained to City standards as
determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation, the deposit shall
be used to perform the maintenance. The amount of the deposit shall be equivalent to the
estimated cost of maintaining the open space lots to City standards for a period of six
months, ("Minimum Deposit Amount"), as determined by the City Engineer. Any unused
portion of said deposit may be incorporated into the CFD's Reserve Account, or returned to
the Developer, according to the following:
a. If, six months prior to the scheduled date of acceptance of Landscape and Irrigation
improvements for maintenance by the CFD, the Reserve Account is less than the
Minimum Deposit Amount, the difference between these two amounts shall be
incorporated into the Reserve Account, or;
b. If the Reserve Account is at or above the Minimum Deposit Amount, the unused
portion of the deposit may be returned to the Developer in 6 equal monthly
increments over the last six month's of the maintenance period if the maintenance is
being accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
WATER
91. Provide to the City a letter from Otay Municipal Water District indicating that the
assessments/bonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the City have
been paid or that no assessments exist on the parcel(s).
92. Present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter from Otay Water District that
the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long-term water storage
facilities.
93. Prior to the issuance of the first rough grading permit for the Project, the Developer shall
demonstrate that the existing City of San Diego Otay 2n~ Pipeline within the Project has
been removed and/or abandoned-in-place to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, in
2O
accordance with recommendations contained in a geotechnical consultant's report submitted
to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Prior to the approval of any fmal "B"
map for the Project, which includes any area of the City of San Diego's easement for said
Pipeline, the Developer shall demonstrate that the portion of the easement within the final
"B" map has been quitclaimed by the City of San Diego to the underlying property owner.
EASEMENTS
94. Grant to the City a 10' wide easement for general utility purposes along public street frontage
of all open space lots offered for dedication to the City unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. Ensure that sufficient room is available for street tree planting when locating
utilities within this easement.
95. Indicate on all appropriate "B" Maps a reservation of easements to the future Homeowners
Association for private storm drain, if any, within open space lots as directed by the City
Engineer. Obtain, prior to approval of each final "B" Map, all off-site right-of-way necessary
for the installation of the required improvements for that subdivision thereto. The developer
shall also provide easements for all on-site and off-site public drainage facilities, sewers,
maintenance roads, and any other public facilities necessary to provide service to the subject
subdivision.
96. Grant easements to subsequent owners pursuant to Section 18.20.150 of the City Code on
any final map that proposes private utilities or drainage facilities crossing property lines as
directed by the City Engineer.
97. Grant to City on all appropriate final "B" Map two foot access easements along the rear and
side property line of lots adjoining walls to be maintained by the open space district. The
locations of these easements shall be as required by the Director of Planning and Building
and the City Engineer to provide adequate access for maintenance of said walls.
98. Storm drain easements shall be private unless the storm drain systems therein are public.
99. Where a private storm drain easement will parallel a public sewer easement, the easements
shall be delineated separately on the final map and on the grading and improvement plans. If
any portion of the easements will overlap one another, the City shall have a superior right to
the common portion of the easements.
100. Prior to the approval of each final map, the City Engineer may require either the removal or
the subordination of any easement, which may unreasonably interfere with the full and
complete exercise of any required public easement or right-of-way.
101. The developer shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the final map by
City if any off-site right-of-way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of
approval. (Only off-site right-of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the
Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition.)
2~_
After said notification, the developer shall:
a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way and/or easements required by the
Conditions of Approval of the tentative map.
b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way and/or
easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer.
c. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals
complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings as
determined by the City Attorney.
d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire right-of-way,
easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the final
map. The developers shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said
acquisition.
The requirements of a, b, and c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval of
the first Final "B" Map.
AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL
102. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each Final Map,
where the developer agrees to the following:
a. That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if any one of
the following occur:
(i). Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan, as amended from time to time, have been
reached or in order to have the Project comply with the Growth Management
Program, as may be amended from time to time.
(ii). Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the
adopted City threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management
Ordinance.
(iii). The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or
otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to the
satisfaction of the City. The developer may propose changes in the timing
and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements
affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the City's
Director of Planning and Building and the Public Works Director.
(iv.) The applicant does not comply with the terms of the Reserve Fund Program.
b. To defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and
employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents,
officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its
agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section
66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of
any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully
cooperates in the defense.
c. To ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are
permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to
each lot within the subdivision. Developer agrees that the City of Chula Vista may
grant access to cable companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista to place
conduit within the City's easement situated within the Project. Developer shall
restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who
are, and remain in compliance with, all other rules, regulations, ordinances and
procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as
same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.
d. That the City may withhold the issuance of buildihg permits for the Project, should
the Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the terms of the
Tentative Map Conditions or any Supplemental Agreement. The City shall provide
the Developer of notice of such determination and allow the Developer reasonable
time to cure said breach
e. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of
drainage resulting from this project.
103. Enter into an supplemental agreement with the City prior to approval of the first final "B"
Map, where the developer agrees to the following:
a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted
by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP).
b. To not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities
benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities.
104. The applicant shall comply with all previous Agreements as they pertain to the tentative map.
23
SCHOOLS
105. The Applicant shall deliver to the Sweetwater Union High School District a SO-net usable
acre graded high school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access
road acceptable to the District prior to issuance of the 1,400th building permit (504 students)
within SPA One. The all weather access road shall also he acceptable to the Fire
Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on
District facility needs.
106. The applicant shall deliver to the Chuia Vista Elementary School District, a graded
elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road
acceptable to the District, located west of Pasco Ranchero (S-3), prior to issuance of the
4,500th residential building permit (1,3 $0 students) within SPA One. The all weather access
road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. ~his schedule is subject to modification
by the School District as based on District facility needs.
MISCELLANEOUS
106. Within thirty (30) days of the City Council approval of these map conditions, or prior to the
submittal of the first final map for the project, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall
submit a digital drawing file of the tentative map in its approved form. The drawing
projection shall be in California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6). The
digital file shall combine all map sheets into a single CADD drawing, in DXF, DWG or
ArcView (GIS) format and shall contain the following individual layers:
a. Subdivision Boundary (closed polygons)
b. Lot Lines (closed polygons)
c. Street Centerlines (polylines)
d. Easements (polylines)
e. Street Names (annotation)
f. Lot Numbers (annotation)
The digital drawing file shall be submitted in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital
Submittal on 3 ½" disks, as an e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
107. Submit copies of all final maps, grading and improvement plans in a digital format. The
drawing projection shall be in Califomia State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6).
The digital file of the final maps shall combine all map sheets into a single CADD drawing,
in DXF, DWG or ArcView (GIS) format and shall contain the following individual layers:
a Subdivision Boundary (closed polygons)
b. Lot Lines (closed polygons)
c. Street Centerlines (polylines)
d. Easements (polylines)
e. Street Names (annotation
fi Lot Numbers (annotation
24
The final map, grading plan and improvement plan digital files shall also conform to the City
of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual requirements therefore. The digital drawing files shall be
submitted in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal on 3 ½" disks, as an
e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
108. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System-Zone VI (1983).
109. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance (Section 19.09 of the
CVMC) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), and as they may be amended
from time to time, the Applicant shall complete the following: (1) Fund the preparation of an
annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual
monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services
governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence following the first
fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second
quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted
on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP; and (2) Prepare a five year development phasing
forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPA's and
tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the
adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities.
110. The owners of each Village shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate
the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector and
submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal
package required of each developer to ensure a high standard of design and to ensure
consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project
manager shall have a well-rounded educational background and experience, including but not
limited to land use planning and architecture.
111. If developer desires to do certain work on the property after approval of the tentative map
but prior to recordation of the applicable final "B" Map, they may do so by obtaining the
required approvals and permits from the City. The permits can be approved or denied by the
City in accordance with the City's Municipal Code, regulations and policies. Said permits do
not constitute a guarantee that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and improvement
plans) will be approved. All work performed by the developer prior to approval of the
applicable "B" Map shall be at the developers own risk. Prior to permit issuance, the
developer shall acknowledge in writing that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and
improvement plans) may require extensive changes, at developers cost, to work done under
such early permit. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the developer shall post a bond or other
security acceptable to the City in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the
rehabilitation of the land if the applicable final "B" Map does not record.
PHASING
25
112. If the applicant modifies the SPA One approved phasing plan, the applicant shall submit to
the City a revised phasing plan for review and approval prior to approval of the first final "B"
Map. The PFFP shall be revised where necessary to reflect the revised phasing plan.
113. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, the
developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City
Engineer and Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of any final map.
Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of
development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and
Building. The City reserves the right to require said improvements, facilities and/or
dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of
police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Director of Planning ahd Building may,
at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions
change to warrant such a revision. The developer agrees that the City Engineer may change
the timing of construction of the public facilities.
114. The Public Facility Finance Plan or revisions thereto shall be adhered to for the SPA and
tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to
meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility
phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of
development within and outside of the project area. Throughout the build-out of SPA One,
actual development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP. Neither the
PFFP nor any other SPA One document grant the Applicant an entitlement to develop as
assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility improvement requirements to those
identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based
on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements
and market conditions, shall govern SPA One development patterns and the facility
improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which
improvements are constructed shall correspond to any furore Eastern Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and
Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of
improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. The Otay
Ranch SPA One PFFP, at the Applicant's expense and subject to a Reimbursement
Agreement, shall be updated no later than six (6) months after the approval of a PFFP for the
EastLake III GDP Area, and the conclusions of such update~ including without limitation, the
nature, sizing, extent and timing for the construction of public facilities caused by SPA One,
shall become a condition for all subsequent SPA One entitlements, including tentative and
final maps. Developer agrees that the City Engineer may change the timing of construction
of the public facilities
CODE REQUIREMENTS
115. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the
Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
116. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code
requirements.
117. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy:
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
b. Signal Participation Fees.
c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees.
c. Interim SR-125 impact fee.
d. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF as may be adopted by the City in the future.
i. Otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee.
Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
t 18. Comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water
Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation
to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer.
119. Ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments"
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 regarding projected taxes and assessments.
Submit the disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval.
120. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within
open spaces.
121. The applicant shall comply with all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual.
122. All proposed development shall be consistent with the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations.
123. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth
Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is
not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implementation
(19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09.100).
The applicant acknowledges that the City is presently in the process of amending its Growth
Management Ordinance to add a proposed Section 19.09.105, to establish provisions
necessary to ensure compliance with adopted threshold standards (particularly traffic) prior
to construction of State Route 125. Said provisions will require the demonstration, to the
27
satisfaction of the City Engineer, of sufficient street system capacity to accommodate a
proposed development as a prerequisite to final map approval for that development, and the
applicant hereby agrees to comply with adopted amendments to the Growth Management
Ordinance.
124. Upon submittal of building plans for small lot single family (5,000 square feet or less as
defined in the City of Chula Vista Design Manual) residential development, plans shall
clearly indicate that 750 square feet of private open space will be provided within the
subdivision.
GUARDED AREAS
125. The following locations as proposed by the applicant are authorized for guarded entrances:
Santa Carina and Santa Sierra Drive.
126. Guarded entrances shall not have physical barriers. Guarded entrances shall be staffed from
dusk until dawn, unless the MHOA or the applicant determines it is economically
impractical. Physical barriers shall be prohibited at the entrances to guarded areas unless
specifically approved by City Council.
127. Parks located within guarded areas shall not receive park credit.
128. All streets within guarded areas shall be designated as private. Design of said streets shall
meet the City standards for public streets unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Private street cross sections shall conform to those shown on the tentative map.
129. All private streets within Final "B" Maps shall be included in separate lots. The applicant
shall provide a certificate granting to the City a public utility easement over the entire private
street lots on the appropriate Final "B" Map. All private streets shall be owned as an equal
and undivided interest by each subsequent property within the subdivision.
130. Guarded entrances shall:
a. Require approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building.
b. Provide sufficient room on the private roadway to queue without interrupting traffic
on public streets.
c. Provide a turn-around. The size and location of said turn-around shall be approved
by the City Engineer.
d. Provide a clearly delineated border between public and private streets through the use
of distinctive pavements.
28
e. Provide a dedicated parking space for the gate attendant to be shown on appropriate
grading and/or improvement plans, which is to be retained as a parking space for so
long as the guarded entrance is retained.
f. Be equipped with a video camera to record entering and exiting vehicles.
131. Establish Homeowners Associations (HOA) to provide for the maintenance of private open
space lots, slope areas, landscape and irrigation and walls within each subdivision prior to the
approval of the associated final "B" maps. Submit and obtain approval by the Director of
Planning and Building and the City Engineer of the proposed CC&R's for each subdivision
prior to the approval of the corresponding final map.
132. The CC&R's shall prohibit "speed bumps" on private streets. The CC&R's shall also
include language which states that any proposal by the HOA to allow "speed bumps" in the
future shall require prior written approval of 100% of all the Homeowners Association
members.
133. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation of all facilities within the
common areas and streets behind the guarded entrance. The facilities to be maintained
include, but are not limited to: pavements, sidewalks, street trees, street lights including
power supply, street sweeping, private drainage facilities and landscaping of private common
areas. The only facilities, which will be maintained by the City are mainline sewers and
public concrete drainage facilities (i.e., pipes, inlets, clean-outs and catch basins).
C :\PLANN ING\OTAYRN CH\TENT MAP\VILL 1WTM.DOC
3/16/01 4:34 PM
29
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item t~:
Meeting Date: 4/24/2001
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting bids and awarding contract for
the "Pavement Rehabilitation Program FY2000-01 in the City of Chula
Vista, California (STL-267)" project, and authorizing the Director of
Public Works to approve construction change orders up to a total of 20%
of the contract amount.
/
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works 0/~/
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~~) (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
On March 28, 2001, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Pavement
Rehabilitation Program FY2000-01 in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-267)" project.
The work to be done includes removal and repaving of selected street areas, cold milling,
conventional asphalt concrete pavement overlay, hot-poured crack sealing, emulsion aggregate
slurry seat, Rubberized Emulsion Aggregate Slurry Seal (REAS), pavement reinforcing fabric,
chip seal, installation of pedestrian ramps, replacement of traffic signal loop detectors, traffic
control, pavement striping and marking, protection and restoration of existing improvements,
other miscellaneous items of work, and all labor, material, equipment, and transportation
necessary for the project.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept bids and award the contract for the "Pavement
Rehabilitation Program FY2000-01 in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-267)" project, to
Nicholas Grant Corporation of San Diego, California, for $5,472,000.00, and authorize the
Director of Public Works to approve construction change orders up to a total of 20% of the
contract amount.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: Included in the FY2000-01 CIP Budget is a project for the pavement
rehabilitation of City's arterial streets. The streets to be rehabilitated under List "A" include
portions of"L" Street, Hilltop Drive, Palomar Street, East "H" Street, Orange Avenue, Industrial
Boulevard, Naples Street, Otay Lakes Road, Brandywine Avenue, and Oleander Avenue. List
"B" includes portions of Melrose Avenue, Eastlake Parkway, and East "J" Street. List "A" is the
basis of the bid.
Several strategies of rehabilitation will be used. Streets in good condition will require a
rehabilitation method other than an overlay (e.g., slurry seal, chip seals, crack filling). Streets
with severe damage will require removal of selected areas (dig-outs) and overlays. List "A" on
Attachment "A" shows the specific work to be done at each location, and approximate quantities
of work.
Page 2 Item __
Meeting Date: 4/24/2001
On February 20, 2001, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2001-029 authorizing
temporary nighttime construction work on portions of East "1t" Street in association with the
Pavement Rehabilitation Program FY2000-01. Engineering staff will notify affected residents in
due time once the actual nighttime construction schedule is known.
Engineering staff prepared lists, plats, specifications, and advertised the project. Staff received
and opened bids on March 28, 2001.
The City received bids from four contractors as follows:
CONTRACTOR BIO AMOUNT
1. Nicholas Grant Corp. - San Diego, California. $5,472,000.00
2. Hanson Aggregates Pacific San Diego, California. $5,794,165.24
3. Hazard Construction Co. San Diego, California. $5,929,129.00
4. Superior Ready Mix San Diego, California $6,280,000.00
The low bid by Nicholas Grant Corp. is below the Engineer's estimate of $6,123,516.78 by
$651,516.78 or approximately 11%. The Engineer's estimate was prepared conservatively using
unit prices from previous and current similar projects. Engineering staff has verified the
references provided by the contractor and their work has been satisfactory. Nicholas Grant
Corporation is not listed as excluded from Federal Procurement Programs (list of parties
excluded from Federal procurement or non-procurement programs as of March 29, 2001.) Staff
has reviewed the low bid and is recommending awarding the contract to Nicholas Grant
Corporation of San Diego, California.
Because of the size of the project, and in order to keep the continuity of the construction phase,
and to avoid delays due to processing of change order documents, Engineering staff recommends
the Director of Public Works be authorized to approve construction change orders up to 20% of
the contract amount. A number of months have elapsed since the original pavement removal
quantities were measured, and we have had a wet winter. Consequentially, it is anticipated that
the areas of failed pavement (dig-outs) marked for removal have increased since they were
originally measured. A contingency of approximately 20% has been estimated into the project to
cover increased quantities. Any remaining fu9ds, after all actual dig-out quantities have been
determined and other contingencies quantified for List "A", will be used to proceed with the
priority of List "B."
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Goal
The bid documents set forth participation requirements per Federal Regulation for this project is
subject to Part26, Title49, Code of Federal Regulations entitled "Participation by
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance
Programs." The DBE Goal for the project is I3.4%. The actual participation is 2%. The DBE
Officer has reviewed the bid documents submitted by the three lowest bidders, and determined
that Nicholas Grant Corporation made a good faith effort to meet the DBE goal set for this
project.
Page 3 Item
Meeting Date: 4/24/2001
Disclosure Statement
Attachment "B" is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement.
Environmental Status
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Pavement Rehabilitation
Project (STL-267) and has determined that the project is exempt pursuant CEQA Section 15301,
Class l(c) (Existing facilities). The Federal Highway Administration determined that the project
is a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion.
Wage Statement
The main source of funding for this project is Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP).
This project is covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts. The Davis-Bacon Act requires the
payment of prevailing wage rates to all laborers and mechanics employed for the work under this
project. Prevailing wage rates are those determined by the U.S. Department of Labor or the State
of California Director of Industrial Relations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount (Nicholas Grant Corp.) $5,472,000.00
B. Contingencies (20 % approx.) $1,100,000.00
C. In-house Inspection/Surveying $156,800.00
D. Field Project Management $100,800.00
E. Material Testing $150,000.00
F. Plant Inspection/Sampling $44,500.00
G. Consultant Inspection $44,500.00
H. Other Staff Costs $300,000.00
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $7,368,600.00
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. STP (T-21) $5,973,000.00
B. Transnet $774,000.00
C. Gas Tax $414,600.00
D. Transportation Partnership Fund $207,000.00
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $7,368,600.00
Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require only routine City street
maintenance.
Attachments:
A - Work to be done.
B - Contractor's Disclosure Statement
C - Plat
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\DESIGN\STL267\STL267-A113.doc
Iq -&
sdrUe~l
sdoo~ ~e31
~uam~sn[pv
*uoH ~
ATTACHMENT "B"
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or
campaign contributions, on all matters, which will require discretionary action on tile part of the City
Council, Planning Commissiou, and all other official bodies. The following information must be
disclosed.
1. List the hames of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, and material supplier.
-~ ,.e C~L. IFORNIA COMMERICAL ASPHALT CORPORAT ON
NICHOLAS GRANT CORPORAll~N % . ......
JOHN H DALEY PRESIDENT u~nhLU L. UALl-'f. JH. PRESIDENT
PAUL A SMITH VICE PRESIDENT TERRY NICOMETO VICE PRESIDENT
JO~ Fi GALEY JR ;';C~ ~',~-"CICr'.'.'T Yv,,,~, u~.c ~ VICE FFIE$1DENT
SECTY/TRES
SECffRE~RER
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
iudividuals with a $I000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a noa-profit organization or trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
~ trustor of the trust.
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultauts, or iudependent
contractors you have assigned to represeut you before the City in this matter.
NK~HOLA$ GRANT CORPORATION "~ ~$.[[~l ~MUgRI~AI AR~ALT ~R~TION
&OHN H DALEY PRESIDENT ~LD L. D~Y. JR. PRESlDE~
~ ~UL A ~M~H V~CE PR~!D~ T~RRY NI~M~O VICE PRESIDE~
~ H O~ dR VICE PRESlDE~ ~N ~ VICE PRESIDE~
S;C~R;S SE~R~SURER
20
5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with all official** of the
City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 mouths? Yes No x~
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest tile official** may have in this contract.
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the [~ast t~velve (12) months to a current
member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No ~K, lfYes, which Council member?
7. Have you or any member of your governing board (i.e. Corporate Board of Directors/Executives,
non-profit Board of Directors made contributions totaling more than $ 1,000 over the past four (4)
years to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No ~x,__lf Yes, which
Council melnber?
8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to all official** of tile City
of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to
retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes No X If Yes, which official** and what was
the nature of item provided?
Sig~tu-~of Co~ctor/Applicant'~
~OHN H. DALEY NICHOLAS GRA~RPORATION
~4~ype name of Contractor/Applicant
* Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, associatioa, social club,
fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trusL receiver, syndicate, any other county, city,
municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as
a unit.
** Official iacludes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner~
Member ora board, commission, or colnmittee of the City, employee, or staff members.
21
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR THE "PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
PROGRAM FY2000-01 IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA (STL-267)" PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO APPROVE
CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS UP TO A TOTAL OF
20% OF THE CONTRACT AMOUNT
WHEREAS, on March 28,2001, the Director of Public Works received the following four
sealed bids for the "Pavement Rehabilitation Program FY2000-01 in the City of Chula Vista,
California (STL-267)" project:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
1. Nicholas Grant Corp. - San Diego, California. $5,472,000.00
2. Hanson Aggregates Pacific - San Diego, California. $5,794,165.24
3. Hazard Construction Co. - San Diego, California. $5,929,129.00
4. Superior Ready Mix - San Diego, California $6,280,000.00
WHEREAS, the low bid by Nicholas Grant Corp. is below the Engineer's estimate of
$6,123,516.78 by $651,516.78 or approximately 11%; and
WHEREAS, Engineering staff has verified the references provided by the contractor and
their work has been satisfactory and staff has reviewed the low bid and is recommending awarding
the contract to Nicholas Grant Corporation of San Diego, California; and
WHEREAS, because of the size of the project, and in order to keep the continuity of the
construction phase, and to avoid delays due to processing of change order documents, Engineering
staff recommends the Director of Public Works be authorized to approve construction change
orders up to 20% of the contract amount; and
WHEREAS, a number of months have elapsed since the original pavement removal
quantities were measured, and because there has been a wet winter, consequentially, it is
anticipated that the areas of failed pavement marked for removal have increased since they were
originally measured and a contingency of approximately 20 % has been estimated into the project
to cover increased quantities.
WHEREAS, the bid documents set forth participation requirements per Federal Regulation
for this project subject to Part 26, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations entitled "Participation by
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance
Programs" with a DBE Goal for the project of 13.4% with actual participation of 2%; and
WHEREAS, the DBE Officer has reviewed the bid documents submitted by the three
lowest bidders, and determined that Nicholas Grant Corporation made a good faith effort to meet
the DBE goal set for this project; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project
and has determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Class l(c)
(Existing facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, this project is covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts which requires
the payment of prevailing wages to all laborers and mechanics employed for the work under this
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby accept the bids and award the contract to Nicholas Grant Corporation of San Diego,
California in the amount of $5,472,000.00 for the "Pavement Rehabilitation Program FY2000-01
in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-267)" Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to
approve construction change orders up to a total of 20 % of the contract amount.
Presented by Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt J/olja5 M. Kahe y ~
Director of Public Works ~,Ofty Attorney
J:\attorney\reso\ Pavement Rehabilitation Program Bid (April 12, 2001 (9: 12AM)]
2
ADDENDUM TO ITEM #14
April 23, 2001
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: David D. Rowlands,'f*CCity Manager
FROM: John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Change Order Limits for Pavement Overlay Project
Item # 14, Pavement Overlay Contract, had a provision to authorize the Director of Public
Works to approve change orders totaling up to 20% of the amount of the contract. The
intent was to provide for a quick process to keep the project moving without the delay of
waiting for City Council meetings. A concern was raised to authorize one person, the
Director of Public Works, authority to approve over $1 million in change orders without
some oversight.
Staff is proposing a change in the change order procedure for this project only that will
require oversight by the City Manager. Council approved a Council policy on December
12, 2000, which set limits on the amount of single change orders and aggregate increases
that the staff could approve (attached).
Staff recommends the following conditions be placed on the authority to increase the
contract by up to 20%:
1. That work can only be on the streets listed in agenda statement Attachment A,
List A & B.
2. For change orders in e~cess of $50,000 and aggregate amounts greater than
those listed in Council Policy 574-01, both the City Manager and Director of
Public Works must approve the change order, and it must be ratified by the
City Council.
3. If additional funds are available for additional streets beyond List A & B.
staffmust return to Council for authorization.
Attachment
H:\HOME\ENGINEERkAGENDA~ADDENDUM TO ITEM14, 4-244)1 .doc
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDERS - DIRECTOR OF POLICY EFFECTIVE
PUBLIC WORKS NUMBER DATE PAGE
574-01 12-12-00 1 of 1
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 2000-451 ]
DATED:
12-12-00
BACKGROUND
During the course of work on many City public works projects, it becomes apparent that certain changes must
be made in the contract to obtain the finished product in its desired form.
PURPOSE
Since most o£ these changes are of a minor nature which do not change the scope of the project or affect the
public health,' safety, or welfare, delegating limited autho~ty to approve change orders would result in
significantly expediting these public works projects.
POLICY
The Director of Public Works is hereby delegated limited authority to approve change orders for work being
done under City public works conrcacts~ as follows:
1. All change orders, except for those change orders e×ceeding or causing the exceedence of the amounts
specified herein, shall be processed and approved by the Director of Public Works in accordance with
the applicable project specifications.
2. No individual change order shall increase or decrease the ohginal contract amount by more than
$50,000.
3. The aggregate amount o£ all change orders shall not increase the contract amount by more than the
amount specified below:
Original Contract Range Maximum Aggregate Increase in Change Orders
Up to $100,000 10% of the original contract amount
$100,000 to $1,000,000 $10,000 plus 7% of the original contract amount over $100,000
More than $1,000,000 $73,000 plus 5% of the original contact amount over $1,000,000
The Dh'ector shall also be authorized to increase the tm~e allowed for Contract completion in association
with any change order granted under this policy.
4. All change orders involving changes in the scope of project, increases of contract amounts greater than
outlined above or aspects concerning the public health, safety, or welfare, shall be submitted to the City
Council for consideration.
In those cases where the City Manager and Director of Public Works determine that the public health and
safety are involved or a substantial claim could be submitted by the contractor for delays, the City Manager
may exceed the above amounts provided for both individual change orders or the aggregate amount of change
orders. The change order shall be submitted to the Council at the next regular Council meeting for ratification.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO.: I ~
MEETINO DATE: 04/'24/01
ITEM TITLE: REPORT: FOLLOW-UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON THE
STATE ENERGY CRISIS; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION TO
ESTABLISH A CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENERGY STRATEGY AND
ACTION PLAN
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR~ ~
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER ~'
4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO ~
BACKGROUND
In light of the State's energy crisis, the City of Chula Vista secured the services of MRW and
Associates to provide an assessment of energy management options which may allow the City to
gain a measure of control over the City's demand and supply of energy as well as the financial costs
of the City's energy use over time. The City Council held an energy workshop on April 17, 2001.
The workshop included reports from MP~W and Associates and City staff. MP, W presented their
report with broad-based options and recommendations the City of Chula Vista could pursue. Staff
then provided specific action items and recommendations to advance the MRW options. Council
requested that the report be brought back at the next Council meeting for specific direction.
This report summarizes staff's recommendations and outlines the requested Council direction that
will form the basis of an overall Energy Strategy. Based upon Council direction, staff will return with
a complete Energy Strategy and Action Plan with the appropriate implementing resolutions as soon
as possible thereafter. That follow~up implementing report will also include a status report of all
actions taken to advance Council's direction in the interim period.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept staffs report and direct staff to return with formal
resolutions adopting and implementing a City Energy Strategy and Action Plan consistent with
City Council priorities.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/01
DISCUSSION
Included with this report for background reference, is the Information Memo and the staff generated
Executive Summary of the MRW report previously submitted to Council for the workshop. Sta~s perception
after the workshop was that the Council supports the following four (4) "Highly Recommended" options as
outlined in the Executive Summary: Expanding energy conservation efforts and renewable energy programs
(Options 1 and 2); Legislative Strategy to preserve City options (Option 4} and the CO2 Reduction and
GreenStar Building Incentive programs (Option 5). Support of Options 1 and 2 includes directing staff to: 1)
develop and implement an emergency summer action plan for City facilities including an alternative work
schedule for City employees; and 2) present policies for Council consideration for alternative energy projects
at City facilities. If there are any concerns with these assumptions, please advise staff accordingly.
Based upon the above assumptions, staff is requesting specific direction on the following consolidated list of
major action items:
1. Monitor the energy market and legal restrictions and; be prepared to enter into an
Electrical Services Contract with an Energy Services Provider (ESP) or power generator
as allowed by law.
· Subject to removal of existing legal restrictions, seek Council authorization to negotiate contract
within the following parameters:
· Pledge up to City's entire load (14MW)
· Term: Shortest time possible, but not to exceed 3 years
· Price: Establish a maximum fixed price beneath which staff has the authority to negotiate
· Give authority to explore different pricing mechanisms and energy derivatives
2. Pursue Distributed Generation and "district" generation opportunities for specific
facilities and technologies.
· Solicit site specific proposals for:
a) City Facilities (New Corporation Yard; Civic Center/Police Facility; Library and
Recreation facilities)
b} Economic Development Opportunities (Goodrich Co.; Maxwell Road site;
LandBank site)
· Pursue Solar Energy and Distribution Generation Grant Program offered through CEC
· Monitor CPUC proceedings and encourage decisions that facilitate the program
3. Partner with a third-party lo build and operate power generation facilities.
· Continue positive and proactive negotiations with Duke and the Port District regarding terms for
the redevelopment of the South Bay Plant
Initial areas for investigation and analysis include but may not necessarily be limited to:
· Project description and scoping
· Site planning; issue definition
· Shared risks and benefits
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 04/24/01
4. Develop an emissions offsets program based on mobile sources
· Work with air quality officials to realize the benefits of any City investment in alternative fuel
vehicles
· Work with future generators and the APCD to ensure any mitigation funds generated are invested
locally
· Develop portfolio of potential offset projects to make available to new generation sources
requiring offsets
5. Take initial steps to more specifically assess the costs and benefits of forming and
operating as a Municipal Utility to own/operate all or portions of the local distribution
system
· Present resolution to declare City a Municipal Utility
· Commence negotiations with SDG&E to identify mutually beneficial partnerships
· After formal Council approval, conduct preliminary appraisal and pre-feasibility consultant
services necessary to evaluate rough facility acquisition costs and other related studies that will
provide a business model to test the economics of City ownership and operation (estimated
$50,000). The pre-feasibility analysis is the first major step necessary to begin the formal process
of establishing an integrated municipal utility.
· Coordinate any effort on this strategy with other jurisdictions
6. Become a municipal "aggregator" and acquire electricity at negotiated rates for City
facilities and participating residents/business customers
· Support legislation that preserves consumer choices and authorizes "opt ou~' aggregation
programs and be prepared to further analyze the potential risk and benefits of pursuing such a
program
FISCAL IMPACT
Council acceptance of the report will not have a direct fiscal impact other than significant staff time from
the City Manager's office, Community Development and the City A~torney office to advance Council
direction on their energy priorities and formalize the strategy and action plan. The Energy Strategy and
Action Plan will include an overall management and implementation plan with expected general costs.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Information Memo dated 4/12/01 from 4/17 Energy Workshop
B - Executive Summary: MRW Assessment of Chula Vista's Energy Management Options
C - Summary of Legislative and Gubernatorial Initiatives
J:\COMMDEV~STAFF.REP\04-24-01\Er~ergy Workshop Follow-up.doc
' ~: · ATTACHMENTA
.~.._~.I ~ Cornmunit~ Development Depadment
INFORMATION
c o, chu, v,, ,c 9 9 0 MEMO
CHULA VIS-fA 619.691.5047 - 619.476.5310 Fax
cvcomdev~ci.chula-vista.~.us
TO: The Honorable May?r-~and Councilmembers
VIA: David D. Rowlan~r;~Sity Manager
FROM: Chris Salomone, Community Development Director
DATE: April 12, 2001
RE: Energy Management Options Report
BACKGROUND
In light of the State's energy crisis, the City of Chula Vista secured the services of MRW and
Associates to provide an assessment of energy management options which may allow the City
to gain a measure of control over the City's demand and supply of energy as well as the
financial costs of the City's energy use over time. Transmitted herewith is the final Energy
Management Options Report from MRW accompanied by a staff prepared Executive Summary.
Additionally, a comprehensive Legislative Update from MRW is provided outlining recent
significant legislation and Executive Orders as well as proposed legislation that collectively
form the basis for staff's recommended legislative strategy.
As Council will read, MRW provided broad general options/recommendations with staff
recommending a variety of action items to implement or advance them to the extent possible
or feasible. The majority of the report is MRW's analysis of the state of the energy markets
and the legislation recently enacted or proposed to correct the impacts of deregulation. The
report also includes their recommendations for action with case studies that describe similar
actions and outcomes by other California jurisdictions. Additionally, the report contains a
summary of energy conservation efforts that Council has previously directed staff to implement
and the positive impacts that those actions have already had on City facilities, residents,
businesses and development activities.
Finally, it is important to note that the report does not contain an easy or quick solution to the
energy crisis for Chula Vista. If such a solution exists, it lies in the hands of state and federal
authorities, not the City. The report does include however, the best-known options at this
time for developing an Energy Strategy and Action Plan best suited to respond to the unique
opportunities and needs for Chula Vista. It is hoped that through these efforts, the City can
prevent energy from being a limiting factor in the economic future and sustainable growth of
our community.
Energy Management Options Report
Page 2
April 12, 2001
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
A City Council Workshop has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers (since there is expected to be a larger than normal audience for this workshop).
Representatives from the consultant team will present their report and
options/recommendations. Staff will then follow with a presentation of recommended actions.
A summary of the Governor's overall plan for addressing the crisis will be provided as well.
Representatives from Duke Energy, SDG&E and BFGoodrich have been invited to attend.
Additionally, the Planning Commission, Economic Development Commission, and Resource
Conservation Commission will be advised of the workshop and have expressed an Interest in
attending. After receiving input and direction from Council, staff will return at a regular
Council meeting with a recommended Energy Strategy and Action Plan for formal Council
adoption.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
As will be more fully discussed at the workshop, provided on the following page are the
recommended actions the City should pursue and/or further evaluate at this time. The
recommended options/actions (discussed in greater detail in the Executive Summary) are
provided within three (3) broad-based categories determined by risk-level and benefit time
frames; 1) Highly Recommended (Low Risk/Short-term Payoff), 2) Promising (Increased
Risk/Medium-term Payoff) and 3) Higher Risk (High Risk/Long-term Payoff). Generally, the
options/actions with Iow-risk and short-term benefits (Highly Recommended) are those that
positively effect the energy demand side (i.e.,. conservation and therefore, reduced
consumption ~osts) whereas the actions with increased and significant risks with medium- and
long-term benefits (Promising and Higher Risk) could positively effect the energy supply side
(i.e., distributed generation, utility municipalization, and municipal aggregation) that promote
reliability, price stability and economic development opportunities.
Staff's recommendations tend to place a priority on those options that produce tangible results
for businesses, residents and City operations regardless of what occurs in the energy market or
at the State legislature. It is important to note that, particularly on the energy supply actions,
staff recommends taking concurrent proactive steps on a variety of fronts (i.e., Duke and
SDG&E negotiations as well as Distributed Generation projects) in order to keep options open
and be poised to take further action as opportunities present themselves or are precluded by
further analysis, negotiations, and future legislative actions.
Please review the staff executive summary of the report for greater detail on staff's
recommendations. Each of the following recommended actions have a number of specific
action items that are fully discussed in the Executive Summary and will be outlined in the
workshop.
1. Highly Recommended Options (Low Risk/Short-term Payoff)
A. Continue/expand energy conservation projects for City facilities
B. Continue/expand and promote energy efficient and renewable energy programs
for businesses and residents as well as provide community education
Energy Management Options Report
Page 3
April 12, 2001
C. Monitor the market and legal restrictions and be prepared to enter into an
electrical services contract with an Energy Services Provider as allowed by law
D. Develop and implement a legislative strategy that facilitates the City's overall
Energy Plan
E. Continue/expand efforts to implement the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Reduction Plan
and GreenStar Building Incentive Program (Staff generated; not included in MRW
report)
2. Promising Options (Increased Risk and/or Medium-term Payoff}
A. Pursue Distributed Generation opportunities
i. City Facilities (New Corporation Yard; Civic Center/Police Facility;
Library and Recreation facilities
ii. Economic Deve!opment Opportunities (BFG; Maxwell Road site;
LandBank site)
B. Monitor the market and legal restrictions and be prepared to enter into a bilateral
agreement with a power generator
C. Partner with a third-party to build and operate power generation facilities
D. Develop an emissions offsets program based on mobile sources (as permitted by
law)
3. Higher Risk Options (Significant Risk and Long-Term Payoff)
A. Form a Municipal Distribution Utility to own/operate all or portions of local
distribution system
B. Become a municipal "aggregator" and acquire electricity at negotiated rates for
the City, and included residents and businesses (if "opt out" legislation is
passed) (as permitted by law)
4, Legislative Strategy
Support measures that:
A. Assist the City and its energy consumers improve supply/demand conditions and
enhance conservation measures.
Preserve local options to control and fund the supply and distribution of energy
(including the formation of a municipal utility district) or that fund conservation
programs.
C. Enhance the City's ability to enter into distributed generation agreements
without having to pay stranded transmission or distribution charges.
D. Impose wholesale price caps based on fair and reasonable costs and rates of
return.
E. Repeal the provision in AB 1X that suspends customer choice, and pass a
favorable bill for customer choice (SB 27X or a similar one).
F.Make municipal aggregation programs available on an "opt-out" basis.
Energy Management Options Report
Page 4
April 12, 2001
G. Allow public agencies (not just municipal utilities) such as the City to participate
in state power supply programs.
Oppose measures that:
A. Impinge on or restrict the City's ability to exercise land use review/control with
respect to the generation or transmission of power.
S. Erode the City's ability to acquire power from alternative soruces, operate as a
municipal utility, or enter into aggregation distributed generation arrangements.
SUMMARY
Staff's recommendations atteml~t to make progress, to the extent the City can, on both the
demand and supply sides of the energy market. Certainly the City has the ability to
immediately affect the demand side to a much greater degree than the supply side; particularly
in the short run. The recommendations reflect the City's commitment to expand our strong
record in energy conservation and the promotion and use of renewable energy sources.
Relative to the supply side, it is important to note that there are a significant number of new
plants, both major power plants and smaller peaker plants, in various stages .of development
and approval that will make a tremendous difference on supply statewide over the next several
years. The California Energy Commission (CEC) is currently reporting that it has in its
application process, 13 projects expected to deliver a net capacity amount of 6,187 MW of
new power supply. This includes the 510 MW Otay Mesa plant. Additionally, CEC reports
that there are currently 29 peaker plant applications statewide being processed under the
Governor's emergency siting authority. These peakers are expected to deliver a total of 3,219
MW of peak toad generation capacity including the Otay Mesa Larkspur project (90 MW) and
the proposed second peaker on Main Street in Chula Vista (57 MW). However, these plants
wilt be primarily utilizing natural gas and therefore further taxing the limited supply of natural
gas to the State and San Diego region (Section 2.6 of report). Long-term supply issues need
to address natural gas supply, and in the process, could pave the way for greater market
potential for renewable energy sources.
NEXT STEPS
Council will be asked to provide staff with direction on the recommended actions/options and
legislative strategy. Based upon that direction, staff will return with a recommended Energy
Strategy and Action Plan for Council consideration. The Energy Strategy will include an overall
project management team structure.
J:\COMM DEV\INFOMEMO\Energy Report.doc
ATTACHMENTB
MRW Assessment of Chula Vista's
Energy Management Options
[April 5, 2001]
Pur,~ose of the Re,,oq't
1. In light of the State's energy crisis, the City of Chula Vista secured the services of MRW and
Associates to provide an assessment of energy management options which may allow the City to gain
a measure of control over the City's demand and supply of energy as well as the financial costs of the
City's energy use over time.
2. The report is to provide a historical perspective and analysis of California's deregulation of the
electricity market (first approved in 1996), and the dramatic developments in California's power and
natural gas markets. A better understanding of the events leading up to the energy crisis will help the
City of Chula Vista take a proactive approach to managing energy costs and supply.
3. Based on this understanding, present a portfolio of options that help to: (a) insulate the City, its
residents, and its businesses from unfair or unreasonable energy costs, (b) ensure the reliability of
electricity supply, and (c) reduce adverse environmental impacts of energy production and use.
4. Assemble the best options into the City's own Energy Action Plan. Identify the steps needed to
implement the plan. Begin to identify and evaluate specific projects that have the potential to create
unique opportunities and advantages for the residents and businesses of Chula Vista.
Parameters of the Re,,ort
1. E rH i th F
Electricity supply and cost is the primary focus of the report. Natural qas is a secondary focus albeit an
important one. Environmental impacts were considered, but were not the driving factor.
2. Tr nfliri
City-owned and operated facilities. The City currently uses 14 MWhrs of electricity per year. 40% of
that is used during off peak hours by street lights. The City's energy bill during year 2000 was $I.622
million. The February 2001 bill was $267,000 ($161,000 with a balancing account amount of
$106,000). At the average rate of $267,000 per month, the City's energy bill for 2001 would double
to 93.2 million.
Residents. City residents currently use an average of 287.8 MWhrs of electricity per year. The City is
projecting that new housing developments will add more than 2,000 units in each of the next two
years. This represents an incremental demand for electricity of 11.8 million kWh, or 4% of Chula
Vista's current residential demand.
Businesses, both current and future. City businesses currently use an average of 405 MWhrs of
electricity per year (commercial businesses use 304 MWhrs and industrial businesses use 101 MWhrs).
Chula Vista is home to a number of manufacturing facilities where energy costs are a substantial
component of overall costs. Providing these manufacturers with the means to manage energy costs will
provide an incentive for the manufacturers to remain in Chula Vista, expand their operations and create
new jobs. Energy incentive programs could also help attract new businesses to the City.
3. Timeframe for Benefits to be Derived from Ener#v Plan Actio,,~ · Short Term: Benefits could be realized within the next 12 months and thereafter.
· Ifledium Term: Benefits could be realized within the next 1 to 3 years.
· Long Term: Benefits could be realized within the next 3 to 7 years.
Executive Summary Page I
Portfolio of Options
Consistent with the above-described purposes and parameters, MRW developed a portfolio of
12 options to help the City better manage its energy needs and costs. THESE OPTIONS ARE
EXPLAINED AND DISCUSSED IN GREATER DETAIL STARTING AT PAGE 7 AND ARE NOT ALL
RECOMMENDED TO BE PURSUED AT THIS TIME. Additionally, each of the options listed
below include specific tasks to implement.
Based on an assessment of the benefits and risks of these options, the current market
situation, and the implementation time frame for each option, MRW grouped the options into
the following categories:
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED [Options with Low or Manageable Risk and Potential for Short-Term
Payoff]:
· Continue/expand energy conservation projects in existing and future City facilities.
· Continue/expand and promote energy efficiency and renewable energy programs for
businesses and residents as well as provide community education.
Monitor the market and legal restrictions and be prepared to enter into a contract with an
Energy Service Provider (as permitted by law).*
Develop and implement a legislative strategy that facilitates the City's overall Energy Plan.
· Continue/expand efforts to implement the Carbon Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan and
GreenStar Building Incentive Program (Staff generated; not in MRW Report).
PROMISING [Options that Offer Significant Benefits but with Increased Risk and/or Medium
Term Payoff]:
· Pursue distributed generation opportunities for both City facilities and economic
development opportunities.
· Monitor the market and legal restrictions and be prepared to enter into a bilateral
agreement with a power generator.
· Partner with a third party to build and operate power generation facilities.
· Develop an emissions offsets program based on mobile sources (as permitted by law). *
HIGHER RISK: [OpEons that Require large Capital Outlays and/or Carry Significant Business
Risl~$ and have a longer- Term Payof~
Finance, own, and operate large-scale power plant to meet a portion of the City's demand
for electricity. [Not recommended]
· Form a municipal distribution utility to own and operate all or portions of local distribution
system.
Become a municipal "aggregator" and acquire electricity at negotiated rates for the City,
and include residents and businesses (as permitted by law).'
The passage of ABIX and the withdrawal of major ESPs from the market make these options effectively
unavailable at this time. However, proposed competing legislation and different interpretations of AB1X may
reverse this situation. Legislation will be needed to clarify relationship between AB1X prohibitions and
aggregation provisions. "Opt out" legislation would make this option much more attractive.
Executive Summary Page 2
A Timeline of Key Events in CalifornJa Electric
Industry Restructuring and Energy Crisis
Prior to Retail electricity customers purchased "bundled" transmission, distribution and
Deregulation generation services from monopoly utility companies. Bundled prices were
regulated by the CPUC on a "cost plus" basis. The average retail price for
bundled electricity during the 90's prior to deregulation was 9.5¢ per kWh.
1996 Governor Wilson signed AB 1890, putting California on course for deregulation.
Theory of law is to reduce energy costs to consumers by unbundling energy
services and offering access to alternative energy providers. The Independent
System Operators (ISO) is created to operate (but not own) the state's
transmission system. The Power Exchange (PX) is created to provide a
transparent spot market for power purchases. Investor owned utilities are
required to sell some of their power generation facilities and purchase their
power from the PX. Power is to be sold at the highest "clearing" price bid into
the market,
1997 The Public Utility Commission approves a request by San Diego Gas and Electric
to sell natural gas to Mexico to power the Rosarito generating facility.
1998 On April 1 the California Power Exchange began wholesale trading of electricity.
Initially, power prices were reasonable, if not Iow. During the first two years of
operation, the PX market averaged $29 per MWh (2.9 cents per kWh). Utilities
begin to divest themselves of generating assets.
1999 On July 1 the rate freeze is lifted in SDG&E's service territory. SDG&E is the
first to enter into the deregulated marketplace due to its rapid recovery of its
"stranded costs" (i.e., its unrecovered, pre-deregulation capital investment).
Recovery of stranded costs comes from sales proceeds well above its book
value for its power plants and stranded asset charges (CTCs) passed through to
ratepayers. As a result, customers' rates begin to reflect the wholesale power
prices paid by SDG&E, including the volatile PX market prices. Note: The rate
freeze is not lifted for Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Southern California
Edison ("SCE") customers setting up a situation where they cannot pass on
volatile wholesale prices to customers.
2000 May SDG&E customers' bills double from an average residential bill of 849 to $100
as the utility passes on high wholesale costs to consumers. The ISO declares
the first of 36 Stage Two alerts, when power reserves drop below 5 percent.
2000 June Rolling "blackouts" in San Francisco affect hundreds of thousands of customers.
Insufficient power supplies due to several Northern California power plants shut
down for maintenance cause the blackouts.
2000 SDG&E customers' bills have tripled. Wholesale electricity prices during the
August months of May through September 2000 increased dramatically in the PX and
ISO markets. In June 2000 prices were 411% higher than in June 1999,
increasing from $23 per MWhto $122 per MWh. (2.3¢ per kWh to 12.2¢ per
kWh.)
Executive Summary Page 3
2000 High wholesale prices prompt Gov. Gray Davis to call for an investigation into
August "possible manipulation in the wholesale electricity marketplace".
2000 The CPUC approves a 6:5C/kWh rate ceiling plan for SDG&E residential and
September small business customers retroactive to June 1, 2000. (This action by the
CPUC was preceded by the passage of AB 265, which set the 6.5 cents/kWh
ceiling but needed to be implemented through a CPUC proceeding.) Larger
businesses (with usage above 100 KW) continue to be susceptible to volatile
wholesale prices. Electricity charges above 6.5 cents are not forgiven, but
tracked in "balancing accounts" for later payment. No provision is made for the
source of repayment. September 26: Davis signs two bills stemming from
power crisis in San Diego. One would spread energy price increase for San
Diego customers over several years, the other speeds up the approval process
for new power plants.
2000 Electricity and natural gas prices for the California markets reached record highs.
December Spot market prices for natural gas at the California border climbed to over $72
per MMBtu at one point on December 11, compared to prices of $2 to $3 in
1998 and 1999. December 7: For the first time, the ISO declares a Stage
Three emergency when power reserves fall below 1.5 percent. Officials say
conservation efforts averted rolling blackouts throughout the state. December
15: Based on an investigation into the electric markets in the western United
States, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) orders a number of
changes to the California electric market. These include: (a) $150 per MWh
"soft" price cap on wholesale electricity to remain in place until at least April
30, 2001; (b) an end to the utilities' obligation to buy and sell electricity in the
PX market; (c) a "benchmark price" of $74 per MWh for five-year contracts; and
(d) an order that the ISO governing board be replaced with a non-stakeholder
board. December 26: Southern California Edison sues FERC, alleging the
government body failed to ensure that wholesale electricity is sold at "just and
reasonable rates". The South Bay and Carlsbad generating plants experienced
13 days of natural gas "curtailment," and were forced to run on fuel oil or
shutdown.
Power generators begin to refuse to sell power into the California ISO/PX
system on credit due to the increasing questionable credit worthiness of PG&E
and SCE. In response, federal authorities require generators to sell their excess
power into California if requested by the ISO.
2OO1 SCE and PG&E declare that they are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.
January Because SCE and PG&E are unable to pass along to customers their full cost of
procuring power; they have seen their financial condition worsen every month
since the summer of 2000. In response, Governor Davis declares a state of
emergency. Emergency legislation allows the state Department of Water
Resources to buy and sell electricity up to a $400 million limit. This authority
expired on February 15, but is later extended. January 2: Davis joins SCE's
suit against FERC, filing a friend-of-the court brief. He says the commission
"has failed in its responsibility to protect Californians from what the agency
itsetf describes as a dysfunctional market for electricity". January 4: PUC
votes 5-0 to approve rate hikes for PG&E and SCE. The increases are 9 percent
for homes, and between 7 percent and 15 percent for businesses.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 4
2001 Governor Davis signs into law ABlX authorizing the Department of Water
February I Resources to begin buying power' to serve California. Governor Davis sets a
target of 969 /MWh for a portfolio of long-term contracts. To date the
electricity contract information has been kept confidential by the Governor's
office. Multiple bills (discussed in the legislative update) are prepared to address
the crisis. Governor Davis is negotiating the possible state acquisition of the
utilities' transmission assets in an effort to restore the financial condition of the
utilities.
Governor Davis signed into law AB l X authorizing the Department of Water
Resources to begin buying power to serve California. Governor Davis set a
target of 969/MWh for a portfolio of long-term contracts. AB 1X also suspended
direct access for California's retail electricity customers. The Legislature worked
through a review of multiple bills (discussed in the legislative update) to address
the crisis. Governor Davis attempted to negotiate the possible state acquisition
of the utilities' transmission assets in an effort to restore the financial condition
of the utilities. The Governor reached a tentative deal with SCE. Under the
terms of the deal with SCE, the state reportedly will pay about $2.7 billion, or
2.3 times book value, for the IOU's transmission assets. In return for the
infusion of cash from the state, SCE is agreeing to a lO-year contract at cost-
plus rates for power from some of its assets. SCE also will be required to drop a
federal lawsuit in which it sought to back-bill customers for past procurement
costs.
2001 Qualified Facility (QF) owners and operators shut down plants totaling about
March 3,000 MW because they have not been paid by the utilities for several months
for energy deliveries. QF's include dozens of small and medium sized power
generators that use wind, solar, co-generation and other sources to produce
power. Due in part to the shut down of QF plants, rotating blackouts affected
customers in both southern and northern California on March 19 and 20. FERC
ordered power suppliers to refund $69 million, ruling that power suppliers
overcharged Californians by that amount in January. FERC found that
overcharges for power sold in February totaled $55 million. CaI-ISO filed a
report with FERC alleging power suppliers overcharged by 96.2 billion for power
delivered to California customers over the period May through November 2000.
March 27: The CPUC ordered a three-cent per kWh increase in electric retail
rates for Southern California Edison and PG&E customers.
2001 April April 5: In a televised statewide address, Governor Davis dropped his opposition
to increases in electricity rates and called on the state's residents to continue
conserving power. The Governor outlined a proposal for increasing electricity
rates that is similar to the CPUC's March decision. The Governor also said the
only long-term solution to the crisis is to build more power plants. The
Legislature approved a package of legislation that will make available 91.1 billion
for energy conservation programs. April 6: PG&E (the regulated utility) filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after failing to come to an agreement with
Governor Davis on a state takeover of its transmission assets.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 5
Market Outlook
Next I to 12 Months
· The outlook for wholesale electricity prices in the short term is extremely uncertain.
General market fundamentals point toward continued high and volatile prices during this
time frame.
· Some 2,368 MW of new generation is scheduled to come on line by the end of 2001, but
whether this along with increased eonservation will be sufficient to fend off shortages is
unknown (shortages appear increasingly likely to occur).
· The vast majority of the proposed new power generation is dependent on natural gas.
Increased cost for natural gas has driven up the cost of producing electricity and is
expected to do so until new delivery capacity is added or conservation and alternative fuel
sources reduce the demand sufficiently below supply to reverse the price trends.
· Current efforts by the State of California (DWR) to secure wholesale power through long-
term contracts may help to stabilize wholesale electricity prices and provide power at rates
well below current wholesale spot market prices.
· Retail rates for SDG&E customers could rise if the CPUC authorizes a 2.3 cents/kWh rate
surcharge requested in danuary by SDG&E. The request is still pending with the CPUC.
SDG&E requested the increase in order to begin "buying down" the approximately $600
million in the balancing account.
Next I to 3 Years
· Wholesale electrieity prices should begin to level off, however priees are likely to remain
much higher than in 1998-1999. Priee stability should result from State's procurement of
longer-term contraets. Higher prices will result in part from higher input costs and in part
from possible supply constraints, particularly if hydroelectric resources remain Iow.
· San Diego area eustomers may be in for a potential rate shook as a result of the accrual of
large amounts of deferred power costs by the California utilities. SDG&E's rate stabilization
plan is set to end in 2002. It is unclear what the CPUC or the Legislature will do if SDG&E
has an uncollected balance of purchased power costs - a likely though not certain
outcome. Generally speaking, it could be expected that consumers will have a balancing
account of about 50% of their total annual bill.
SDG&E's regulated distribution rates will be reviewed in 2003. This could lead to yet
another increase in electricity rates.
3 to 7 Years Out
· Wholesale electricity prices should further stabilize and begin declining as new sources of
electricity supply and natural gas capacity come on line and demand response continues to
take hold.
Unless new power plants are located within SDG&E's service territory with adequate
natural gas to supply them, transmission constraints in the San Diego area could limit the
cost and reliability benefits to the region of new sources of electric supply being added to
the state's grid. Constraints on the natural gas distribution system also could contribute to
prices remaining high or a tight supply - demand situation. The proposed development of
the Otay Mesa plant (500 MW with potential expansion to 1,000 MW) could provide
approximately half of the power the region currently needs to import during peak loads,
however the plant's sole source of fuel is natural gas and that could have an impact on the
South Bay and Carlsbad plants ability to receive natural gas.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 6
Highly Recommended Options
and PolentJul ~r Sho~ Term
1. CONTINUE/~PAND ENERGY CONSERVATION PROJE~S FOR CI~ FACILITIES.
[O~ION 4. REPORT PP. 64]
~ Rationale
· The City has a good record of implementing conservation programs in City facilities.
Current high prices of electricity and improved conservation technologies make the
paybacks on energy efficiency facilities even more a~ractive. Therefore, capital
investments in this area face minimal risk and should yield near-term paybacks and
they have the added benefit of complementing the City's CO2 reduction plan.
· Energy efficient facilities will reduce consumption and therefore reduce relative
ongoing energy costs regardless of the outcome of market reforms and other state
or federal actions.
Legislative initiatives will make millions of dollars of funding available to lower the
financial costs of energy conservation. Again, funding assistance reduces the City's
risk of pursuing energy efficiency options. Over ~500 million in funding was
pledged under AB 1890 to reinvigorate the renewable energy industry in California.
So far, over $162 million has been paid for the development of 500 MW of new
renewable resources, while customers have received about ~47 million in bill credits
through October 2000 for buying power from renewable energy providers.
B. Ne~ Sfeos
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 ANI Page 7
C. Fiscal Imoact
Fisca~ impact will be primarily from staff time in Special Operations and some capital
investment in retrofits. Some staff time may be eligible for offset by grants and/or
SDG&E incentives. Staff costs could also be recovered through avoided costs from
energy savings.
The modified work schedule could render potential savings of up to 1 MW of City's
annual non-street light electricity usage or a cost savings of up to $150,000/year based
on average cost of $.15/kw-hr for electricity including transmission/distribution. The
City can maximize savings from a modified work schedule by shifting as much of the
workday from on-peak period (11:00 a.m to 6 p.m..) where electricity charges are
highest to semi-peak period (6:00 p.m. to 11 a.m.) where charges are lower.
2. CONTINUE/EXPAND AND PROMOTE ENERGY EFFICIENT AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROGRAMS FOR BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS AS WELL AS PROVIDE COMMUNITY
EDUCATION. [OPTION 5, REPORT PP. 67]
A. Rationale
· Making information on the power crisis readily available and supporting energy
conservation or other energy management efforts may be a critical factor in
convincing businesses where energy costs are a large component of an operating
budget to remain located in Chula Vista. It will also help businesses remain
competitive over the short run. High energy consumption businesses include high-
tech and bio-tech manufacturers, refrigerated food wholesale and retailers, precision
machine shops and aerospace parts manufacturers.
· Increased state funding for promotion of conservation options is likely to become
available. The City is in a good position to assist residents in availing themselves of
these funds.
Conservation represents the lowest risk to the investor, and the highest benefit to
the region and the environment. Every kilowatt saved or produced by an alternative
source is a reduction on demand pressures that should result in lower costs for
others. Conservation and alternative energy are also most productive during peak
hours when they are needed most.
· Conservation and alternative energy have the added benefit of being good for the
environment and complement the City's commitment to climate protection.
· An array of proactive energy programs could be critical in assisting business
attraction and retention activities.
Note: The benefits of such programs may be difficult to measure in strict cost-
benefit terms.
Note: Special Operations is in the process of distributing up to ~100.00 of
Compact Flourescent Lights (CFL) to 300 homes in the City (a total of
500+ homes have signed up leaving a waiting list of about 200
residents). The CFLs are being distributed and installed by two trained
Energy Administrative Interns who will also conduct energy and solid
waste audits to identify additional conservation opportunities and to
additional resource information.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 8
B. Newel Ste,.s:
· Distribute free energy saving retrofits for existing residences.
· Develop matching fund programs to assist local businesses with energy retrofits.
Note: Special Operations is in the process of soliciting small businesses with 10
employees or less to participate in a matching fund program that will provide up
to $1,0OO for energy efficient lighting retrofit. The retrofit will be conducted by
a licensed contractor who will conduct an energy audit and provide a proposal
to the City and business for prior approval.
· Analyze available options to provide incentives to businesses that utilize renewable
sources of energy (i.e. solar panels, wind power, distributive, etc.)
~ City matching funds
~: Grants or Iow interest loans (Sec. 108, CDBG, CEC Solar Energy Grant Program)
~ Rebates (in partnership with SDG&E)
~ Free publicity
· Identify and support state and federal grant opportunities that encourage businesses
to further develop or bring-to-market new energy-related technologies (i.e. wave
technology, fuel cell, etc.)
· Work with local retailers to market and distribute energy saving options.
· Provide public education, information and assistance to residents and businesses so
they may take advantage of rebate, loan and grant programs that assist energy
conservation. This could include developing an Energy Conservation and Resource
Guide.
· Include energy resource information on the City's website with links to relevant
energy assistance websites (i.e.U.S. Dept. of Energy, SDG&E Small Business
Services, San Diego Regional Energy Office, etc.)
Conduct business outreach workshops inviting guest speakers from various
consulting groups and service organizations/agencies to provide information on
energy conservation, renewable/sustainable sources of energy, and government
programs that provide funding/rebates to support these efforts.
Partner with other service/community organizations to broadcast energy saving
resources and tips to businesses via newsletters, information pamphlets and
websites and coordinate efforts with the Planning Department.
· Continue to utilize MRW to assist companies with contract negotiations as well as
with general energy-related inquiries.
C. Fiscal Iron-,ct
Fiscal impact is primarily from substantial staff time from Special Operations,
Community Development and Public Information. The first phase of retrofits for 300
homes and ten businesses have already been approved by Council. Additional costs
could include the Energy Conservation and Resource Guide as well as consultant
services from MRW to assist companies with individual contract negotiations (ranged
from $500 to $1,000 per company). Existing funds are available for MRW services.
The resource guide is estimated to cost about $1.00 per printed copy.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 9
3. MONITOR THE MARKET AND LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND BE PREPARED TO ENTER
INTO AN ELECTRICAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH AN ENERGY SERVICES PROVIDER
(AS PERMITTED BY LAW). [OPTION 6, REPORT PP. 71]
A. Rationale:
· About 55% of the City government's power purchases are bought at market rates.
As a result, the March 2001 bill for electric/gas service was $303,688.40 (includes
$106,004.50 electricity balancing account and $197,684.00 for electricity/gas. A
contract with an ESP might provide electricity more cheaply than taking service
from SDG&E.
B. Ri~ks to Consider:
· AB1X currently prohibits direct energy purchases for as long as the state has
outstanding long-term contracts. This law needs clarification, and may be
overturned, but for now, has squelched this market opportunity.
· There is some risk that if market conditions improve in the next 1-3 years, a long-
term commitment to an ESP will burden the City with higher cost electricity.
C. Next Steos:
Seek Council authorization to execute contracts within the following parameters:
· Pledge up to City's entire load (14MW).
· The contract term should be for the shortest time possible, but not to exceed three
years.
· Establish a per kilowatt ceiling price under which staff has the authority to
negotiate..
Note: Direct energy purchases may be subject to legal restrictions under ABlX; any
contract will require legal validation or escape clauses.
D. Fiscal Imeact
Staff time, primarily from City Manager's office, Community Development and City
Attorney.
4. DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY THAT FACILITATES THE
CITY'S OVERALL ENERGY PLAN. (STAFF GENERATED; NOT SPECIFICALLY
REFERRED TO IN MRW REPORT)
A. Rationale:
Energy supply and cost issues will be dramatically affected by federal and state actions.
Issues such as electricity supply costs, transmission reliability, natural gas
supply/reliability, municipal utility operations, distributed energy, aggregation,
environmental protection, power plant siting, direct energy procurement, and
aggregation are all subjects of current Legislation. Favorable state laws could enhance
and facilitate numerous City Energy Plan Options.
B. Next Steos:
Add a new category to the City's existing Legislative Program that embodies the City's
goals in such key areas as environmental protection, electrical supply costs, transmissin
reliability, natural gas supply and availability and power plant siting. This category
would include the following:
Support measures that:
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 10
1. Assist the City and its energy consumers improve supply/demand conditions and
enhance conservation measures.
2. Preserve local options to control and fund the supply and distribution of energy
(including the formation of a municipal utility district) or that fund conservation
programs.
3. Enhance the City's ability to enter into distributed generation agreements without
having to pay stranded transmission or distribution charges.
4. Impose "fair and reasonable" wholesale price caps.
5. Repeal the provision in AB1X that suspends customer choice, and pass a favorable
bill for customer choice (SB 27X or a similar one).
6. Make municipal aggregation programs available on an "opt-out" basis.
7. Allow public agencies (not just municipal utilities) such as the City to participate in
state power supply programs.
8. Encourage use of real time metering.
Oppose measures that:
1. Impinge on or restrict the City's ability to exercise land use review/control with
respect to the generation or transmission of power.
2. Erode the City's ability to acquire/generate power from alternative sources, operate
as a municipal utility, or enter into aggregation and/or distributed generation
arrangements.
C. Fiscal Imeact
Staff time, primarily from City Manager's office and Community Development.
5. CONTINUE/EXPAND EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
REDUCTION PLAN AND GREENSTAR BUILDING INCENTIVE PROGRAM. (STAFF
GENERATED; NOT INCLUDED IN MRW REPORT).
A. Rationale:
The City recently adopted the Carbon Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan establishing 20
Action Measures to promote energy savings and emissions reduction. Implementation
of the C02 Plan allows the City to move forward with energy efficient land use and
construction level programs.
B. Next Stees:
1. Implement applicable measures in CO2 Plan under three tiers; Citywide General Plan
Level, Site Planning (Sectional Planning Area) Plan Level and Individual Project
(Building Permit) Level.
· Study the feasibility of citywide land use measures as part of the General Plan
Update. Evaluate possible locations for mixed use and higher density
development near transit and major activity centers
· Develop and implement "Sustainable Development" concepts in new SPA Plans
through updating guidelines for preparation of Air Quality Improvement Plans
(AQIP's) as a part of SPA Plan review
· Develop and implement construction-level conservation measures in conjunction
with energy efficient building programs that are at least 20% more energy
efficient than current Title 24 Energy Code requirements.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 1 1
2. Implement the GreenStar Building Incentive Program and promote energy efficient
building practices. Identify air quality/energy conservation measures for
implementation in new developments.
3. Conduct a "pilot study" through use of a consultant to establish a set of site
planning and construction indicators (energy features and calculating methods), and
to develop a customized computer model for use in analyzing development projects
relative to air quality improvement and energy conservation.
4. Develop formal guidelines for the preparation of AQIP's based on the "pilot study"
results and determine any necessary amendments to the Growth Management
Ordinance.
5. Coordinate with the local development community and actively promote
participation in available energy efficient building programs such as ComfortWise
and Home Energy Partnership (HEP), and develop incentives to encourage this
participation.
6. Remain actively involved with the statewide Community Energy Efficiency Program
(CEEP) to provide oversight for the development and implementation of energy
efficient building programs and related incentives.
C. Fiscal Ira-act
Staff time primarily from the Planning and Building Department. The "Pilot Study"
($58,000) will be funded from an existing EPA grant.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 1 2
Promising Options
JncJ'eased risk und/or medium term puyo~
1. PURSUE DISTRIBUTED GENERATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR BOTH CITY
FACILITIES AND PRIVATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES.
[OPTION 3, REPORT PP. 56] "Distributed generation" refers to small power
generation units (generally up to 30 megawatts) that are located near consumer or
targeted load centers. Technologies include simple cycle gas turbines,
microturbines, fuel cells and photovoltaics.
A. Rationale:
Distributed generation can be used as a source of energy at peak periods when
power is most expensive.
· Some types of distributed generation offer significant environmental benefits to the
local area.
· Because distributed generation can be accomplished with a Iow capital investment
(relative to large-scale power plants), the financial risk to the City of this option is
more manageable than pursuing the development of a City-financed power plant.
Current and proposed funding and incentive programs that are available for
distributed generation projects enhance the attractiveness of this option vis-a-vis
other options. In particular, the Legislature's Special Session could lead to new
funding for distributed generation and potentially an easing of regulatory and market
barriers to distributed generation.
· Distributed generation can power just City facilities, or, depending upon capacity
and location, could be utilized with adjacent industrial sites in an "over-the-fence"
transaction. The City also should identify potential landfill gas resources and explore
development of those resources, as has been done in the County at the Miramar,
Sycamore and Otay landfills that use landfill methane gas to manufacture energy.
In a hypothetical application of distributed generation at the Chula Vista Police
Department, a best-case scenario for distributed generation provides power to the
Police Department at about 7-8 cents per kWh at historical natural gas prices and
11-13 cents per kWh at current elevated prices.
Note: In terms of downside risk, there is some risk the CPUC will rule in favor of the
utilities' position on distribution stranded costs or other issues that could limit the
financial attractiveness of distributed generation.
B. Next Steos:
1. Solicit proposals for distributed generation projects at selected City facilities as well
as for potential private economic development opportunities. Staff will solicit
development proposals for specific generation facilities/technologies on City-owned
facilities that produce peak or full load generation at or below current market rates.
City Facilities
· Respondents are to identify favorable sites and preferred technologies as well as
cost estimates. Potential City sites identified by staff include (a) the new
Corporation Yard on Maxwell Road; (b) the Civic Center Expansion/Police
Facility; and (c) various library and recreation centers.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 13'
Economic Development Opportunities
· Staff will evaluate potential business development and retention opportunities
and solicit development proposals for Distributed Generation and/or other
developer/economic development "over the fence" transactions.
· Potential Economic Development Opportunities include (a) Maxwell Road site
(northern portion) (synergy with the landfill, Corporation Yard, Energy Way
redevelopment potential); (b) LandBank site (northwest corner - synergy with
Corporation Yard, landfill, LandBank and Auto Park redevelopment); and (c)
BFGoodrich site (new BFG campus development/Co-Generation opportunity).
2. Pursue the Solar Energy and Distributed Generation Grant Program offered through
the CEC. Program offers rebates and/or other financial incentives for residential,
business, and government users who purchase and install solar energy and
distributed generation facilities.
3. Monitor CPUC proceedings and encourage decisions that facilitate the program.
C. Fiscal Imoact
Staff time primarily from City Manager's office, Community Development and City
Attorney's office. Depending on the outcome of some preliminary investigations by
staff, there may be the need to secure the services of specialized legal, financial and/or
energy consultants as various economic development proposals emerge.
2. MONITOR THE MARKET AND LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND BE PREPARED TO
ENTER INTO A BILATERAL AGREEMENT WITH A POWER GENERATOR.
[OPTION 7. REPORT PP. 74]
A. Rationale:
· In effect, acting as its own ESP, the City could choose .to purchase power directly
from a power supplier and obtain a longer-term access to electricity at a fixed or
hedged price.
Note: As with the ESP contract, described above, pursuing this option at this time
could lead to the City locking itself into a power supply contract at a price that will be
above market prices in a more stable electricity market.
B. Next Steos:
Seek Council authorization to execute contracts within the following parameters:
1. Pledge up to City's entire load (14 MW).
2. The contract term should be for the shortest time possible, but not to exceed three
years.
3. Authorize staff to negotiate an agreement up to but not to exceed a specified
ceiling price.
Note: Direct energy purchases may be subject to legal restrictions under ABlX; any
contract will require legal validation or escape clauses.
C. Fiscal Impact
Staff time primarily from City Manager's office, City Attorney and Community
Development.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 14
3. PARTNER WITH A THIRD PARTY TO BUILD AND OPERATE POWER GENERATION
FACILITIES. [OPTION 2, REPORT PP. 53]
A. Rationale:
The City has an excellent opportunity to pursue this option with Duke Energy as
part of the modernization of the South Bay plant.
· A partnership can be structured in numerous ways to share the risks and
benefits of development and operation, and to leverage what each party brings
to the table. For example, in consideration for facilitating the redevelopment of
the South Bay plant, the City could obtain rights to receive a dedicated share of
the plant's capacity, a share of plant revenues, and/or other public benefits such
as Bayfront infrastructure, City facility energy projects, etc.
· Proposed legislation may expedite the licensing and permitting process for new
power plants (primarily peaking plants) and for the repowering of existing power
plants. Because this legislation will likely have sunset provisions (i.e., dates
upon which they expire), the next one to three years may provide an ideal
window to push through the development and siting of a power plant.
B. Risks to Consider:
· Competing legislation may reduce the attractiveness of owning or sharing in the
development of a power plant. For example, legislation, if passed, may require the
owner of a power plant to sell its electricity only to in-state customers, limiting the
potential market for the plant's output (legislation pushing for this "California First"
policy has been softened in latest versions and now is framed in terms of price
parity for California vis-a-vis out of state customers). A more draconian measure
proposed in new legislation would make any owner of a power generation facility a
public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the CPUC (although the legal validity of
such legislation is uncertain).
· California's electricity market structure is still in a state of flux and there is
considerable uncertainty as to how the market will operate in the future. This
regulatory uncertainty is significant.
C. Next Ste,,s:
· Continue negotiations with Duke Energy and the Port District regarding the terms
for redevelopment of the South Bay Plant. Basic premise is to derive public benefit
in consideration of City facilitation of plant development.
D. Fiscal Imeact
Staff time from City Manager's office, City Attorney's office and Community
Development. As discussions advance, there may be the need to secure additional
outside legal, financial and/or energy consultant services.
4. DEVELOP AN EMISSIONS OFFSETS PROGRAM BASED ON MOBILE SOURCES (AS
PERMITTED BY LAW). [OPTION 10, REPORT PP. 83]
New power generators must obtain emissions offset credits (CNG vehicles) or other
conservation projects from the APCD to mitigate increased NOX pollutants.
A. Rationalg:
· Some City conservation programs could be utilized to obtain emission offset credits
from conversion of diesel/gasoline-powered vehicles to Natural Gas power. These
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 1 §
could be sold or utilized to facilitate local alternative sources of power generation or
fund the conversion of City fleet vehicles to cleaner air vehicles,
B. Next Steps:
· City staff should work with air quality officials to realize benefits of any City
investment in alternative fuel vehicles (e.g. CNG buses) to allow the City to provide
the value of those reductions to potential partners.
· City staff can also work with future generators and the APCD to ensure that any
mitigation funds generated are invested locally.
· Develop portfolio of potential offset projects to make available to new generation
sources requiring offsets,
C. Fiscal Imuact
Staff time from Special Operations.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 16
Higher Risk Options
[Opllon~ th#t ~equlre Inrge ¢opltul outlnys and/or
cur~.y ~Jgnl~nnt bu~lne~ rl~lc~ nnd hmve n longer
!. FINANCE, OWN, AND OPERATE A LARGE-SCALE POWER PLANT TO MEET A
PORTION OF THE CITY'S DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY. rORTION 1, REPORT PP. 49]
A. Rationale:
· Plant ownership and efficient operation could provide protection from high and/or
volatile wholesale electricity prices, a potential source of revenue if excess power is
sold into the open market, and improved local electric reliability.
B. Risks to Consider:
· The initial capital investment is estimated to range from 950 to 990 million and the
plant could generate electricity for 10 to 12 cents per kWh at current natural gas
prices (not including local distribution or transmission costs).
· There are almost no examples of a municipally owned large-scale power plant
except as part of a municipal utility.
· Siting, building, and operating a large-scale power plant require specialized expertise
and the negotiation of numerous regulatory hurdles.
· A long-term market outlook suggests wholesale power prices will decline; this
would put at risk the plant's financial viability.
C. Next Stent:
· In light of these risks, this option is not recommended at this time. This option may
be revisited in the future if other options fail to achieve desired results.
2. FORM A MUNICIPAL DISTRIBUTION UTILITY TO OWN AND OPERATE ALL OR
PORTIONS OF THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. [OPTION 9, REPORT PP. 77]
The formation of a municipal utility could entail anything from the mere declaration of
municipal utility status (akin to what San Marcos did recently), all the way up to ownership
and operation of some portion of, or all of, a power generation and distribution system to
serve some or all of the City's actual gas and electricity needs. To be able to control the
delivery of power to any substantial segment of the population, the City would need to
control or own some substantial portion of the distribution system.
A. Rationale:
· A municipal utility has preferential access to cheap federal hydropower (but there is
a "waiting list" for access to this power) and potentially other alternative power
supply sources. It does not pay federal income taxes, and it has access to tax-
exempt debt to finance capital projects.
· A municipal utility may be able to provide distribution services at a lower cost than
the incumbent utility. Note, however, distribution costs are not the primary driver
of current high power costs.
By operating the distribution system the City would have the ability to structure
rates in a manner that rewards conservation, encourages the use of off-peak power,
and provides the City with control over how and where "public benefit,"
conservation funds are invested.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 17
B. Risks to Consider:
· With the structure of California's electricity market in flux, the outlook for a
municipal utility is uncertain. It is unclear at this stage whether municipal utilities,
particularly ones yet to be established, will be able to buy power from DWR. If they
cannot, a City utility would have to procure power on the open market.
· Lassen Municipal Utilities District is the most recent example in California of a
formation of a new municipal utility. LMUD now faces significant rate increases due
to power procurement decisions that, with hindsight, were ill advised. SMUD also is
p~anning to raise its electricity rates; however, this will be the first rate increase in
ten years and rates will still be lower than PG&E's electricity rates before this recent
round of PUC approved rate increases.
C. Next Sto,~s:
Commence negotiations with SDG&E for mutual beneficial partnerships.
· Conduct preliminary appraisal and pre-feasibility consultant services necessary to
evaluate rough costs to acquire existing SDG&E facilities (or build new facilities)
and evaluate legal/regulatory issues/obstacles. If approved by Council, issue an RFP
for services to valuate SE)G&E facilities.
Consider resolution to declare City a Municipal Utility (effective immediately with no
real tangible benefits).
· Coordinate any effort on this strategy with the efforts of other local jurisdictions.
D. Fiscal Immact
Staff time primarily from City Attorney, City Manager, and Community Development.
Additionally, it is currently anticipated that the preliminary appraisal and feasibility
consultant services would cost approximately $40,000 to $50,000. If after the pre-
feasibility phase is completed, and the City elects to proceed, it is anticipated that the
final phase would cost up to $250,000 that would produce a condemnation quality
appraisal including severance issues analyzed and valuated.
3. BECOME A MUNICIPAL "AGGREGATOR" AND ACQUIRE ELECTRICITY AT
NEGOTIATED RATES FOR THE CITY, AND INCLUDE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES
(AS PERMITTED BY LAW). [OPTION 8, REPORT PP. 74]
A. Rationale:
· Municipal aggregation offers the potential for lower electricity costs and certain
non-price benefits at minimal initial capital investment.
· The City of Palm Springs saved customers in its aggregation program $88,000 in
only two years. (The program has since been suspended.)
B. Risks to Consider:
· Current ~aw requires procedures whereby local residents and businesses must
affirmatively "opt in" to an aggregation plan. This dramatically reduces
participation, and therefore the benefits of aggregation. However, there is
legislation currently under discussion to change this provision and allow municipal
aggregation programs to be done on an "opt-out" basis. If there is a change in the
law, this option is more promising in terms of the potential benefits such a program
could provide to Chula Vista's residents and businesses.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 18
· Although the risk to the City under this option is less than the above two options,
municipal aggregation is likely to yield very minimal benefits while burdening the
City with administrative and contractual responsibilities.
C. Next Steus:
· Support legislation that preserves consumer choices and authorizes "opt out"
municipal aggregation programs.
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 19
Summary of Major Action Items
1. Retrofit new and existing City facilities while also distributing retrofits to residents.
2. Pursue modified work schedule for City employees,
3. Continue/expand energy conservation projects for City facilities and promote energy
efficient and renewable energy programs for businesses and residents.
4. Continue to monitor the market and negotiate with ESP's and Duke as the law allows -
execute deal within specified parameters if obtainable.
5. Continue to monitor the legislative process and implement the Legislative Strategy,
6. Implement the CO2 Reduction Plan through efforts on three tiers: the Citywide General Plan
Update, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans/Site Planning, and Building Construction
(GreenStar Program).
7. Implement the GreenStar Building Incentive Program.
8. Conduct a "pilot study" through use of a consultant to establish a set of site planning and
construction indicators, and to develop a computer model for use in analyzing development
projects relative to air quality improvement and energy conservation.
9. Solicit proposals for Distributed Generation projects at selected City facilities and evaluate
potential economic development "over the fence" transaction opportunities.
10. Pursue the CEC Solar Energy and Distributed Generation Grant Program for both City
facilities and other economic development opportunities.
11.Negotiate (in cooperation with the Port District) public benefits with Duke Energy as new
plant is entitled.
12. Develop an Emissions Offsets Program based on mobile sources (as permitted by law).
13. Negotiate with SDG&E for mutually beneficial opportunities.
14. Prepare Request for Proposals for consultant services to perform preliminary appraisal and
pre-feasibility studies to valuate SDG&E facilities and analyze legal/ regulatory environment
for municipalization. Estimated cost to $50,000.
15. Present resolution for declaring the City a Municipal Utility.
Next Steps
1. Based on Counci~ direction at workshop, proceed with Major Action Items.
2. Determine overall Energy Strategy, staffing and management plan and more refined general
implementation costs.
3. Present Energy Strategy and Action Plan to Council for formal adoption in June 2001, and
report on progress made on the Major Action Items,
J:\COMMDEV\HAYNES\EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.doc
Executive Summary - Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:19 AM Page 20
ATTACHMENT C
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Cit), Council
City of Chula Vista
From: Steve McClar7 and Heather Vierbicher
MRW & Associates, Inc.
Subject: Summary of Legislative and Gubernatorial Initiatives
Date: April 5.2001
This memo summarizes for the benefit of the members of Chula Vista's City Council legislative and
gubernatorial initiatives which have taken place since February I, 2001. MRW & Associates, Inc.
(MRX3,) prepared for the City of Chula Vista a study that incorporates an overv'iew of the state of
California's electric and natural gas industry. The material included in the report is current through
January 3 I, 2001. Therefore, this memo is intended to update City Council members on important
legislative and gubernatorial activities that have taken place since the report was completed.
This memo first provides an overview of the Executive Orders Governor Davis issued in February
and March. The second part of this memo outlines the pending legislation in the State Legislature's
First Extraordinary Session.
Confidential Memorandum For Chula Vista City Council and Ci~. ' $:~(f Use Only
Gubernatorial Initiatives
On January 17 Governor Davis declared a state of Emergency in California due to the current
energy crisis affecting the state. Governor Davis has used his constitutional authority a number
of times since then to issue Executive Orde~ directing various actions to be taken to address the
state's power crisis. The Executive Orde~ expire on December 31, 2001.
This section summarizes the salient provis-'..ons of a number of these Executive Orders.
Executive Order 23
This Order directs the California Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop a sy~em for
coordinating and managing both planned and unplanned outages at generation facilities in
California and connected to the ISO system. Outages at generation facilities contributed to the
supply-demand imbalance last fall and ~inter. Specifically, this Order requires the ISO to direct
generators to submit to the ISO planned et_~ge schedules, prepare a coordinated outage plan
which shall be updated quarterly, identi~' generation ,faciliD' maintenance criteria to l:e met by
generation facilities, maintain records of a-W unplanned generation facility, outages and to
provide those records to the Electricity Oversight Board and conduct audits of generat-ion
facilities that have fallen below' performance benchmarks.
Executive Order 24
This Order addresses air quality and air emissions limits. The Governor directed local air
pollution control and air quality management districts to modify emissions limits that limit a
generation facility's hours of operation. Last year some generators reached their allowed limit for
hours of operation or total air emissions and could not operate ~vithout incurring penalties. This
contributed to the supply-demand imbalance.
Executive Order 25
To encourage construction of already approved power plants as quickly as possible, the Governor
issued this Executive Order directing the California Energy Com_mission (CEC) to expedite the
review and approval of project amendments. Also under this Order, certain simple cycle power
plarjts can be converted to combined cycle power plants by amending currer~t certificates rather
than filing new applications with the CEC.
Executive Orders 26 and 28
The first of these Orders directed the CEC to ~repare a report of poteutial peaking power plant
sites in California. The report was to identify, those areas of the state that would benefit from the
installation ora peaking power plant to au=.o-rnent power supplies through the summer of 2003.
The CEC prepared this report, "Potenti~ Peaking Power Plant Sites i9 California" and presented
it to the Governor on February 21. The report found that constraints in the natural gas supply
delivery system in the San Diego region made any potential sites in that area questionable.
The second Order, Executive Order 28: directs the CEC to permit new peaking and renewable
power plants on an emergency, expedited basis. Power plants that are permitted under the
emergency process are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
April 5, 2001 2 [~ ~9 MRW& Associates, Inc.
Confidential Mernorandum For Chula ~'ista City Council ar, d City Staff Use Onl~v
Act. Plants must be able to be online by September 30, 2001 to be eligible for permiaing under
the emergency process.
Executive Order 30
In March Governor Davis issued this Executive Order to encourage greater energy conservation
th/s coming summer (the order cc?ires at the end of 2001). The order directs the Department of
Water Resources to implement financial incemives for conservation efforts by residential,
commercial and industrial customers. Under this program, the utilities will prox-ide rate
reductions of up to 20% to consumers who reduce their electricity consumption by at least 20%
during June to September 2001. The program will be financed through a reduction in the
milities' payments to the Department of Water Resources in subsequent months.
Legislative Initiatives
This section provides the most recent information on l~effding legislation in the First Extraordinary
Session. Members in both the Assembly and Senate have proposed over 180 bills to deal with
various aspects of California's gower crisis. The majority of bills continue to l:e discussed at the
committee level where they axe keing amended to address practical, jursidictional, and political
concerns. The proposed bills generally target the following range of issues:
· mechanisms to provide financial relief to the state's three main utilities;
· the permitting and licensing process for power generation facilities (pfim~,iy to expedite the
process) (i.e., ABX1 34, ABXI 36, SBX1 28);
· electricity, rate issues, particularly in relation to rate caps and rate freezes;
· energy efficiency, renewable energy, and distributed generation funding and financial incentives
to encourage wider adoption rates (i.e., ABX1 38, ABX1 54);
· measures to prohibit or resu-[ct utility "stand-by" charges in an effort to encourage distributed
generation and self generation; and
· tax issues related to energy production or consumption.
Because many oft. he bills overlap in their objectives or intended result, one bill ~pically emerges as
the lead vehicle for addressing a specific issue. Thus, many of the bills currenfly proposed will not be
acted on but instead will be incorporated with other bills on a similar topic. However, some
legislators are resisting the pressure to combine bills.
Highlights ora few bills which include provisions relevant to the City include:
· SBXI 5 (She~) provides approximately $733 million for energy efficiency initiatives, including
$20 million targeted for energy conservation in buildings owned and operated by cities and
counties located in utility (e.g. SDG&E) territories.
April 5,200l 3 -~ -~._~d) MRW& Associates, Inc.
Confidential Memorandum For Chula Vista Ci~. Council and Ci~.' Staff Use Only'
· ABX1 29 contains a provision providing $25 million for a grant program and $25 million for a
loan program to a city, county, or special district to fund energy efficiency projects. The grant
funds can be used for administrative expenses.
· SBX1 28 (Sher) is a package of generation initiatives, including limited waivers of standby
charges for customer-owaxed generation.
· SBX1 23 and ABX1 47 would reduce several hurdles cities face in forming municipal electric
utilities.
The folloxxSng summarizes pending bills that are relevant to Chula Vista's development of an energy
management strategy and that may emerge from the legislative process for passage. Assembly bills
are presented first, followed by Senate bills.
ABX1 4, Daucher and Rod Pacheco: ASM
ELECTRIC GENERATION: For owners of generatioa Plants that offer to sell the enerp' to in-
state buyers first, this bill would authorize a tax credit beginning in January 2002 equal to the
o~ner's costs of purchasing eh'fission reduction credits for an electrical generating facility. A
hearing of this bill has been postponed.
Impact on ChuIa Vista: Should encourage private investment in power generation. It is tmcIear if
a mzmicipaIi~ could take advantage of the tar credit.
ABX1 9, Richman: ASM
ELECTRIC GENERATION: Requires the CEC to identify regions in the state x~4th the ~eatest
electrical energy supply-demand imbalance. Local governments with land-use anthoriry would
be required to identify, potential sites for locating a power plant facility. It is intended to reduce
the NIMBY hurdles confronting power plant projects. This bill passed out of the Assembly on a
75-0 vote.
Impact on Chula Vista: 3/o immediate effect on Chula Vista or the energy management options
under consideration. The lan~age of this bill was amended to remove requirements that local
governments work to site a po*ver plant in their jurisdiction. The new bill language now states
that the local aztthorities need only identify a potential site but are not required to actually
develop a power plant on the sire.
ABX1 15, Pachecm ASM
ENERGY EFFICIENCY: Pro,-ides a credit of up to $1,000 per year against net taXes for
qualified costs incurred by a taxpayer for energy conservation measures (such as replacing or
installing air conditioners, refiS, gerators, windows, insulation, weather stripping, low-flow
devices, ventilation cooling fans, attic ventilators, economizer systems, and heaters with more
energy efficient models, devices, or designs). The taxpayer can claim the credit each year for the
years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. This level of a credit for energy conservation measures is
unprecedented in California, where the trax credit is typically only 5-10% of the cost and meant to
leverage private investment. This bill could subsidize the entire cost of some homeowner
improvements with an unkno~n impact on energy consumption. This bill is in the Assembly
Revenue and Taxation Committee for hearing.
April 5, 2001 4 /~ ~ ~ MR~V & Associates, Inc.
Confidential Memorandum For Chula Vix:a Ci~.' Council and Ci~.' Staff Use Only
Impact on Chula Vista: This bill would provide additional incentives to residents to install
ener~:-efficient devices· U~e credit cannot be applied toward the installation of energy
conservation measures for a building being constructed or where square footage is added. The
Cio' could incorporate this tax incentive in a community education program designed to
illustrate the financial benefits of energy efficiency. But t~xpayers cannot "double dip" by
claiming a credit for a ptrrchase from two different sources.
ABX1 20, Zettel: ASM
POWER PLANT SITINGSENERGY EFFICIENCY: This bill would permit air pollution control
districts to issue a temporary, expedited, consolidated permit for a power plant if it met certain
conditions and would require the CE.C to implement an expedited decision process for a peaking
plant facility or argendments to pending appliga.tions for a change from a combined cycle project
(non-peaking plant) to a peaking plant project. This bill would authorize the CPUC to implemerit
an ex-pedited process for considering utility applications for certificates of public convenience
and necessity or for a pe,----~it to construct transmission and substation facilities. The CPUC would
also be required to authorize utilities to provide financing for time-of-use meters for residential
and small commercial customers, to create incentives for commercial customers to reduce
nonessential liehtino_, and to offer incentives to builders to exceed energy standards in new
consu-uction. Funding would be made available to mitigate or offset emissions from such power
plants. This bill would remain in effect only until January 2003. No action has been taken on
this bill since February.
Impact on ChuIa Vista: This bill is intended to exi~edite the siring of peaking facilities. This bill
reduces the reg~datory hurdles for siting a peaking plant, which may be beneficial to the City if it
pursued one of the options related to developing a generation pIant in the City limits. The bill
could facilitate the siting qf the 49 blW RAMCO plant in ChuIa Vista or a new peaking power
plant in the City.
ABX1 21, Kelley: ASM
DIRECT ACCESS: This bill would allow customers to switch their electric service to an
alternative provider. These customers may face an "exit" fee which would ensure that DWR
recovers its power proc,arement costs. This bill passed out of the Assembly on March 22.
Impact on Chula Vista: This bill, if it led to determinations by the CPUC that cities could choose
an alternative provider, ~wuId put the option of signing an agreement with an ESP back into
piny for the City.
ABX1 27~ Koretz and Hortom ASM
ON-SITE GENERATION: This bill would authorize $50 million annually in trax incentives for '
the purchase or lease of qualified power generation facilities. The power generation facility must
have a capacity of 50 MW or less and be a renewable source of power (solar energy, wind-
driven, fuel cell, microturbine, photovoltalc, and natural gas generation system, but does not
include any diesel, oil, gasoline, or steam generation system). The bill outlines four separate tax
incentives from which the user may choose: a credit equal to the percentage of the cost, a
depreciation-based incentive, a credit against net sales and use tax, or exemption from the sales
and use tax. The an:site system would have to provide 80% of the electricity consumed by the
user, and the user may not sell, trade, or exchange the electrical output. The tax incentives would
April 5, 2001 5 j z~ ~) MRW& Associates, Inc.
Confidential Memorandum For Chula Vista City Council and CiO' 5;~.~Use Only
remain in place for the period 2001-2005. This bill is in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
Impact on ChuIa Vista: This bill primarily acts as an incentive for the installation of on-site
generation· It is unclear whether the tax benefits would extend to the City itself or on~:
businesses. Residential custorners are unlikely to find this bill beneficial· Because the bill takes
effect only 90 days afier passing, the bill is unlikely to provide incentives to taxpayers in time to
meet the summer demand· Taxpayers would have to go forward with a purchase witho;~t knowing
the finaI outcome for this bill.
ABX1 29, Kehoe: ASM
ENERGY EFFICIENCY: This bill establishes a variety, of new programs related to energy
efficiency and distributed generation. The bill provides financial assistanc~ to comrnmxiry
colleges for energy efficiency and load management. Businesses would access to a new loan
guarantee program for renewable energy projects. The bill provides $50 million for a ~'ant and
loan program for residents and small business owners fo[ building retrofits and another 550
million for cities, counties, and special districts. The bill also requires the CPUC to undertake
measures to allow for the replacement of meters with time-of-use meters for non-residential
customers with demand greater than 100 kW and would make available $50 million for the
purchase of time-of-use meters by customers with usage greater than 100 kW. The Assembly
passed the bill, and it is now bt a Senate committee.
Impact on Chula Vista: This biII provides additional financiaI incentives for energy
conservation. The City itself would not directly benefit frqm this pro,am, but the Ciq; co,dd
facilitate access to the pro,ams for its residents and businesses.
ABX1 32, Nation and Aroner: ASM
EI_ECTRIC RATES: This bill would re~.uire the CPUC to establish a 3-tier rate strucv~e for
residential electric customers. The bill would exempt certain customers from the hig_~v, er third tier
rate. Customers that consume electricity, l:elo~v a baseline amount would pay the first t~er rate.
Consumption higher than the baseline would be billed under the second- and third-tier rates,
depending on the quantity, consumed. This bill also requires that all charges for residential
elezrric customers be based on electricity consumption, until at least January 2004 [Heather - do
you know what this means? Sounds like a hit on demand charges, perhaps?]. Finally, '.this bill
requires the CPUC to authorize the installation of time-of-use meters for nonresident[z[
customers with loads greater than 100 kW. (This provision overlaps with ABXi 29 (see above).
This bill is hz the Assembly.
Impact on Chula Vista: There is no Ci~.'-specific effect on Chula Vista.
ABX1 35, Bates: ASM
DIRECT ACCESS: Deletes ABX1 1 lan?.tage that suspends all direct access transact/om until
DWR no longer supplies power to customers. No action has been taken on this bill since
February.
Impact on Chula Vista: This bill would enable Chula Vista to pursue an energy supply contract
with an ESP.
ABX1 36, Wright: ASM.
I '~"~ '~ 3¥RgV& Associates, Inc.
April 5, 2001 6 ~.:> .~3
Confidential Memorandum For Chula Vista City Council and Ci~. ' Staff Use Only
SITING: This bill would include plant modernizations in the CEC's six-month siting process
under AB 970. License applications would no longer have to have air-emission offsets in hand at
the time the CEC does the data-adequacy determination. The Assembly passed this bill oli
March 12, and it is now bi the Senate Committee Oll Environmental Quality.
Impact on Chula Vista: This bill wouId facilitate the modernization of the South Bay'plant, which
may provide benefits to the City.
ABX1 40~ Steinberg: ASM
ENERGY EFFICIENCY: This bill would require the CEC to administer a program of grants and
loans to a ci~', county, or special dis~ct., including a school district, to fund energy efficiency
and conservation projects in facilities ovmed by those entities. T~e bill would appropriate $50
million for this ptrrpose. The Assenlbly passed this bill o11 March 22, and it is now bl the Senate
Conlnlittee oll Energy, UtilitieS, and Conlnlun&ations.
Impact on Chula Vista: This bill could provide $ignificant financial assistance for the City for
any energy efficiency projects it intends to pursue in the fitture.
ABX1 45, Kelley: ASM
MANUFACTUKERS INVESTMEN~ CREDIT: Extends the MIC to include the generation of
electricity through the use of solar, wind, geothermal, solid-fuel bioma~s, was~:e tire, municipal
solid waste, digester gas, or hydropower with a generating capacity of 30 MW ~r more. The
generating facilities must be new (i.e., not selling electricity to a utility, prior to Jan. 1,2001).
This bill is being reviewed by the Assembl. v Energy Costs and Availabili~, Commlttee.
lmpact on Chula Vista: Businesses located in ChuIa Vista may. be able to benefit.from this bill.
ABX1 48, Migden: ASM
MUNICIPAL AGGREGATION: This bill would authorize customers to aggregate their electric
loads with private aggregators or a~ part of a municipal aggregation program. ]"ne bill authorizes
municipalities to create municipal ag~egation programs if each customer is given an opportunity
to opt out o[ the program. Customers that choose to opt out of a municipal ag~egation program
would be se,wed by the current utility or ~ts successor. This bill also provides that municipalities
that establish aggregation programs may apply for a pro rata share of energy efficiency funds
collected from customers by the incumbent utilities. Provisions of this bill conflict with the
corrmauni~' aggregation provisions o[ SBX1 8. This bill was passed by the Assembly Energy
Costs and Availability Committee on March 28.
Impact on Chula Vista: This bill would have a direct impact on the viability ora municipal
aggregation ivrogram. Currently, municipal aggregatton programs must be done on an "opt-in"
basis, a provision which constrai~ the effectiveness of aggregation programs. If this bill is
adopted to allow "opt-out" aggregation programs, more ESPs will likely be 5fqlling to bid to
serve as the supplier (because of the potential large customer base) and the administrative costs
could be spread over a large customer base.
ABX1 49~ Campbell: ASM
ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES: Requires that portions of property tax revenues of a
power plant facility be allocated to the county and/or city in which the prima_~' power-generating
operation of that facility is located; and grants the board of supervisors of the county or the city
April 5, 2001 7 /~,~._~. MRg'& Associates, Inc.
Confidential Mernoran&tm For Chula Vista Ciw. Council and Ci~. Staff Use Only
and county in which a new facility is located to have the right of first refusal to the electricity
generated in that facility.
Impact on ChuIa Vista: This bill would give the City additional leverage in managing the energy
supply to the City and possibly provide additional revenues.
ABX1 51, Daucher: ASM
ON-SITE GENERATION: Provides a t~x exemption for generators installed under a qualified
intermptible se,vice contract of 3 years or more. Th,is bill is intended to provide an incentive to
businesses to purchase and install on-site generators. Afirst hearbtg of this bill was postponed.
Impact on Chula Vista: Businesses located in ChuIa Vista may be able to benefit from this bill.
ABX1 53, Reyes: ASM
RENEWABLE PROGRAM'S: Establishes the California Renewable Ener~- Loan Guarantee
Program to ~zarantee loans up to 80% of the loan value made by financial institutions to eligible
businesses for the permitting, manufacturing, acquisition, construction, or installation of
renewable energy systems intended to decrease demand on the electricity ~d. The minimum
amount that may be guaranteed for any renewable energy system is $25,000 and the maximum
amount is two million dollars $2,000,000. The Assembly passed this bill on March 22.
Impact on Chula Vista: Businesses, particularly small businesses,, located in Chula Vista may. be
able to benefit from this bill.
ABX1 60, Hert-zberg: ASM
ELECTRIC GzM-NERATION: This bill would require, as a condition of cexification by the CEC,
that a new generating facility offer to sell its output to an electrical corporation, a municipal
corporation, or the Department of Water Resources, on terms not less favorable than the terms of
the next offer that the applicant makes for the sale of electrical power generated by that facility.
Given this pro~4sion, new generating facilities could still sell power at prices consistent xx4th the
prevallir~g market conditions and also sell output outside of California. This language is less
stringent than previous versions which sought to push a "Califorrda First' policy. The Assembly
passed this bill on March 22.
Impact on Chula Vista: May affect economics of South Bay replacement project.
SBX1 1, Soto: SEN REVENUE AND TAXATION
INCENTIVE: Provides a tax exemption until 1/1/03 for the sale and the storage, use, or other
consumption of microturbines, fuel cells, photovoltaic cells or any other solar energy cell or
panel.
Impact on ChuIa Vista: This bill would provide additional incentives to businesses and residents
to install distributed generation applications.
SBX1 5, Sher and Burton: SEN
ENERGY EFFICIENCY: Appropriate $1,039,500,000 from the General Fund to the CEC and
CPUC to implement energy efficiency programs and supplement existing energy efficiency
programs, distributed generation, peak demand reduction, expansion of Iow-income discounts,
and more. This bill provides $20 million for programs targeting load shifting and energy
efficiency in municipal buildings. The Senate passed tMs bill on March 2Z
April 5, 2001 8 /~79~' ~ MR}V& Associates. Inc.
Confidential Memorandum For Chula Vista CiG' Council and City Staff Use Only
Impact owChula Vista: SB 5X would make local governments eligible to receive fimding for
programs.aimed at reducing peak energy use, inchtding water and waste water system efficiency,
I-IVAC operations and traffic light systems.
SBX1 6rBurton and Bowen: SEN
. STATE P. OWEK AUTHORITY: This bill (1) creates the California Consumer Power and
Consen'afion Financing Authority, (2) authorizes the issuance of bonds up to $5 billion, and (3)
specifies that no new projects be undertaken after January 1, 2007. This bill establishes the
California Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority (CPCFA), which would have
the authority to build, finance, own, or acquire, either on its own or with others, electric power
plants. The intended goal is to improve long-term resource planning for the electricity sector and
augment private ~ector.investment in power plants· The CPCFA would also provide financial
assistance: ~h.programs administered by others, for ener~--effcient appliances and
renewable energy projects and for energy efficiency and environmental improvements of existing
power plants. This bill is currently under review by tl, e Senate Appropriations Committee.
Impact on Chzda Vista: This bill would provide additional incentives to businesses and residents
for e~ergy efficiency and renewable energy projects. It is unclear how the formation of an
Authori~.' would affect -positively or negatively - Chula Vista's options, particularly those
addressing the development ofa power plant. The South Bay plant could benefit from this bill if
it can ~ake advantage of fimding for environmental improvements at the facility.
SBX1 8, Alarcon: SEN
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES: This bill would permit a public agency that seeks to ser~'e as a
corem~unity aggregator for direct access customers to provide aggegation service to all of the
customers within its jurisdiction after a majority vote of its elected governing body. If a customer
of the public agency desires to receive service from a different service provider, it may do so
upon ,axinen notice to the public agency and pursuant to the opt-out rules established by the
publi~ agency. TMs biff remains in the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications
Committee.
Impact.on Ch~l.a Vista: This bill would make it easier for Chu[a ['ism to develop a municipal
ag~rega~iqn prpgram.
SBX1 17} Brulte: SEN
SOLAR: Provides a tax credit for costs incurred by a taxpayer for the purchase and installation of
a sol~ _energy system for the production of electricity installed on property in this state. The
credit would equal $2.50 per rated watt of generating capacity, and would be limited to 50% (for
2001 th.rough 2003) or 25% (for 2004 and 2005) of the net cost of the system after deducting the
value of all other available credits. This bill remains bt the Senate Revenue and Taxation
Committee.
Impact on Chula Vista: This bill would provide additional incentives to businesses and residents
to in.{~lt solar energy systems.
SBX1 23, $oto: SEN
PUBLIC POWER DISTRICTS: This bill is known as the "Fair Citizen Access to Public Power
A~fil 5, 2001 9 ] ff -~{o bIRW & Associates, Inc.
Confidential Mernorandum Far Chula Vista City Council and CiO' Staff Use Only
Act". It streamlines the process for forming public power districts. SB 23X passed om of the
Senate Local Government Committee. As amended, the bill limits the authority of a local agency
formation committee (LAFCO) to disapprove formation of a municipal utility district. It will
next be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the issues of how the CPUC reviews
municipal utility proposals and the eminent domain procedures used to purchase the existing
distribution system will face significant scrutiny by the utilities. The bill lowers most of the
hurdles cities must face when cohtemplating formation ora municipal utility. (ABX1 47 is a
similar bill.) The hill would also require the CEC to provide assistance to local authorities who
wish to consider forming a municipal utility district. This bill retnains bt the Senate Energy,
Utilities, and Contmttnications Committee.
Impact on ChuIa Vista: This bill would make it easier for Chula Vista to pursue the formation of
a municipal utility.
SBX1 27, Bowen: SEN
DIRECT ACCESS.'. This bill would allow customers pre'dously taking service from an
slternative provider (prior to January 17) to continue to' do so. Customers who choose to switch
their electric service to an alternative provider after that date may be allowed to do so, pending a
decision by the CPUC. These customers may face an "exit" fee if the CPUC determines one
should be paid by switching customers. This bill rentabts ht the Senate Energy, Utilities, attd
Communications Committee.
Impact on Chula Vista: This bill, if it led to determinarians by the C?UC that cities couM choose
an alternative provider, would pul the option of signing an agreement with an ESt> back into
play for the City. It a probably superseded by ABX1 2I (see above).
SBXi 28, Shot: SEN
POWER PLANT SITING: This bill would expedite the retrofitting of power plants mad provide a
1 O-year waiver of stand-by charges for distributed generation projects of 5 MW or less. It would
limit the comment period for local jurisdictions to 100 days in applications for certification of
power plants. The bill requires the CEC to issue final cexification for "re-powering" projects
within 180 days (decisions on modifications to existing power plants are currently subject to a
12~month deadline). It extends the application of the four-month siting process for temporary
"peaker" power plants. As established by AB 970, plants had to be in service by Au~.t_q 1,2001
to qualify. This bill extends the date 17 months, to December 31, 2002. Similar to SBX1 30, this
bill would allocate 100 percent of property tax revenues associated with new generation projects
to applicable local jurisdictions by requiring property, taxes from any new power plant, co-
generation, transmission or distribution facility that would be locally assessed (i.e., non-utility) to
be allocated entirely to the county or city in which the plant is located. Finally, the bill
appropriates $53 million to the CEC to increase rebates for clean, renewable distributed energy
systems smaller than 10 ldlowatts, to assist cities and counties with expedited review of power
plant applications, and for other uses. This blll passed out of the Senate on March 2Z
Impact on Chula Vista: This bill may facilitate the modernization of the South Bay plant. It may
also make it easier for the City to implement a distributed generation project. Under Section 16
of Article XVI of the California Constitution, a redevelopment agency is entitled to keep all
property tax growth inside a project area. This bill says that the underlying city or county would
April 5, 2001 I0 /~ [ bIRW& Associates, Inc.
Confidential Memorandum For Chula Vista Ci~ Council and Ci~. Staff Use Only
keep aII property tares associated with a new power plant.
SBX1 33, Burton: SEN
ELECTRIC POWER: TRANSMISSION FACILITIES: Tiffs bill authorizes the Governor to
develop a plan, as specified, for the state to purchase transmission facilities owmed by electrical
corporations. The Governor is to negotiate this plan with the utilities (only those under the
operational control of the ISO) and then submit the plan for approval to the Legislature. Once the
plan is approved, the state is authorized to issue revenue bonds to finance the acquisition of the
transmission facilities and to pay for the necessary improvements to the transmission grid. The
state would contract with the utilities to repair, maintain, expand, or construct the transmission
facilities purchased by the state.
SBX1 39, Speier: SEN
ELECTRIC GENERATORS: This bill repeals a provision of AB 1890 that states ownership ora
wholesale generator does not necessarily make the owner a "public utility.." The effect of this is
to subject these generators to the "jurisdiction, control, and regulation" of the CPUC, to the
extent permitted by federal law. This bill remahts bt the Se:rate. The provisions oftNs bill are
similar to ABX1 8, which is moving for~vard in the Assembly.
Impact on ChuIa Vista: This bill would create a significant regulatory risk for the City if it chose
to pursue the development of a power plant by ma.~..'ng the Cir..,', as an owner o fa generating
facility, subject to the jurisdiction of the CPUC. The bill cou!d also hm'e the effect of seriously
curtailing private investment in power plants because private companies such as Duke Energy
will unlikely be willing to subject themselves to the re~datoW oversight of the CPUC. It is
unclear whether the CPUC couM actually enforce the provisions of this bill without federal
concurrence.
SBX1 43, Alpert: SEN
ELECTRIC RATES: This bill would require the CPUC to e?~ablish a frozen rate of 6.5 cents pbr
kwh on the energy component of electric bills for all customers of SDG&E not currently subject
to the rate ceiling (i.e., large commercial customers would not have their rates frozen at 6.5 cents
per kWh as well as residential and small commercial customers). The frozen rate would be
effective through December 31,2002 and retroactive to February 7, 2001. This bill is bt the
Assembly Energy Costs and Avallability Colnmirtee.
Impact on Chula Vista: This bill would affect any e!ectrici~.' customer not already covered by the
rate ceiling. In effect, this bill creates a potential future obligation owed by these customers to
SDG&E for the cost of power above the rate ceiling.
SBX1 62, Pooehigian: SEN
TAXES: This bill would require any local utility user's tax (L;UT), imposed on the consumption
of gas or electricity, or both, to be imposed on a per unit of usage basis. The UUT currently is
cost-based. This bill would benefit consumers, by potentially reducing their tax burden, but it
could also harm cities by resulting in lower tax revenues.
April 5, 2001 11 / ~'~ ~,, MRW&Associates, lnc.
'~SSSSSS
II
/I