Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2001/06/05 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 5, 2001 4:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CHY OF CHUb& 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 17 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 47 AGENDA June 5, 2001 4:00 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 · EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH - BYRON WADE, SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR · OATH OF OFFICE: STEVE PALMA - COMMISSION ON AGING · OATH OF OFFICE: RUDY RAMIREZ - BOARD OF ETHICS · PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING JUNE 2 THROUGH JUNE 10, 2001 AS NATIONAL HOME OWNERSHIP WEEK TO CHRIS SALOMONE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FRANK RILEY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVE · PRESENTATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO MAURICE ZISSEN, CHULA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR AND FIRST PLACE RECIPIENT IN THE GREATER SAN DIEGO SCIENCE FAIR - BIO-MEDICAL RESEARCH CATEGORY. INTRODUCTION BY CAROL RATTY, A JUDGE IN THE BIO- MEDICAL RESEARCH CATEGORY · PRESENTATION BY MARY JO BUETTNER OF THE CHULA VISTA COORDINATING COUNCIL REGARDING SURVEY RESULTS FROM THE ADOPT-A-BLOCK SURVEY CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 11) 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 after ~lction Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on May 29, 2001, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. Staffrecommendation: The letter be received and filed. B. Memorandum from Deputy Mayor Patty Davis informing the Council that she will be in Sacramento on June 5, 2001, and requesting an excused absence from the City Council meeting. Staff recommendation: The request be granted. 2. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AS A MUNICIPAL UTILITY (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) A significant staff recommendation which emerged as part of the overall energy strategy plan discussed at the April 24, 2001 Council Meeting was for the City to take the initial steps necessary to more specifically assess the costs and benefits of forming and operating as a municipal utility. The first step in this process was to present an ordinance establishing the City as a municipal utility. This ordinance had its first reading on May 29, 2001. (Director of Community Development) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption. 3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NUMBERS THREE AND FOUR FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS AT BEYER WAY AND FOURTH AVENUE (PROJECT ST-525), AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE SAID CHANGE ORDERS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY On August 22, 2000, Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-305, awarding a contract in the amount of $174,945 (plus contingencies of $17,500) to Jiminez, Inc., dba MJC Construction, for the animal shelter sidewalk improvements at Beyer Way and Fourth Avenue (CIP Project No ST-525). Change Order Nos. 3 and 4 are for items of work not originally included in the project design, but necessary to complete the project in accordance with City standards. Change Order No. 3, in the amount of $18,000, is for underground utility relocation work, and Change Order No. 4, in the amount of $39,000, is for the rehabilitation of three deteriorated corrugated metal pipes within areas of new sidewalk and roadway improvements. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 2 - Council Agenda 06/05/01 4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDiNG CONTRACT FOR THE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM (PROJECT STL-252) On April 25, 2001, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the pavement rehabilitation program (Project STL-252). The work to be done includes removal and repaying of selected street areas, cold milling, crushed aggregate base, asphalt concrete pavement overlay, hot-poured crack sealing, 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 resolution and award the contract to Frank and Son Paving, Inc. of Chula Vista, California for $349,305. 5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATION EASEMENT TO SAN DIEGO GAS & 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 ADJACENT TO HIGGiNS STREET, BETWEEN STEINER DRIVE AND PASEO LADERA WITHiN LOT 'P' OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-07 SUNBOW PHASE 2A, UNITS 8, 9, 10 AND 12, ACCORDiNG TO MAP NO. 14076, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE EASEMENT SDG&E proposes to construct underground electrical and communication facilities and appurtenances within City-owned property, and is requesting an easement over a portion of open space Lot "P" of Map No. 14076. The easement is 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. 6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGiNEER TO ISSUE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. PE-499 FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF SIDEWALKS, CONCRETE STEPS WITH HANDRAILS, ELECTRICAL WIRiNG, AND LANDSCAPE AREA DRAINS OVER AN EXISTING TWENTY-FOOT PUBLIC STORM DRAIN EASEMENT AT CIRCLE PARK IN EASTLAKE TRAILS The Eastlake Company is proposing to build sidewalks, concrete steps with handrails, electrical wiring and landscape area drains, which partially encroaches an existing public storm drain easement as part of the park improvements within Circle Park. The Eastlake Company has requested that the City grant an encroachment permit to allow a portion of the park improvements to be built on top of the existing public storm drain easement. According to Chapter 12.28 of the Municipal Code, this request must be approved by Council. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 3 - Council Agenda 06/05/01 7 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FINAL "13" MAP FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04, OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, VILLAGE 5, NEIGHBORHOOD R-31, TERMINATING AN EXISTING IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE ASSIGNABLE AND IRREVOCABLE GENERAL UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT, APPROVING A "B" MAP SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR VILLAGE 5, NEIGHBORHOOD R-31 OF THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT Adoption of the resolutions will approve the Final "B" Map for Neighborhood R-31 of Otay Ranch Village 5 (CVT 96-04) and associated agreements. Otay Ranch Three, LLC is the current owner and developer of this property. On April 20, 1999, Council approved the agreement for financing and construction of Olympic Parkway and related roadway improvements. The approval of the subject final maps is consistent with the cumulative equivalent dwelling unit threshold established by said agreement. By approving the Final "B" Map, Council will terminate an existing Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) for open space and other public purposes located within the Final "B" Map. Final planning and design efforts slightly shifted around an open space lot, requiting said IOD to be terminated and replaced with a new IOD on the Final "B" Map. (Director of Public Works) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 8. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS; REJECTING THE LOWEST BID DUE TO INCOMPLETE BID PROPOSAL; AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE REHABILITATION AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY (PROJECT DR- 152A) TO BERT SALAS, 1NC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,735 On May 2, 2001, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the corrugated metal pipe (CMP) rehabilitation at various locations in the City (Project DR-152A). This project provides for the replacement of two parallel existing 42-inch by 27-inch corrugated metal pipe arches (CMPA) and a 22-inch by 13-inch CMPA. The double 42- inch by 27-inch CMPA segment is located within a parking lot at 1251 Third Avenue and the smaller pipe crosses Moss Street, just east of Third Avenue. These old corrugated metal pipes are deteriorating and in need of replacement. The work includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation, protection and restoration, and traffic control necessary for completion of the project. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 4 - Council Agenda 06/05/01 9. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTiNG A $50,000 GRANT FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE NATURE CENTER'S SHARK AND RAY EXHIBIT (CIP #GG-176), AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT The County of San Diego has responded to a request from the Chula Vista Nature Center's Shark and Ray Experience Capital Campaign Committee to assist in the funding of the new exhibit. (Nature Center Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. I0. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A $6,200 GRANT FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE PURCHASE OF A UTILITY VEHICLE FOR THE CHULA VISTA NATURE CENTER, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The County of San Diego, in an effort to assist the Nature Center in conducting beach clean-ups and general maintenance of the Nature Center property and proximate areas of the refuge, has made available funds for the purchase of a John Deere Gator utility vehicle. (Nature Center Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 11. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO FORM A BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO THE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994 A petition drive to establish support for creation of a Property-Based Business Improvement District (PBID) for Downtown Chula Vista was conducted during April and May by the Downtown Business Association (DBA). The petition drive was successful in gaining the signatures of over fifty-percent of affected property owners within the proposed District. The City acted on May 1, 2001 to support the establishment of the PBID and to sign the petition for all City and Agency-owned parcels within the District. The Resolution of Intention will formally begin the process of creating the PBID, which will then be subject to a vote of all affected property owners, pursuant to Proposition 218. (Director of Community Development) 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. Page 5 - Council Agenda 06/05/01 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"form (available in the lobby.) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 12. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A CITY-INITIATED REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) TO ADD FLOOR AREA RATIO REGULATIONS AND AMEND LOT COVERAGE REGULATIONS. THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT SITE IS 743.1 ACRES, LOCATED EAST AND NORTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD, SOUTH OF SWEETWATER RESERVOIR AND MOTHER MIGUEL MOUNTAIN, AND WEST OF THE ROLLING HILLS RANCH AREA (PCM-01-07) When the SPA Plan and PC District Regulations were originally adopted by Council in October 1999, lot coverage regulations, which address the percent of lot area that can be covered by structures, were included in the PC District Regulations, but specific Floor Area Ratio (FAR) regulations were not. This is a City-initiated clean-up amendment to add FARs for San Miguel Ranch, similar to FARs which are used in other planned communities in eastern Chula Vista. The developer, NNP-Trimark, agrees with the proposed amendments and worked with staff in their preparation. (Director o£ Planning and Building) Staff recormncndation: Council conduct the public hearing, place the following ordinance on first reading, and adopt the resolution: A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 97-02 REGARDING AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, ADDRESSING FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LOT COVERAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS B. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING ORDINANCE 2799 AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT REGULATIONS ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS A. Scheduling of meetings. Page 6 - Council Agenda 06/05/01 14. MAYOR'S REPORTS A. Ratification of appointment to the Commission on Aging - Helen Stokes. B. Ratification of appointment to the Commission on Aging - Susan Carrillo. C. Ratification of appointment to the Resource Conservation Commission - Doug Reid. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS CLOSED SESSION 16. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) · Miller v. City of Chula Vista (BCS GIS 5987) ADJOURNMENT to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on June 11, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, and thence to the Regular Meeting of June 12, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on June 13, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. Page 7 - Council Agenda 06/05/01 May 30,2001 M£MO TO: Donna Norris, Deputy City Clerk FROM: Patricia Salvacio~ SUBJECT: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY-JUNE 5, 2001 Commending Maurice Zissen, a senior at Chula Vista High School - 1st Place recipient in the Greater San Diego Science Fair- Bio-Medical Research category. Carol Ratty, a judge in the bio-medical research category will be introducing Maurice. May 17,2001 MEMO TO: Donna Norris, Deputy City Clerk FROM: Patricia Salvacion, Mayor/Council Office SUBJECT: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY - JUNE 5, 2001 Please docket the following for presentation for the above council meeting: PROCLAIMING JUNE 2 THROUGH JUNE 10, 2001 AS NATIONAL HOME OWNERSHIP WEEK Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, City of Chula Vista and Frank Riley, Community Builder, HUD Representative, will be accepting the proclamation. cc: Juan Arroyo CrlY OF CHUIA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY A'I-rORNEY Date: May 29, 2001 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney~~ Re: Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session for the Meeting of 5/29/01 The City of Chula Vista met in Closed Session on 5/29/01 to discuss: · TUCHSCHER DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, INC. V. CITY OF CHULA VISTA (CASE NO. GIC 758620) The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. · HANSON AGGREGATES PACIFIC SOUTHWEST, INC. V. CLANCY CONSTRUCTORS (CASE NO. GIS 006205) The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. · LORETZ V. CITY OF CHULA VISTA (CASE NO. GIS 726517) The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. 276 FOURTH AVENUE ° CHULA VISTA · CALIFORNIA 91910 ° (619) 691-5037 ,, FAX (619) 409-5823 The Honorable Mayor and City Council May 29, 2001 Page Two · CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(C) The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. JMK: gu J:~Attorney\LETTER~CLOSED SESSION No Reportable.5.29.01.doc May 30th, 2001 MEMO TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patty Davis, Deputy Mayor 5UB,.TECT: ABSENCE FROM THE CZ'I-Y As I will be in Sacramento on Tuesday, ,Tune 5th, 2001, I respectfully request on excused absence. Thank You. Cc: City Manager City Clerk City Attorney Armando Buelna Patricia 5alvacion ORDZNANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AS A MUNICIPAL UTILITY WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista (the ~City'), a municipal corporation and charter city, is authorized pursuant to Article XI, Section 9(a) of the California Constitution and Section 200 of the City Charter to establish, purchase and operate public works to furnish its inhabitants with utility services including light, power, heat, transportation, or means of communications; and WHEREAS, the deregulation of the electricity market, increased demand for energy, inadequate supply of natural gas and other fuel sources, a deteriorating transmission and distribution system, inadequate or poorly implemented federal and state energy regulations, and a volatile energy commodities market has led to a state-wide energy crisis characterized by soaring energy costs and unreliable energy supplies; and WHEREAS, this energy crisis threatens the public health, safety and general welfare of businesses and residents throughout the state, including businesses and residents in and around the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the City has studied, reviewed and analyzed the current status of the energy crisis and has consulted with various experts to identify the prospective benefits of establishing a municipally owned utility; and WHEREAS, as a result of deregulation of the electric utility industry in California, the City has identified numerous potential benefits that would derive from providing a municipally owned utility, included but not limited to (a) a municipal utility has preferential access to iow-priced federal power and potentially other alternative power supply sources; (b) a municipal utility does not pay federal income taxes, and it has access to tax-exempt debt to finance capital projects; {c) a municipal utility may be able to provide distribution and other energy related services to City facilities, businesses and/or residents more reliably and at a lower cost than the incumbent utilities under the existing energy delivery system; (d) by'operating the distribution system itself the City would have the ability to structure fair and reasonable utility rates in a manner that rewards conservation, provides for the use of alternative/renewable power sources, encourages the use of off-peak power, and provides the City with control over how and where "public benefit" conservation funds are invested; and W~EREAS, the City is also concerned with the rising costs, threats to reliability, and potential environmental impacts related to the various other utility services necessary to the City, its businesses and residents; and WHEREAS, City Council has found and determined that the creation of a municipal utility could enhance utility system reliability, lower utility rates and otherwise provide utility services that significantly enhance the quality of life and provide significant benefits to the citizens, businesses and environment of the City; and WHEREAS, the City's establishment of itself as a municipal utility is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15320. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I: The above findings and determinations are hereby adopted as true and correct. SECTION II: The City of Chula Vista hereby establishes itself as a municipal utility ('~Municipal Utility"). The Municipal Utility is authorized to provide electricity, natural gas, alternative forms of energy, water, telecommunications, transportation and related utility services (~'Utility Services") to governmental facilities, businesses, organizations, and residents located within and around the City of Chula Vista. Additional City Council approval shall be required before the Municipal Utility actually provides one or more utility services. SECTION III: The City Council shall be the governing board for the Municipal Utility acting in accordance with its existing rules and procedures. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to take all necessary steps 2 to implement the authority of the Municipal Authority as directed and approved from time to time by the City Council. The city Manager or his designee is further authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to provide for the implementation, operation and maintenance of City Council approved Municipal Utility activities including, but not limited to, determining the level of additional staffing required, if any, identifying outsourcing needs, negotiating agreements with consultants, special counsel, underwriter(s) and/or financial advisors in connection with regulatoryf legal or financial matters. SECTION IV: This ordinance in no way precommits the City to providing one or more of the defined Utility Services or to acquiring, voluntarily or otherwise, some or all of the incumbent utility facilities. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to explore partnership opportunities with the incumbent utility providers and with other public agencies in the region which may themselves be pursuing public utility options. SECTION V: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Director of CommunitYDevelopment ~y~orne~ ~ J:\attorney\municipality utility (regular) 3 CHULA VIS'FA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM June 5, 2001 File: LY-001 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: City Manag~ FROM: Director of Public Works ~'~ SUBJECT: Agenda Items #3, (Animal Shelter Sidewalk Change Order) And Item #4 (Pavement Rehabilitation Program.) RE: Montgomery Area Councilman Rindone has requested that when improvement projects are being awarded or modified that staff inform the Council xvhat part of the project (if any) is located in the Montgomery Annexation area. This is to inform Council that item # 3 is located in the Montgomery Annexation Area. However, none of the streets in the this contract of the Pavement Management Program are located in the Montgomery Annexation Area. (Item #4) C:XMy Document s\it em4&5.doc COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 6/05/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Change Order Nos. 3 and 4 for "Animal Shelter Sidewalk Improvements, Beyer Way and Fourth Avenue" (ST-525) Project and Authorizing the Director of Public Works to Execute Said Change Orders on Behalf of the City SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~/j REVIEWED BY: City Manager ,~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) On August 22, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2000-305 awarding a contract in the amount of $174,945 (plus contingencies of $17,500) to Jiminez, Inc., dba MJC Construction, for the "Animal Shelter Sidewalk Improvements, Beyer Way and Fourth Avenue" (CIP Project No ST-525). Change Order Nos. 3 and 4 (Attachments 1 and 2) are for items of work not originally included in the project design, but necessary to complete the project in accordance with City standards. Change Order No. 3, in the amount of $18,000, is for underground utility relocation work and Change Order No. 4, in the amount of $39,000, is for the rehabilitation of three deteriorated Corrugated Metal Pipes (CMPs) within areas of new sidewalk and roadway improvements. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution approving Change Order Nos. 3 and 4 for CIP Project No. ST-525, "Animal Shelter Sidewalk Improvements, Beyer Way and Fourth Avenue", increasing the contract by $57,000, and authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute said Change Orders on behalf of the City. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: This project was advertised for bids in June 2000 and bids were opened on July 19, 2000. On July 2000, the attached letter (Attachment 3) was sent from San Diego Gas and Electric to the Project Manager for the Animal Shelter project. Said letter indicated that, among other things, the City of Chula Vista was responsible for the relocation of underground utilities due to the development of the Animal Shelter property and the existence of SDG&E facilities within existing SDG&E easements on the Animal Shelter property. The underground utility relocation work primarily involved the installation of new conduit and concrete pads. Unfortunately, this letter was not received by the Project Engineer for the street improvement project and, therefore, said utility work was not incorporated into the original bid package for the sidewalk and roadway improvements. The contractor provided a Lump Sum cost of $18,000 to complete this work. Staff verified that this was an excellent price based upon prior bids for similar-type work. It Page 2, Item Meeting Date 6/05/01 should be noted that problems of a similar nature would be avoided in the future since all projects are now managed and coordinated by one group within the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. During the course of construction, staff discovered that three existing CMP storm drain lines that serve the Animal Shelter project and associated street improvements were severely deteriorated and in need of repair or replacement prior to the construction of permanent sidewalk and roadway improvements. It should be noted that one of the pipes had already partially collapsed and the bottoms of the other two pipes had nearly corroded away. The contractor provided a Lump Sum cost of $39,000 to perform this work, which staff verified was a good price based upon prior bids for similar work. It must be noted that it was necessary to have the contractor proceed with the work associated with both of these change orders in order to avoid monetary claims for construction delays. FISCAL IMPACTS: Proposed Change Order Nos. 2 and 3 total $57,000. There is currently an unused balance of approximately $125,000 in GasTax funds in the ST-525 Project Account, which is sufficient to cover the increase in the contract amount. Attachments: (1) Change Order No. 2 (2) Change Order No. 3 (3) SDG&E Letter dated July 20, 2000 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\ST525_CCO2&3.kpa.doc CrlY OF CHUI.A VISI-A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 May 7, 2001 0735-10-ST-525 CONTRACT: ANIMAL SHELTER SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA CONTRACTOR: MJC CONSTRUCTION The following changes shall be made to the above referenced contract between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA and MJC CONSTRUCTION, (Contractor): 1. Contractor shall remove and dispose of existing SDG&E conduits and transformers and install 250 I.f. of new conduit, install (2) 3421 transformer pads, furnish and install (2) 3313, 14"X66" vaults with necessary sweeps, fittings and wires on Beyer Way behind the new improvements at the engineer's direction. Lump sum $18,000.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE: $174,945.00 PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: $9,883.95 THIS CHANGE ORDER: $18,000,00 REVISED TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE: $202,828.95 1of 2 276 FOURTH AVENUE / CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910-2631 / (619) 691-5021 Animal Shelter Sidewalk Improvements, ST-525 Change Order #2 The agreed upon lump sum prices include all costs for furnishing all tools, labor, materials, equipment, incidental costs, profit and fees for performing the work in this contract change and no additional compensation will be due. It is agreed by the undersigned that this work shall be performed and materials furnished in accordance with the original contract, Green Book specifications, newly provided plans and specifications, and applicable standard drawings. APPROVED BY ACCEPTED BY JOHN P. LIPPITT JAVIER JIMENEZ / / CLIFFORD L. SWANSON Director of Public Works President ~ ,, Deputy Dir. of Public Works/ MJC Construction / City Engineer REVIEWED BY /I~I~;~D BY REVIEWED BY KIRk AMMERMAN /~R~'I~ADE kaLaN, CAMAC"O Senior Civil Engineer ~/S~p~PW Inspector Project Inspector REVIEWED BY MARTIN PHILLIPS Civil Engineer 2of 2 CITY OF CHULA VISTA CI'IY OF CHUIA VISTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 May 7, 2001 0735-10-ST-525 CONTRACT: ANIMAL SHELTER SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA CONTRACTOR: MJC CONSTRUCTION The following changes shall be made to the above referenced contract between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA and MJC CONSTRUCTION, (Contractor): 1. Contractor shall reline the severely corroded, existing 75 I.f. of 24" CMP storm drain with 18" SDR 35 PVC pipe across Beyer Way and pressure grout the remaining voids. Contractor is aware that the original designed flow-line must be maintained even though the existing CMP is severely damaged due to corrosion. Lump sum $9,000.00 2. Contractor shall remove and replace 150 I.f. of existing 24" CMP storm drain with 24" RCP 2000-D storm drain across Fourth Ave. Lump sum $18,750.00 3. Contractor shall reline the existing 150 I.f. of 30" CMP on Fourth Avenue with 24" SDR 35 PVC pipe and pressure grout the remaining void. Contractor is aware that the original designed flow-line must be maintained even though the existing CMP is severely damaged due to corrosion and is partially collapsed. Lump sum $11,250.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE: $174,945.00 PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: $27,883.95 THIS CHANGE ORDER: $397000.00 REVISED TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE: $241,828.95 1of 2 276 FOURTH AVENUE / CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910-2631 / (619) 691-5021 Animal Shelter Sidewalk Improvements, ST-525 Change Order #3 The agreed upon lump sum prices include all costs for furnishing all tools, labor, materials, equipment, incidental costs, profit and fees for performing the work in this contract change and no additional compensation will be due. It is agreed by the undersigned that this work shall be performed and materials furnished in accordance with the original contract, Green Book specifications, newly provided plans ancf specifications, and applicable standard drawings. APPROVED BY AC;C~EP"I~D BY // / ~RD/~i~ED BY' "- /' JOHN P. LIPPITT JAVIER JIMENE~-.-.-~ CLIFFORD L. SWANSON Director of Public Works President Deputy Dir. of Public Works/ MJC Construction City Engineer RE¥1EWED BY KIRK AMMERMAN KALANI OAMAOHO Senior Civil Engineer ..////Ser~ofP~nspector Project Inspector MARTIN PHILLIPS Civil Engineer 2of 2 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DI-C-1~4-~21~I~ lb:l',-' ~.UL~:~ir__ b'.l'9. FIP_INLI ~1~ ~,M'-'3 107~ P.02 .] a~'® iago Gas A Electric Project Management · Metro Oil'(ce 701'A 33rd ~reet San Diego, (.;A 92to2-3341 PLA 580 PRO J# 940503 W.O. 2678720, W.O. 2678721 & W.O. 1627150 July 20, 2000 City of Chula Vista Public Works Department Attn: Richard Thompson 707 F Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Thompson: Subject: Chula V[st~ Animal Shelter - 130 B~yer Way Chpla Vista. CA Thank-you for your inquiry regarding your project at the above address. This letter outlines the construction and cost responsibilities related to your project. Your costs and specifications for the installation and relocation of the underground electric service and new gas service are outlined in the Cost section of this leffer below. Copies of the service orders and specifications are el~closed to aid you in the construction of this system. UNDERGROUND Underground service will be supplied under the provisions of Electric Rule 16 (Service). In accordance with this rule, you or your contractor are responsible for a clear path, the trench, backfill, c~nduit and concrete substructure(s). You will also be responsible for the maintenance of the facilities you install for the duration of your service. To complete the underground service, we will install and connect the electdc service conductors. Your cost for cable and/or cable pole material and/or secondary connectors is outlined in the Cost Section of this letter below. When 1000 amps or over, manufacturers' drawings of the switchboard, bus configuration, and metering arrangement must be submitted to our Codes and Ordinances Section prior to fabrication. GAS SERVICE It will also be necessary for us to install 353 feet of gas service pipe to serve your'property. This will require an advance as outlined in the Cost section of this leffer below. You or your contractor will be responsible for trench, backfill, and pavement repair from the gas main to your metering facilities. You have requested a cost for SDG&E to complete a portion of your trench from the main 7 feet West to the edge of the pavement for the gas service. The advance required is outlined in the Cost section of this letter below. SDG&E maintains its gas lines up to your meter. You should be aware that if you install buried lines between the gas meter.and other facilities, you are responsible for maintenance of those lines. Buried metallic gas lines may be subject to the effects of corrosion. We recommend that gas lines be inspected, maintained and repaired by licensed plumbers or contractors. ACCESS Electrically operated gates which do not permit immediate 24 hours access to electric and gas facilities for SDG&E could pose a safety hazard. If an electrically operated security gate is to be installed, the customer is responsible for installing a Schlage VTQP Quad Section cylinder in a key switch wired to your gate controller. You should contact the fire department which services your area to obtain their requirements. The customer is also required to provide a means of opening the gate from the inside without the use of a vehicle to activate the controller. This may require the installation of an add,oriel key switch inside the gate if there is not an unsecured switch available for SDG&E and fire department use. The gas and electric service cannot be energized and/or meters set until this requirement has been met Your preventing immediate direct access to our facilities in an emergency could cause the loss of life and/or properly. This potential liability should be a major concern to you and to your insurance company. BI~FQRE EXCAVATION PLEASE READ THI~ FOLLOWING You have requested a cost for SDG&E to complete atl/a portion of your trench. The cost for this work is outlined in the Cost section of this letter below. As we agreed earlier, we will be installing our gas service pipe in your electric trench. Your trench must meet our Construction Standards 3370.1 through 3370.6 for joint gas and electric installations. Your total gas service advance due is outlined in the Cost section of this letter below. After you have been notified by us that your service orders have been issued, you or your contractor must notify our Construction Department by phone, 48 hours prior to having the trench ready. You should also arrange a pre-constru~ior) meeting at that time. Our Inspector may be contacted prior to the start of your trenching to answer any questions you may have concerning your project. Inspection of your work by our Inspector is required at the trenching, conduit installation, conduit mandreling, backfill, compaction, substructure installation and completion stages of construction. Prior to your trenching/excavating, please contact DigAfart (USA Markout) 48 hours in advance at 1-800- 227-2600, We will locate and markout our facilities within 48 hours of your request. Failure to call may result in serious injuries and/or substantial damage for which you will be responsible. MISCELt-~NEOU$ In the event that modification of the specifications or constructio~ drawings* is required or desired, such * modifications may be made by mutual agreement in writing between the Applicant end the Utility. Minor changes in construction resulting from adverse field conditions may be approved in writing at the job site by the Inspector, when warranted to facilitate construction. All materials, work and work areas shall comply with the William-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health DEC-04-2000 15:18 SDG&E P.M. METRO 619 699 1076 P.04 Richard Thompson ;~ July zu, zuuu Act, Federal OSHA Act, and all other applicable Federal, State, or local safety laws or rules that are necessary to protect the Applicant's and the Ufility's employees, the public, and workers during the time of construction. You are to provide an acceptable clear route, including any necessary tree trimming, prior to the installation of the new extension. SDG&E will be unable to schedule the installation of our facilities until an acceptable clear route has been provided. In performing this work, you are responsible for obtaining 'all necessary permits and for adhering to all applicab]e governmental and regulatory statutes, codes, and rules. You will need an excavation permit from ~he City of Chula Vista prior to any excavation work in street property. Upon completion of your work, please contact the SDG&E Ty Bloom Project Coordinetod Construction Assistant to inspect the route and to schedule the installation of the new facilities. I suggest you contact the local telephone and cable television companies for their requirements and any charges they may have. The meters can only be se[ after application for service, final acceptance of your work, completion of our work, and receipt of final or temporary building inspection clearance from the City. Allow approximately three working days for the meters to be set after receipt of the inspection clearance. You or your future customers can now choose to buy your electricity from an energy service provider or SDG&E. Either way. SDG&E will continue to deliver electricity to your project. Please let me know if you would like to receive an SDG&E information packet, explaining your new options in California's competitive electric market, including a list of energy service providers authorized to conduct business in this area. In addition, you may obtain several informative brochures through the Electric Education Call Center, authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission, at 1 COSTS This offer shall expire at the end of the business day on September 20, 2000. If you request a new cost estimate after that date, a new engineering fee may be required. Your costs, as cited herein, are subject to change at any time. All cost calculations are based upon SDG&E's flied ta[;[[~, SDG&E's internal costs, and all applicable governmental or regulatory statutes, regulations, codes and rules. Should any change in, or addition to, those tariffs, costs, statutes, regulations, codes or rules in any way impact these cost calculations, your costs will be subject to any resulting increase or decrease. The costs quoted in this letter include a cost component to cover the Utilities estimated liability for State and Federal Income Tax. Any work you periorm for SDG&E for which you are reimbursed may be reportable to the IRS on Form 1099-MISC. A revenue allowance, generated from Rule t5, will be applied to your Rule 16 Service Lateral costs. The calculated costs for your project are shown on the following page: U~_L,--~i--,~jO~j ~.~ ~ul,~_ ~.l'l. i'l~_lr~u b~.~ b'~ Ilk'Kb ~'.l~ Richard Thompson 4 July 20, 2000 A. Rule 16 .Service. Lateral - Electric Total Electric Revenue Allowance $ 6,338 (as d~termined by Rule 15) Amoun! Due 1. Rule 16 Service Costs $ 7,861 2. Applicable Service Allowance (not to exceed Line 1 ) - $ 67338 3. Subtotal $ 1,523 41 Tax $ 532 5, Amount Due $ 2,055 6..Other costs (not applicable to allowances) a. Electric Distribution Relocation , $ 20.887 ~ __ b. Work provided by Applicant - $ 5,682 7, Subtotal $ 15,205 8. Tax ,~ 5.744 9. Amount Due $ .2.0.949 10. Total Service Cost *$ 23,0.04 * Non-Refundable Rule t6 Service Lateral - Gas Total Gas Revenue Allowance $ 7,699 (as determined by Rule 15) Amount Due 1. Rule 16 Service Costs $ 1,805 2. Applicable Service Allowance (not to exceed Line 1 ) ~ $ 3.. Amount Due ~_ 0 4. Other Costs (not applicable to allowances) a. Trench by SDG&E ~; 1,944 b. Tax $ 700 6. Amount Due $ 2,644 DEC-~d4-~d~d~d lb: 1~ 5DL~E ~. M. ME] RO 619 69~ 1076 P. 06 Richard Thompson ~ Ju~y zu, ~uuu 6. Total Gas Servk;e Cost *~;_ 2,644 ' Non-Refundable Grand. To~al Amount Due · Please send your check for $25,648 and your Tax ID Number or Social Security Number to Project Management in the enclosed envelope. Once your oheck is received in our office, your service orders will be issued. If you cancel your request, we will retain a portion of the original payment which represents SDG&E's expense of processing your request. The remaining amount, if any, will be refunded to you. If i may be of further assistance or if you have any questions, please, call me at the number listed below. Our hours are from 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Al Kmeger Customer Project Planner Telephone: (619) 699-1095 ACK:bb Enclosures AUG 2 DEC-04-2000 15:20 SDG&E P.M. METRO 619 699 1076 P.08 ~ INT~CEPT 3313 1-D~' ~C ~T~L ~T~ ~ ~ABANDON /I ~ I~-~ LIOU~ STORE 5 3189 MAIN ST ~' ~ EMP ~ .. ':' LdT -- 1-BB4' ~ ~ ' ANIMAL ~ ~-~4' SHE[TER / T~ SITE / ~3313 ' -- PRI STUB STA,~I-4: 151-156-1749 TBM 7 TOTAL P. 08 DE¢-04-2000 15:19 SDG&E P.M. METRO Gig 699 1076 P.O? ~ e~.7~' _ ~' = !~ ~' .APPP.,OX ~CALE ~a.~, ~l/~.a I ' I 1 -~___~.~:...~J o 4o , . , . ~.~ II ~T ~V ~ T~iCAT. STREET SECTION ~ ~ALE ~Y~ W&Y ~I~ A H~[HUH DF 5' VHEN PARALLEL~G VET UT~LZT[ES ~LIQ~ $T~ - ~RvIC~ ~TA~ ~E~IRE~ ABADN 1-~' ~]S VD ~ILL R~L~ATE EXISTING ~TA~ ~l~ ~, HH'S, AND RFS SEC ~GE VILL P~ & ~N~A~ ~15 TC ~ EXISTING ~ EX. ~14, CUR~LY IN PAE~AY, ALL AT ~TDHER~ EXPENSE,  ST~ 151-865 ~ H~ ~C~ TO PRDVID~ PO~iT~DN AN~ GRA~E FOR ~TR~T ~MPRDVE~NT TO ~N~TALL TC 33]5 ASSEMBLY, 3313 H/H. ~ ~R~R PADS, ~AET S~GE T~NEH ~N~PECT~ ~N ~ C~NST~E~N DF STREET Z~PRD~N~T __ 1-]~' ~CUURU~ATE ~ITH UG ~ E678730 ~P3S 940~-0t0 HQ031 ~ EX ~4 } { IHlSg~87~17 ' 'RA~ ~' I~T~L 1$~ D145970 0159~73047 ' · CHULA VIS. TA ANIMAL SH, :"'" OFFSI~ REARRANGEMENT TBM :13JO-D5 150 BEYER WAY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NOS. 3 AND 4 FOR THE "ANIMAL SHELTER SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, BEYER WAY AND FOURTH AVENUE" (ST-525) PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE SAID CHANGE ORDERS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, on August 22, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2000-305 awarding a contract in the amount of $174,945 (plus contingencies of $17,500) to Jiminez, Inc., dba MJC Construction, for the "Animal Shelter Sidewalk Improvements, Beyer Way and Fourth Avenue" (CIP Project No. ST-525); and WHEREAS, Change Order Nos. 3 and 4 are for items of work not originally included in the project design, but necessary to complete the project in accordance with City standards; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 3,in the amount of $18,000, is for underground utility relocation work and Change Order No. 4, in the amount of $39,000, is for the rehabilitation of three deteriorated Corrugated Metal Pipes (CMPs) within areas of new sidewalk and roadway improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve Change Order Nos. 3 and 4 for CIP Project No. ST-525, "Animal Shelter Sidewalk Improvements, Beyer Way and Fourth Avenue", increasing the contract by $57,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Director of Public Works is authorized to execute said Change Orders on behalf of the City. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt . Kah Director of Public Works /~ity Attorney J:~Attorney~RESO~Animal Shelter Improvements.doc COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date: 6/05/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting bids and awarding contract for the "Pavement Rehabilitation Program in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-252)" Project.,, ~' SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X ) On April 25, 2001, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Pavement Rehabilitation Program in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-252)" Project. The work to be done includes removal and repaving of selected street areas, cold milling, crushed aggregate base, asphalt concrete pavement overlay, hot-poured crack sealing, 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 in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-252)" to Frank and Son Paving, Inc. of Chula Vista, California for $349,305.00. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Included in the FY1999-00 CIP Budget is a project for the rehabilitation of deteriorating pavement throughout the city. The Public Works Department through the pavement management system, developed a priority list of streets to be included in the program. The Pavement Rehabilitation Program (STL-252) considers various methods of pavement rehabilitation and maintenance. The program was divided into phases. On September 26, 2000, the City Council awarded one phase of the program to American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Co. That project consisted on applying a rubberized emulsion aggregate slurry seal (REAS) on selected city streets. That project is now under construction. This next phase requires the removal of selected areas (dig-outs) and overlays. It also includes the total reconstruction of Monserate Avenue from "L" Street to East Naples Street. Attachment "A" shows the basis of bid, specific work to be done at each location, and approximate quantities of work. Page 2, Item Meeting Date: 6/05/01 Engineering staff prepared plats, specifications, and advertised the project. Staff received and opened bids on April 25, 2001. The City received bids from ten (10) contractors as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT 1. Frank & Son Paving, Inc. - Chula Vista, California. $349,305.00 2. Nickell Engineering - Chula Vista, California $352,770.00 3. American Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. - Spring Valley, California $389,251.50 4. SRM Contracting & Paving San Diego, California $392,125.00 5. Nicholas Grant Corporation - San Diego, California $412,255.00 6. Hazard Construction Company - San Diego, California $449,240.00 7. ABC Construction Co. Inc. - San Diego, California $474,743.00 8. Kirk Paving Incorporated - La Mesa, California $528,570.00 9. New Century Construction, Inc. - San Diego, California $546,350.00 10. Jimenez, Inc. dba MJC Construction $571,450.00 The low bid by Frank & Son Paving, Inc. is below the Engineer's estimate of $410,950.00 by $61,645.00 or approximately 15%. Engineering staff has verified the references provided by the contractor and their work has been satisfactory. Staff has reviewed the low bid and recommends awarding the contract for $349,305.00 to Frank & Son Paving, Inc. of Chula Vista, California. 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-252) and has determined that the project is exempt pursuant CEQA Section 15301, Class 1 (c) (Existing facilities). Wage Statement Contractors bidding this project are not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this project. Page 3, Item Meeting Date: 6/05/01 FISCAL IMPACT: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount (Frank & Son Paving, Inc.) $349,305.00 B. .Contingencies (approximately 9%) $35,000.00 C. Staff Costs (Design 8,: Inspection) $49,800.00 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $434,105.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Gas Tax $434,105.00 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $434,105.00 Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require only routine City street maintenance. Attachments: A. Scope of work table. B. Contractor's Disclosure Statement. H:\HOM E\ENGINEER\DESIGN\STL252\STL252 Overlay-A l 13.doc All'ACH M ENT "A" & o ATTACHMENT "B" THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, before any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names 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, material supplier. Francisco Vasquez, President Alicia Vasquez, Treasurer 2. ~fauy~ers~n*identi~edpursuantt~(~)ab~veisac~rp~rati~n~rpartnership~istthenames~fal~ individualswitha$1000investment'inthebusiuess(corporation/partnership) entity. Francisco Vasquez, President Alicia Vasquez, Treasurer 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-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 identi~ every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractorsyouhaveassignedtorepresentyoube~retl~eCityinthismatter. Francisco Vasquez Alicia Vasquez Rudy Gutierrez Vick¥ Gutierrez 14 H :\HOME\E NGINEE R~ADMIN\CONTRAC'I1STL252 Contract.doc ATTACHMENT Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months? Yes__No X If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract. 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No X If Yes, 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 If Yes, which Council member? 8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) ~nouths? (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? Date: April 25, 2001 .~/./~~~ Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant * Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council ~nember, Planuing Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members. 15 H:\HOME\ENGIN E ER~ADMIN\CONTRACT\STL252 Contract.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (STL-252)" PROJECT WHEREAS, on April 25, 2001, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Pavement Program in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-252)" Project, and WHEREAS, the City received bids from ten (10) contractors as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT 1. Frank & Son Paving, Inc. - Chula Vista, California. $349,305.00 2. Nickell Engineering ChulaVista, California $352,770.00 3. American Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. - Spring Valley, Califomia $389,251.50 4. SRM Contracting & Paving San Diego, California $392,125.00 5. Nicholas Grant Corporation - San Diego, California $412,255.00 6. Hazard Construction Company San Diego, California $449,240.00 7. ABC Construction Co. Inc. San Diego, California $474,743.00 8. Kirk Paving Incorporated - La Mesa, California $528,570.00 9. New Century Construction, Inc. - San Diego, California $546,350.00 10. Jimenez, Inc. dba MJC Construction $571,450.00 WHEREAS, the iow bid by Frank & Son Paving, Inc. is below the Engineer's estimate of $410,950.00 by $61,645.00 or approximately 15%, and WHEREAS, Engineering staff has verified the references provided by the contractor and their work has been satisfactory, and WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Pavement Rehabilitation Project (STL-252) and has determined that the project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15301, Class l(c (Existing facilities), and WHEREAS, contractors bidding this project are not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this project, and WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed the low bid and recommends awarding the contract in the amount of $349,305.00 to Frank & Son Paving, Inc. of Chula Vista, California, and WHEREAS, the work to be done includes removal and repaying of selected street areas, cold milling, crushed aggregate base, asphalt concrete pavement overlay, hot-poured crack sealing, 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the bids and award the contract to Frank & Son Paving, Inc. of Chula Vista, California in the amount of $349,305.00 for the "Pavement Rehabilitation Program in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL-252)~ Project. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt J~Hn ~.~a~/eny Director of Public Works City Attorney J:\Attorney\RESO\Pavement Rehabilitation Program.doc COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~_~ Meeting Date 6/05/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Granting underground electric and communication easement 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 adjacent to Higgins Street, between Steiner Drive and Pasco Ladera within Lot 'P' of Chula Vista Tract No. 90-07 Sunbow Phase 2A, Units 8, 9, 10 and 12, According to Map No. 14076 and authorizing Mayor t~o,ex?cute the easement. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~,]~[t/ REVIEWED BY: City Manager(g~'~ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes __ No X ) SDG&E proposes to construct underground electrical and communication facilities and appurtenances within City-owned property and is requesting an easement over a portion of open space Lot "P" of Map No. 14076 (see Exhibit "A"). The easement is 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 easement 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 adjacent to Higgins Street, between Steiner Drive and Paseo Ladera within Lot 'P' of Chula Vista Tract No. 90-07 Sunbow Phase 2A, Units 8, 9, 10 and 12, According to Map No. 14076 and authorizing Mayor to execute the easement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The proposed easement site is located across City owned property within Lot 'P' of Sunbow Phase 2A, according to Map No. 14076 (see Exhibit 'A'). It is SDG&E's intention to construct underground electrical facilities within the proposed easement area of 63 square feet. Typically, franchise utility companies place their facilities within 1 O-foot general utility easements located along City owned open space lots. However, the 1 O-foot general utility easement within Lot "P" does not wrap around the entire lot and includes the Higgins Street frontage (see Exhibit "A"). Therefore, SDG&E must obtain a permanent easement from the City in order to place their facilities within this portion of Lot "P". By granting this easement, SDG&E and its successors in interest will be guaranteed continuous use of the City's property for underground facilities. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 6/05/01 The language in the easements 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 $500.00 fee for the processing of the easement. Attachment: Exhibit 'A' - Easement locator plat Exhibit 'B' - Original easement for Mayor's signature 0490-60-PF-296 H:'~I-IOM E\ENGINEER~PERM ITS~Pt~PF296_Reso.doc LEGEND ~ ,t~O/CATES SOC-~£ £~S~I~£N' ~"OU/R£O '~~_..;~ (R) ,ND/CATES ~1~ BE~INa / J 73 l 74 ~ J 7~ 4o ~ o JYJ~]~ NO~ J-qO7~ SCALE I'= 40' STE/NER DRivE &-7'/2'~9" R'2600.O0' L'327.09' - ,,,'~ · b"3'O/'/2' L~37.04' ~4~56"E(R) ~ , STRE~ N~S ~ '52 5~ ~, STRE~ U~S DEDICATED PER ~N~52'5~ P~ T TO ILLUSTRATE j~.~/ ~ ~ MAP 1~0~6 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item (1~ Meeting Date 06/05/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Authorizing the City Engineer to issue Encroachment Permit No. PE-499 for the encroachment of sidewalks, concrete steps with handrails, electrical wiring and landscape area drains over an existing twenty-foot (20) public storm drain easement at Circle Park in Eastlake Trails. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~Y REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~7 (4/5ths Vote: Yes __ No X ) The Eastlake Company is proposing to build sidewalks, concrete steps with handrails, electrical wiring and landscape area drains, which partially encroaches into an existing public storm drain easement (see Exhibit "A") as part of the park improvements within Circle Park. The Eastlake Company has requested the City to grant an encroachment permit to allow a portion of the park improvements to be built on top of the existing public storm drain easement. According to Chapter 12.28 of the Municipal Code, this request must be approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the subject resolution authorizing the City Engineer to issue Encroachment Permit No. PE-499 for the encroachment of sidewalks, concrete steps with handrails, electrical wiring and landscape area drains over an existing twenty-foot (20) public storm drain easement at Circle Park in Eastlake Trails. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: On April 16, 2001 staff received a request from ONA, Landscape Architecture and Planning on behalf of their client, the Eastlake Company, requesting an encroachment permit to construct park improvements partially over an existing 20-foot public drainage easement (see Exhibit "B"). The easement was recorded on December 28, 2000 as per File No. 2000-0714470, and is for an 18-inch storm drain conveyance pipe. The nature of the proposed encroachment is as follows: 1. Concrete sidewalk varying in width from 4 to 6 feet will encroach over the easement area, maintaining a minimum vertical clearance of 7 feet above the 18-inch storm drain pipe. 2. Concrete steps and concrete curbs to hold the handrails will encroach within the easement. 3. Electrical service lines to provide lighting will encroach within the easement. 4. Landscape area drains to drain the planter area will encroach within the easement. City Public Works Operations staff responsible for storm drain maintenance have reviewed this proposal and do not object to the issuance of the encroachment permit. This encroachment permit includes an indemnity clause holding the City, its agents and employees harmless from damages resulting from the construction of the park improvements over the storm drain easement. The encroachment obligates the permittee to maintain, relocate or remove the encroachment at no expense to the City. In addition, the City maintains its rights to use the existing drainage easement for access and general maintenance. FISCAL IMPACT: Due to the construction and maintenance responsibilities falling on the Permittee, there are no direct costs to the City, except for the processing of this permit and inspection fee. The Eastlake Company has paid $250.00 application fee for processing the Encroachment permit and will pay inspection fee prior to the recordation of the Encroachment permit. Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Locator plat Exhibit "B" - Encroachment Permit PE-499 BVH H 5HOM E\ENGlNEERL~GENDAh°E499.agendastaternent.doc E~HIGT' , \ ' GRADING P~N ~ " % EastLake Trails NoKh Streetscape & Pocket Park Plans Storm Drain Easement Encroachment Permit ~ ~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Page 1, Item t~ Meeting Date: 6/5/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the Final "B" Map for Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04, Otay Ranch SPA One, Village 5, Neighborhood R-31, temdnating an existing Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of Fee Interest, accepting on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the assignable and irrevocable general utility and access easement and approving a "B" Map Subdivision Improvement Agreement and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement. Resolution Approving the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Village 5 Neighborhood R-31 of the Otay Ranch Project and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X) Tonight, Council will consider the approval of the Final "B" Map for Neighborhood R-31 of Otay Ranch Village 5 (CVT 96-04) and associated agreements. Otay Ranch Three, LLC is the current owner and developer of this property. On April 20, 1999, Council approved the "Agreement for Financing and Construction of Olympic Parkway and Related Roadway Improvements". The approval of the subject Final Maps are consistent with the cmnulative equivalent dwelling unit threshold established by said agreement. By approving the Final "B" Map, Council will terminate an existing Irrevocable Offer of Dedication ([OD) for open space and other public purposes located within the Final "B" Map. Final planning and design efforts slightly shifted around an open space lot, requiring said IOD to be terminated and replaced with a new IOD on the Final "B" Map. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the following: 1) Resolution approving a Final "B" Map for Village 5 Neighborhood R-31 of the Otay Ranch Project and associated Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and 2) Resolution approving the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement Village 5 Neighborhood R-31 of the Otay Ranch Project. DISCUSSION: On November 19, 1996, by Resolution No. 18398, Council approved the tentative map for Otay Ranch, Village 1 and a portion of Village 5 (CVT 96-04). On January 23, 2001, by Resolution Nos. 2001-018, Council approved the Otay Ranch Village Five "A" Map No. 3 (Map No. 14147). The Final "A" Map created the "superblock" lot corresponding to Neighborhood R-31. Tonight, Council will consider approving the Final "B" Map and associated agreements for this map. Page 2, Item Meeting Date: 6/5/01 Final Maps and Subdivision Improvement.Agreements The land to be subdivided is generally located south of Otay Lakes Road across from the Telegraph Canyon Estates subdivision and west of Phase 1 of Village 5. The Final "B" Map consists of the following: Number of Single Number of Private Streets Total Final Map Acreage Family Units & Open Space 83 23 16.156 The private open space lots and the private streets will all be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. A plat and location map of the subdivision is attached herewith as Attachment 1. Council's approval of the Final "B" Map will also acknowledge the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) of Fee Interest for Lot "V" for Open Space and Other Public Purposes. Lot "V" will remain in private property and will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. Section 7050 of the Government Code provides that the City may accept an IOD at a future time. Approval of the Final "B" Map will also constitute the termination of an IOD for an open space lot granted on Map No. 14147. The lot is located within the boundaries of the Final "B' Map and therefore can be terminated on the map. A revised open space lot and IOD is proposed by the subject Final "B" Map. Staff has determined that the proposed map and associated agreements comply with all conditions of approval of the Tentative Map and reconm~ends approval by Council. Approval of the subject map constitutes acceptance by the City of all assignable and irrevocable general access and utility easements and wall easements granted on the map. The fees and/or cash deposits which are specific to the Final "B" Map have been collected in satisfaction of the various Tentative Map conditions of approval and Code requirements. The Developer has also executed a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) for the map and has provided bonds to guarantee construction of the required onsite public improvements and to guarantee the subdivision monumentation. The SIA is on file in the office of the City Clerk. The construction and bonding of all off-site street improvements serving the subject map has been addressed in the Olympic Parkway Agreement. Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement The Developer has also executed a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SSIA), encompassing the proposed map, to satisfy Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 27, 31, 36, 50, 52, 65, 83, 84(e), 90, 103, 104, 108, 120, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 140 and 152 of Resolution No. 18398. All the conditions are addressed using typical language used in previous agreements. Staff has reviewed the SSIA and determined that it satisfies all the applicable tentative map conditions for final map approval and recommends Council approval. Page 3, Item Meeting Date: 6/5/01 Environmental Review The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Final Maps and has determined that it is in substantial conformance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Program EIR 90-01, SPA One EIR 95-01, subsequent amended SPA One Plan EIR 97-03 and other related environmental documents and that the Final "B" Map will not result in any new environmental effects that were not previously identified, nor would the Final "B" Map result in a substantial increase in severity in any impacts previously identified. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed agreements and has approved them as to form. The Developer's disclosure statement is attached as Attachment 2. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The Developer has paid all costs associated with the Final "B" Map and agreements. Attachments: Attachment 1: Plat - Chula Vista Tract 96-04, Otay Ranch SPA One, Village 5, Neighborhood R-31 Attachment 2: Developer's Disclosure Statement HSHOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~OTAYRNCH~A 113V5 R3 I-tme ri .doc File No. 0600-80-OR179F ,, A-TT~.c t4 ~ T 2. ~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA DlSCLO$IJi~ STATEMENT ceftin o~ership or financial in:eresrs, p~b~cn~, or camp~i~ con~bu6onz for a Ci~ of Chula vis~ election must be filed, ~e follow, ag i~/o~adon mu~t be di~clos~: application or the eon~c:, e,g,, o~er, ~pllcanL tone.or, sub,one.tot, ~mdsl surlier. dim _ .... individuals with ~ S1000 invesn'ncnt in the business (corporation/psr~crshi~) entily. a. Please id~'n~£y ~'ver~, p~-~on, inctuc~ing any asen~, m-aploye~s, e°~Sul~, or md~nd~t con.~actam you have a~i~ :o r~rcscn: you b~or¢ ~e Ci~ in thb n3a~r. I~a-~ any person* ~sociated with this contact had any financial dealings ~.ith an official"* of thc City of Chula Vis:a as it relates to thl; contr~cl within the pe~t 12 months? Yes No,. ~ If Yes, briefly dc-~cribe the namr~ of the financial intete;t the of~e/ml'" may have in chis contract. 6. I-fare you made a ~n~budon o£more 0'¢n $250 wiehin the past ~elve (12) monks to a eu~nt memb~ of~e Cbula Vis~ Ci~' Co~c~I? Yes--o_ ~YeL ~ch Co~cil me~ber ? ?. Hav~ you or ~oy memb~ of your gov~ing boa~ (i.e. Co~o~ Bo~a of Di~to~eouti~. non-profit Bo~d of Directors made con~ibu~ons :o~li~g ~orc than $1,000 ov~ the pa;~ four (a) years to a cu~enc member of fi~e Ch~a Vis~ Ci~ Co~cil? Yes~ No_ ~f Yes, whic~ council member? Have yon provided more thru $300 (or ~ i~m of equities1: ~ue) to an o~ciale' of &e Ci~ of C~la vis~ ~ ~e ~t ~e[v~ (12~ months? (~is includes being ~ sou~ of in~ome~ money co retire a legal debt, gi~, loan, e~.) Yes_ _ _ No q ~Y~, w~ch officlal'~ and what x~s thz n~m~ of item pro,deal7 / - / Sight.re of~en~a~r~/Applioa~:O P~en is d~cd m: any indiv~du~ fi~, co-~;hip~ jo~ venue, a;so~adon, social ch&, ~tcmal organi~fion, co~oration, eftatc, ~ts~ receive. ~dtcae, ~y other ~o~, ci~, m~icipaHW, dismet, or other political subdi~sion, -ce nny o~hcr ~oup or combi~en acting ns a u~c " Official includeL bu~ is not limited m: Mayor, Co~cil m~, Pla~ing Co~i~i~, Member of a bo~d. commission, or co.mmite¢e of the Oi~, ~ployee, or ~ta~membets, H %t-IOME\ENGI2~EER.',,ADMI~ C ONTKACTkDIg CLOgE,D O C RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FINAL "B" MAP FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04, OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, VILLAGE 5, NEIGHBORHOOD R-31; TERMINATING AN EXISTING IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE ASSIGNABLE AND IRREVOCABLE GENERAL UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT; APPROVING A "B" MAP SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby finds that certain map survey entitled Chula Vista TRACT No. 96-04 OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, VILLAGE 5, NEIGHBORHOOD R-31, and more particularly described as follows: Being a subdivision of Lots 10 and "J" of Chula Vista Tract 96-04 of Otay Ranch Village 5 "A" Map No. 3, as shown on Map No. 14147, in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on February 20, 2001. Area: 16.156 Acres No. of Lots: 107 Numbered Lots: 85 Lettered Lots: 22 is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council does hereby terminate an existing Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of Fee Interest. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts on behalf of the public the Assignable and Irrevocable General Utility and Access Easement, all as shown on said map within this subdivision. 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to endorse upon said map the action of said Council; that said Council has approved said subdivision map; and that the Assignable and Irrevocable General 'Utility and Access Easement, as granted thereon and shown on said map within said subdivision, is accepted on behalf of the City of Chula vista as herein above stated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision Improvement Agreement dated the __ day of , 2001, for the completion of improvements in said subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista be and is hereby authorized to execute said agreements for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works City Attorney J: [At t orney~RESO~OtayRanchVlg5 , R-31 Recording Requested by: CITY CLERK When Recorded, Mail to: CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula vista, Ca. 91910 No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a public agency of less than a fee interest for which no cash consideration has been paid or received. Declarant SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 2001, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and OTAY RANCH THREE, LLC, 270 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660, hereinafter called "Subdivider" with reference to the facts set forth below, which Recitals constitute a part of this Agreement; RECITALS: WHEREAS, Subdivider is about to present to the City Council of the city of Chula Vista for approval and recordation, a final subdivision map of a proposed subdivision, to be known as OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 5, R-31, pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to the filing, approval and recordation of subdivision map; and WHEREAS, the Code provides that before said map is finally approved by the Council of the city of Chula vista, Subdivider must have either installed and completed all of the public improvements and/or land development work required by the Code to be installed in subdivisions before final maps of subdivisions are approved by the Council for purpose of recording in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, or, as an alternative thereto, Subdivider shall enter into an agreement with City, secured by an approved improvement security to insure the performance of said work pursuant to the requirements of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, agreeing to install and complete, free of liens at Subdivider's own expense, all of the public improvements and/or land development work required in said subdivision within a definite period of time prescribed by said Council; and 1 WHEREAS, Subdivider is willing in consideration of the approval and recordation of said map by the Council, to enter into this agreement wherein it is provided that Subdivider will install and complete, at Subdivider's own expense, all the public improvement work required by City in connection with the proposed subdivision and will deliver to City improvement securities as approved by the City Attorney; and WHEREAS, a tentative map of said subdivision has heretofore been approved, subject to certain requirements and conditions, as contained in Resolution No. 18398, approved on the 19th day of November, 1996 "Tentative Map Resolution"); and WHEREAS, complete plans and specifications for the construction, installation and completion of said public improve- ment work have been prepared and submitted to the City Engineer, as shown on Drawings Nos. 00125-01 through 00125-09 inclusive, on file in the office of the city Engineer; and WHEREAS, an estimate of the cost of constructing said public improvements according to said plans and specifications has been submitted and approved by the City in the amount of NINE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($944,100.00). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Subdivider, for itself and his successors in interest, an obligation the burden of which encumbers and runs with the land, agrees to comply with all of the terms, conditions and requirements of the Tentative Map Resolution; to do and perform or cause to be done and performed, at its own expense, without cost to City, in a good and workmanlike manner, under the direction and to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer, all of the public improvement and/or land development work required to be done in and adjoining said subdivision, including the improvements described in the above Recitals ("Improvement Work"); and will furnish the necessary materials therefor, all in strict conformity and in accordance with the plans and specifications, which documents have heretofore been filed in the Office of the City Engineer and as described in the above Recitals this reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 2. It is expressly understood and agreed that all monuments have been or will be installed within thirty (30) days after the completion and acceptance of the Improvement Work, and that Subdivider has installed or will install temporary street name signs if permanent street name signs have not been installed. 3. It is expressly understood and agreed that Subdivider will cause all necessary materials to be furnished and all Improvement Work required under the provisions of this contract to be done on 2 or before the second anniversary date of Council approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 4. It is understood and agreed that Subdivider will perform said Improvement Work as set forth hereinabove, or that portion of said Improvement Work serving any buildings or structures ready for occupancy in said subdivision, prior to the issuance of any certificate of clearance for utility connections for said buildings or structures in said subdivision, and such certificate shall not be issued until the City Engineer has certified in writing the completion of said public improvements or the portion thereof serving said building or structures approved by the City; provided, however, that the improvement security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. 5. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Subdivider that, in the performance of said Improvement Work, Subdivider will conform to and abide by all of the provisions of the ordinances of the City of Chula Vista, and the laws of the State of California applicable to said work. 6. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND FIFTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($472,050.00) which security shall guarantee the faithful performance of this contract by Subdivider and is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. 7. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND FIFTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($472,050.00) to secure the payment of material and labor in connection with the installation of said public improvements, which security is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof and the bond amounts as contained in Exhibit "B", and made a part hereof. 8. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS D/qD NO CENTS ($9,580.00) to secure the installation of monuments, which security is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof. 9. It is further agreed that if the Improvement Work is not completed within the time agreed herein, the sums provided by said improvement securities may be used by City for the completion of 3 the Improvement Work within said subdivision in accordance with such specifications herein contained or referred, or at the option of the City, as are approved by the City Council at the time of engaging the work to be performed. Upon certification of completion by the City Engineer and acceptance of said work by City, and after certification by the Director of Finance that all costs hereof are fully paid, the whole amount, or any part thereof not required for payment thereof, may be released to Subdivider or its successors in interest, pursuant to the terms of the improvement security. Subdivider agrees to pay to the City any difference between the total costs incurred to perform the work, including design and administration of construction (including a reasonable allocation of overhead), and any proceeds from the improvement security. 10. It is also expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto that in no case will the City of Chula Vista, or any department, board or officer thereof, be liable for any portion of the costs and expenses of the work aforesaid, nor shall any officer, his sureties or bondsmen, be liable for the payment of any sum or sums for said work or any materials furnished therefor, except to the limits established by the approved improvement security in accordance with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 11. It is further understood and agreed by Subdivider that any engineering costs (including plan checking, inspection, materials furnished and other incidental expenses) incurred by City in connection with the approval of the Improvement Work plans and installation of Improvement Work hereinabove provided for, and the cost of street signs and street trees as required by City and approved by the City Engineer shall be paid by Subdivider, and that Subdivider shall deposit, prior to recordation of the Final Map, with City a sum of money sufficient to cover said cost. 12. It is understood and agreed that until such time as all Improvement Work is fully completed and accepted by City, Subdivider will be responsible for the care, maintenance of, and any damage to, the streets, alleys, easements, water and sewer lines within the proposed subdivision. It is further understood and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public improvements for a period of one year from date of final acceptance and correct any and all defects or deficiencies arising during said period as a result of the acts or omission of Subdivider, its agents or employees in the performance of this agreement, and that upon acceptance of the work by City, Subdivider shall grant to City, by appropriate conveyance, the public improvements constructed pursuant to this agreement; provided, however, that said acceptance shall not constitute a waiver of defects by City as set forth hereinabove. 13. It is understood and agreed that City, as indemnitee, or any officer or employee thereof, shall not be liable for any injury to person or property occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement. Subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the City, its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any sort, because of or arising out of acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement; provided, however, that the approved improvement security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. Such indemnification and agreement to hold harmless shall extend to damages to adjacent or downstream properties or the taking of property from owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as a result of the construction of said subdivision and the public improvements as provided herein. It shall also extend to damages resulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow, modification of the velocity of the water, erosion or siltation, or the modification of the point of discharge as the result of the construction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of plans providing for any or all of these conditions shall not constitute the assumption by City of any responsibility for such damage or taking, nor shall City, by said approval, be an insurer or surety for the construction of the subdivision pursuant to said approved improvement plans. The provisions of this paragraph shall become effective upon the execution of this agreement and shall remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years following the acceptance by the City of the improvements. 14. Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or 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, an approval of the City, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning a subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37 of the Government Code of the State of California. 15. Assignability. Upon request of the Subdivider, any or all on-site duties and obligations set forth herein may be assigned to Subdivider's successor in interest if the City Manager in his/her sole discretion determines that such an assignment will not adversely affect the City's interest. The City Manager in his/her sole discretion may, if such assignment is requested, permit a substitution of securities by the successor in interest in place and stead of the original securities described herein so long as such substituted securities meet the criteria for security as set forth elsewhere in this Agreement. Such assignment will be in a form approved by the City Attorney. (NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE) 5 SIGNATURE PAGE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 5, R-31 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth. THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OTA~~E, LLC Mayor of the City of Chula Vista ATTEST City Clerk Approved as to form by City ~tt~orney (Attach Notary Acknowledgment) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ~ County of ~/~ j~ ~'~' / ss. On /¢¢z¢/"//~'. ,~¢ / , before me, ,,'~,¢/'/Cy'/A~/.~.~.¢',,~.(.,..~, ,/'~/~,'/~'?"4z¢//~. , I t~ate /'Name and Title of Offic&r~e g , Jane Doe No.fy Public') personally appeared O/~'/ 2¢'/. .,~//~'Z-~',:~¢/¢2/''' ..... Name(s) of Signer(s) ~ersonally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~¢~ whose name,~ I~_s.~;.% subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me tha~ executed the same in ,,d~,c r,'t h c ir' ~a u t h o r ized capacity(.~e-), and~ f'that by ~r,'thclr q signature~)'on the instrument the personf~, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~ acted, executed the instrument. ~_~ Nofary Publ~c- California ~ ~J ~.'r~¢~l~'/ O~ange. Counb/ ~ WITNESS my hand and official seal. Place Notary Seal Above t/'~ Signature of Notary Public (~ OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer{s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ~ ; Individual ~Top ol thumb here i : Corporate Officer--Title(s): ~ Partner--I Limited I JGeneral I ; Attorney in Fact I~ Trustee i J Guardian or Conservator I Other: ..... Signer Is Representing: LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit "A" Improvement Security - Faithful Performance Form: Bond Amount: $472, 050 . 00 Exhibit "B" Improvement Security - Material and Labor: Form: Bond Amount: $472,050.00 Exhibit "C" Improvement Security - Monuments: Form: Bond Amount: $9,580.00 Securities approved as to form and amount by - y 7 ~: ~/ City Attor~y Improvement Completion Date: Two (2) years from date of City Council approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. H: ~ home ~at t orney~ sia~ORVSR 31 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR VILLAGE 5, NEIGHBORHOOD R-31 OF THE OTAY PJtNCH PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the developer has executed a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement to satisfy remaining conditions of City Council Resolution No. 18398. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Village 5, Neighborhood R-31 of the Otay Ranch Project, 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 to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt John M. Kaheny Director of Public Works City Attorney [H /H©ME'~ATTOF~NEY/RESO\ssia OF{ R-31 (April 12, 2001 (8 25AM)] RECORDING REQUEST BY: City Clerk WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a public agency of less than a fee interest for which no cash consideration has been paid or received. Developer Above Space for Recorder's Use VILLAGE 5 NEIGHBORHOOD R-31 OF THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (Conditions 1,2,3,4,5,8,9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 27, 31,36, 50, 52, 65, 83, 84(e), 90, 103, 104, 108, 120, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 140 and 152 of Resolution No. 18398 and Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 27, 31, 36, 50, 52, 65, 83, 84(e), 90, 103, 104, 108, t19, 127, 129, 130, i31, 132, 135, 136, 137, 139 and 151 of Resolution No. 18613) This Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("Agreement") is made this day of ,2001, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, California ("City" or "Grantee" for recording purposes only) and OTAY PROJECT, L.P., a California limited partnership and OTAY RANCH THREE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, (collectively referred hereafter as "Developer" or "Grantor"), with reference to the facts set forth below, which recitals constitute a part of this Agreement: RECITALS A. This Agreement concerns and affects certain real property located in Chula Vista, California, more particularly described on Attachment "A" and attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Property"). The Property is part of a project commonly known as Village 5 of the Otay Ranch Project. For purposes of this Agreement the term "Project" shall also mean "Property". H:~HOME~ENGINEER~LANDDEV~O?AYRNCH~SSIA Viii S R31 tme rl.doc B. Developer has requested a final map for Neighborhood R-31 and is described on Attachment "A" and shown on Attachment "A-1" hereto. City is willing, on the premises, security, terms and conditions herein contained to approve the final map for which Developer has applied as · being in substantial conformance with the Tentative Subdivision Map described in this Agreement. Developer understands that subsequent final maps may be subject to the same or other security, terms and conditions contained herein. C. Developer and/or Developer's predecessor in interest has applied for and the City has approved a Tentative Subdivision Map commonly referred to as Chula Vista Tract 96-04 ("Tentative Subdivision Map") for the subdivision of the Property. D. The City has adopted Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613 ("Resolutions")pursuantto which it has approved the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to certain conditions as more particularly described in the Resolutions. E. On April 20, 1999, the City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 19410 approved an agreement between the City, Developer and a third party entitled "Agreement for Financing and Construction of Olympic Parkway and Related Parkway Improvements ("Olympic Parkway Agreement"). F. On January 23, 2001, the City Council, pursuant to Resolution 2001-019, approved the Village 5 "A" Map No. 3 of the Otay Ranch Project Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SS1A No. 3"), of which this Final Map is a subsequent subdivision of. G. The following defined terms shall have the meaning set forth herein, unless otherwise specifically indicated: a. For purposes of this Agreement, "Final Map" means the final map for R-31 of the Otay Ranch Village 5 SPA One. b. "Commencing Construction" means when a construction permit or other such approval has been obtained from the City or a construction contract has been awarded for the improvement, whichever occurs first. c. "Complete Construction" means when construction on said improvement has been completed and the City accepts the improvement. d. "Guest Builder" means those entities obtaining any interest in the Property or a portion of the Property, after the Final Map has been recorded. e. "PFFP" means the SPA One Public Facilities Financing Plan adopted by H:~HOME\ENGINEER~LAN/DDEV~OTAYRNCH~SS~A Viii 5 R31 tme ri doc Resolution No. 18286 as may be amended from time to time. f. "Owner" or "Developer" means the person, persons or entity having a legal or an equitable interest in the property or parts thereof and includes Owner's, successors-in-interest or assignors of any Property. This includes Otay Project, L.P. and any and all owners of real property within the boundaries of the Property, and all signators to this Agreement including: i. Otay Project, L.P. ii. Otay Ranch Three, LLC g. "Otay Ranch Parks Agreement" means the agreement pertaining to the construction of parks in Otay Ranch SPA One, McMillin Lomas Verdes and Otay Ranch adopted by Resolution No. 19636 as may be amended from time to time. h. "Parks Master Plan" means the City-wide Parks Master Plan, subject to future City Council approval. i. "SPA One Plan" means the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan as adopted by the City Council on June 4, 1996 pursuant to Resolution No. 18286 and amended on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No. 19376. NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein contained, the parties agree as set forth below. 1. Performance Obligation. Otay Project, L.P. a signator to this Agreement, represents to the City that it is acting as the master developer for this Project and expressly assumes performance of the obligations set forth in paragraphs 8 and 10 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all parties to this Agreement acknowledge and agree that all such obligations remain a covenant running with the land as set forth more particularly in paragraph 2 below. The City in its sole discretion will make a good faith effort to execute on bonds securing the obligations contained herein to the extent necessary to complete any unfulfilled obligations of the master developer. 2. Agreement Applicable to Subsequent Owners. a. Agreement Binding Upon Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors, assigns and interests of the parties as to any or all of the Property, as described on Attachment "A", until released by the mutual consent of the parties. b. Agreement Runs with the Land. The burden of the covenants contained in this Agreement ("Burden") is for the benefit of the Property and the City, its successors and assigns and any successor in interest thereto. City is deemed the beneficiary of such covenants for and in its own right and for the purposes of protecting the interest of the community and other parties public or H:~HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV\OTAYRNCH\SSIA Vill 5 R31~tme ri.doc private, in whose favor and for whose benefit of such covenants running with the land have been provided without regard to whether City has been, remained or are owners of any particular land or interest therein. If such covenants are breached, the City shall have the right to exercise all rights and remedies and to maintain any actions or suits at law or in equity or other proper proceedings to enforce the curing of such breach to which it or any other beneficiaries of this Agreement and the covenants may be entitled. c. Developer Release on Guest Builder Assignments. If Developer assigns any portion of the Project to a Guest Builder, Developer may request to be released from Developer's obligations under this Agreement, that are expressly assumed by the Guest Builder. Developer must obtain the written consent of the City to such release. Such assignment to the Guest Builder shall, however, be subject to this Agreement and the Burden of this Agreement shall remain a covenant running with the land. The City shall not withhold its consent to any such request for a release so long as the assignee acknowledges that the Burden of the Agreement runs with the land, assumes the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement, and demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, its ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement as it relates to the portion of the Project which is being acquired by the Assignee. d. Partial Release of Developer's Assignees. If Developer assigns any portion of the Project subject to the Burden of this Agreement, upon request by the Developer or its assignee, the City shall release the assignee of the Burden of this Agreement as to such assigned portion if such portion has complied with the requirements of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the City and such partial release will not, in the opinion of the City,jeopardize the likelihood that the remainder of the Burden will not be completed. e. Release of Individual Lots. Upon the occurrence of any of the following events, Developer shall, upon receipt of the prior written consent of the City Manager (or Manager's designee), have the right to release any lot(s) from Developer's obligation under this Agreement: i. The execution of a purchase agreement for the sale of a residential lot to a buyer of an individual housing unit; ii. The conveyance of a lot to a Homeowner's Association; The City shall not withhold its consent to such release so long as the City finds in good faith that such release will not jeopardize the City's assurance that the obligations set forth in this Agreement will be performed. At the request of the Developer, the City Manager (or Manager's designee) shall execute an instrument drafted by Developer in a recordable form acceptable to the City Manager (or Manager's designee) which confirms the release of such lot or parcel from the encumbrance of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the close of an individual homeowner's escrow or conveyance to a homeowner's association of any lot or parcel encumbered by this Agreement, such lot or parcel shall be automatically released from the encumbrance hereofi H:~HOME~ENGINEER\LANDDEV\OTAYRNCH\SSIA Vill 5 R31 ~me ri doc: 3. Condition No. 1 - (General Preliminary). In satisfaction of Condition No. 1 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer hereby agrees, to comply with the requirements and guidelines of the Otay Ranch SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan; SPA One Public Facilities Financing Plan ("PFFP"); Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan; SPA One Affordable Housing Plan; and the GDP Non- Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, as may be amended from time to time, and shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of said documents. 4. Condition No. 2 - (General Preliminary). In satisfaction of Condition No. 2 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer hereby agrees, to 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. 5. Condition No. 3 - (General Preliminary). In satisfaction of Condition No. 3 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees that if any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained within the Resolution 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 deny the issuance of building permits for the Project, 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 Developer shall be notified ten (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 within a reasonable period of time. 6. Condition No. 4 - (General Preliminary). In satisfaction of Condition No. 4 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees to 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 Environmental Impact Report for the Project and/or any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. 7. Condition No. 5 - (General Preliminary). In satisfaction of Condition No. 5 of Resolution Nos. 18398 mad 18613, Developer hereby agrees to comply with all the applicable SPA conditions of approval. 8. Condition No. 8 - (General Preliminary). In satisfaction of Condition No. 8 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer hereby agrees to comply with the terms of the Conveyance Agreement, adopted by Resolution No. 18416 by the City Council on October 22, 1996 ("Conveyance Agreement"). 9. Condition No. 9 - (CEQA). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 9 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, the Developer agrees to implement all applicable mitigation measures H:\HOME~ENGINEER~LANDDEV\OTAYRNCH\SSIA Vill 5 R31 tme rl.doc 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 as Document No. C096-056 and Resolution No. 18286) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (on file in the City Clerk's Office as Document No. C096-057 and Resolution Nos. 18284 and 18285). 10. Condition No. 10 - (Conveyance). In satisfaction of Condition No. 10 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, prior to approval of the Final Map, the Developer agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by City Council, Resolution No. 18416, on June 4, 1996 and as may be amended from time to time by the City. Prior to approval of the Final Map, Developer agrees to convey open space land in accordance with the Phase 2 RMP approved by Resolution No. 18416, for all applicable streets, alleys, residential lots, open space lots, paseos, parks and slope areas as shown on the Final Map. 11. Condition No. 14- (Signage). In satisfaction of Condition No. 14 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613 Developer agrees that any proposed monumentation/signage shall be consistent with the Village Design Plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning prior to approval of the Final Map. 12. Condition No. 15 - (Landscaping). In satisfaction of Condition No. 15 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees that 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 t 00 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 ~br private slopes shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation prior to approval of the Final Map. 13. Condition No. 16 - (Wall Plan). In satisfaction of Condition No. 16 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees that a comprehensive wall plan indicating color, materials, height and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning prior to approval of the Final Map. Materials and colors used shall be compatible and ail walls located in comer side- yards or rear yards facing public or private streets or pedestrian connections shall be constructed ora decorative masonry and/or wrought iron material. 14. Condition No. 17- (View Fencing). In satisfaction of Condition No. 17 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees that lots backing or siding onto pedestrian paseos or parks shall be provided with view fencing, such as three feet of wrought iron on top of a three foot masonry wall, subject to approval by the Fire Marshal and the Director of Planning and Building. 15. Condition No. 18 - (GDP). In satisfaction of Condition No. 18 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees that in the event the Developer proposes an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan to reduce density within the Village Cores at some time in H:\HOME~ENGINEER\LPlqDDEV~OTAYRNCH~SSIA viii 5 R31 -tme rl.doc the future, the provision of additional alley product shall be analyzed and considered concurrently with said amendment. 16. Condition No. 27 - (Street Trees). In satisfaction of Condition No. 27 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer, upon request of the Directors of Parks and Recreation and Public Works, shall plant trees within all street parkways which have been selected from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan and the street tree master plan which shall be approved by the Directors of Parks and Recreation and Public Works. The Developer shall provide root control methods per the requirements of the Director of Parks and Recreation and a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. An irrigation system shall be provided from each individual lot to the adjacent parkway with the exception of parkways in privately owned streets, which shall be irrigated as part of the Homeowners Association's irrigation system. Developer shall submit to and obtain the approval of the Directors of Parks and Recreation and Public Works of a separate street tree improvement plan which shall include, but is not limited to, the final selection of trees, the location of trees within the parkway, and in relation to water laterals, sewer laterals, dry utilities, driveways, inlets and pedestrian ramps, prior to or concurrent with the second submittal of the civil improvement plans. Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project if the street tree improvement plan is not submitted as agreed hereinabove. 17. Condition No. 31 - (ADA Standards). In satisfaction of Condition No. 31 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees that 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 be federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal Regulations, only after construction has commenced. 18. Condition No. 36 - (Setbacks). In satisfaction of Condition No. 36 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees to provide a twenty foot setback on driveways from property line to garage and sectional roll-up type garage doors at ali properties fronting on streets where cul- de-sacs are 150 feet or less in length except as provided for in the Planned Community District Regulations or approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Plmming and Building. 19. Condition No. 50 - (NPDES). In satisfaction of Condition No. 50 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees to comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program. 20. Condition No. 52 - (As-Built Plans). In satisfaction of ConditionNo. 52 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer shall submit "as-built" improvement and storm drain plans in DXF file tbrmat to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 21. Condition No. 65 - (Landscape Plans). In satisfaction of Condition No. 65 of H:~HOME~ENGINEER~LA~rDDEV~OTAYRNCH~SSIA Vill 5 R31 tme rl doc Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer shall prepare and obtain approval by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Director of Parks and Recreation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan and landscape/irrigation plans as part of the grading plans for the Project. 22. Condition No. 83 - (Parks). In satisfaction of Condition No. 83 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees that: a. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall pay PAD fees for the Community Park based upon a formula of i acre per 1,000 residents, until such time as a turn-key facility has been accepted by the Director of Parks and Recreation. Said turn-key facility is subject to the reimbursement mechanism set forth below. b. The first Otay Ranch Community Park, to satisfy SPA One demand, shall be located in Village 2 as identified in the GDP. c. The Applicant shall identify the relocation, if any, of the Village 20tay Ranch Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 1,150th dwelling unit of the SPA One Plan. Said relocation may require an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. d. Notwithstanding that the community park requirement (1 acre/1,000 residents) shall be satisfied through the payment of PAD fees, the Applicant shall commence construction of the first phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th dwelling unit of the SPA One Plan. The first phase of construction shall include, but not be limited to, improvements such as a graded site with utilities provided to the property line and an all weather access road acceptable to the Fire Department. e. The Applicant shall commence construction of the second phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,000th dwelling unit of the SPA One Plan. Second phase improvements shall include recreational amenities as identified in the Park Master Plan. f. The Community Park shall be ready for acceptance by the Director of Parks and Recreation for maintenance prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,900th dwelling unit of the SPA One Plan. g. If the Director of Parks and Recreation determines that it is not feasible for the Applicant to commence construction of the first phase improvements of the community park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th unit of the SPA One Plan, then the Director of Parks and Recreation shall have the option 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 SPA One, as set forth in the GDP. h. The Applicant shalt provide a maintenance period of 9-12 months in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Department policy. i. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees, proportionate to what has been constructed, excluding the cost of construction of the all weather access road, for the community park should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the Community Park Master Plan. 23. Condition No. 84(e) - (Transit Right of Way). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 84(e) of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer hereby agrees that landscape and irrigation plans for the right of way shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation in conjunction with the landscape plans for East Palomar Street. 24. Condition No. 90 - (No Protest of Maintenance District or Assessment District). In satisfaction of Condition No. 90 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer hereby agrees not to protest the formation o for the inclusion in, a maintenance district, including a community facility district or a benefit zone, for the maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic corridors along streets within and adjacent to the subject subdivision. This agreement to not protest the inclusion of these public improvements shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge the amount of any assessment, which may be imposed due to the addition of these new improvements and shall not interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot election. 25. Condition No. 103 - (Agreements/Financial). In satisfaction of Condition No. 103 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees to the following: a. That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if any one of the following occurs: i. Regional development threshold limits set by the adopted 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 Gro~vth 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 or fail to comply with the then effective Growth Management Ordinance and Growth Management Program and any amendments thereto. Public utilities shall include, but not limited to, air quality, drainage, sewer and water. iii. The Developer does not comply with the terms of the Reserve Fund Program. That the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Otay Ranch SPA One Plan if the required facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as an~ended by the Annual Monitoring Program, have not been completed. H:\HOME\ENG~NEER~LA~DDEV~OTAYRNCH\SSIA Vill 5 R31 tme rl doc 9 e. 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 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. d. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project. e. Ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot on public streets within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further 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. That the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project, should the Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any 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 such breach. 26. Condition No. 104- (Congestion Management Program). In satisfaction of Condition No. 104 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, the Developer agrees to participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and agrees to not protest formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities described in the Otay Ranch GDP and Otay Ranch SPA One PFFP. This agreement to not protest the inclusion of these public improvements shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge the amount of any fee which may be imposed due to these new improvements and shall not interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot election. 27. Condition No. 108 - (Insurance). In satisfaction of Condition No. 108 of Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613, Developer agrees to ensure that all insurance companies are given equal opportunity to provide a Cooperative Homeowner's Insurance Program. 28. Condition Nos. 119/120 - (Growth Management Ordinance). In satisfaction of Condition No. 119 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 120 of Resolution No. 18398, the Developer agrees, upon the request of the City, to the following: H:~HOME\ENGINEER~LANDDEV~OTAYRNCH~SSIA ViL1 5 R31 tme rl doc a. Fund the preparation of an annual report monitoring the development of Otay Ranch as described in Chapter 9, "Growth Management" of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The annual report will analyze the supply of, and demand, fur public facilities and services governed by the thresholds. b. Prepare a five (5) year development phasing forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPAs and temative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities as described in Chapter 9, "Growth Management" of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. 29. Condition No. 127/128 - (PFFP). In satisfaction of Condition No. 127 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 128 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to adhere to the PFFP and any amendments thereto, approved by the City Council, including but not limited to the SPA and Tentative Subdivision Map improvements installed in accordance with said Plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City. Developer and City acknowledge that 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 (i.e., the development of EastLake III). Developer understands that neither the PFFP nor any other SPA One document grant the Developer an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP. Developer acknowledges that compliance with the City's 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 said development. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. Developer understands and agrees that the City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. Developer agrees that concurrent with the approval of the first map approved after a Public Facility Financing Plan has been approved for the EastLake III GDP Area, the Developer shall update, at Developer's sole expense and subject to a Reimbursement Agreement, the SPA One PFFP and agrees that the City Engineer may change the timing of construction of the public facilities, 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. 30. Condition Nos. 129/130 - (Utilities). In satisfaction of Condition No. 129 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 130 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with the Municipal Code requirements. 31. Condition Nos. 130/131 - (Fees). In satisfaction of Condition No. 130 of ResolutionNo. H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LkNDDEV\OTAYRNCH\SSIA Vill 5 R31-tme ri.doc 18613 and Condition No. 131 Resolution No. 18398, Developer shall pay all applicable fees, in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy, including: 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. d. Interim SR 125 impact fee. e. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin DIF. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF. g. Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIF. h. Reimbursement District tbr Telegraph Canyon Road Phase 2 Undergrounding. i. Otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee. j. Pedestrian Bridges DIF. 32. Condition No. 131/132- (Code Requirements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 131 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 132 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to 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. 33. Condition No. 132/133 - (Notice of Special Taxes). In satisfaction of Condition No. 132 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 133 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to 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. Developer shall submit disclosure forms for approval by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. 34. Condition No. 135/136 - (Landscape Manual). In satisfaction of Condition No. 135 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 136 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to comply with all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Laodscape Manual. 35. Condition No. 136/137 - (Code Requirements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 136 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 137 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees to comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management) as may be amended H:\HOME~ENGINEER~LANDDEV\OTAYRNCH~SSIA viii 5 R31-tme ri doc 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). Developer further acknowledges and agrees 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 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 Developer hereby agrees to comply with adopted amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance. 36. Condition No. 137/138 - (Code Requirements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 137 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 138 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees that upon submittal of building plans for small lot single fmnily (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. 37. Condition No. 139/140 - (Planned Community District). In satisfaction of Condition No. 139 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No. 140 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees that all proposed development shall be consistent with the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations. 38. Condition No. 151/152 - (MHOA). In satisfaction of Condition No. 151 of Resolution No. 18613 and Condition No 152 of Resolution No. 18398, Developer agrees that future property owners will be notified during escrow, by a document to be initialed by the owners, and approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning, of the maintenance responsibilities of the MHOA and their estimated annual cost. 39. Assignability. Upon request of the Developer, any or all on-site duties and obligations set forth herein may be assigned to Subdivider's successor in interest if the City Manager in his/her sole discretion determines that such an assignment will not adversely affect the City's interest. The City Manager in his/her sole discretion may, if such assignment is requested, permit a substitution of securities by the successor in interest in place and stead of the original securities described herein, so long as such substituted securities meet the criteria for security as set forth elsewhere in this Agreement. Such assignment will be in a form approved by the City Attorney. 40. Satisfaction of Conditions. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement constitutes satisfaction or partial satisfaction as indicated above of Developer's obligation off Conditions 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 27, 31, 36, 50, 52, 65, 83, 84(e), 90, 103,104, 108, 120, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 140 and 152 of Resolution No. 18398 and Conditions 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 27, 31, 36, 50, 52, 65, 83, 84(e), 90, 103, 104, 108, 119, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136, I37, 139 and 151 of Resolution No. 18613. Developer further understands and agrees H:\HOME~ENGINEER~LANDDEV~OTAYRNCH\SSIA Vill 5 R3] tme rl doc that some of the provisions herein may be required to be performed or accomplished prior to the approval of other final maps in SPA One, as may be appropriate. 41. Unfulfilled Conditions. Developer hereby agrees, unless otherwise conditioned, that Developer shall comply with all unfulfilled conditions of approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, established by Resolution Nos. 18398 and 18613 and shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions therein. 42. Recording. This Agreement, or an abstract hereof shall be recorded simultaneously with the recordation of the Final Map. 43. Building Permits. Developer and Guest Builders understand and agree that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project, should the Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the terms of this Agreement. The City shall provide the Developer of notice of such determination and allow the Developer with reasonable time to cure said breach. 44. Miscellaneous. a. Notices. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by law, any and all notices required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or delivered to either party shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served, delivered, and received when personally delivered to the party to whom it is directed, or in lieu thereof, when three (3) business days have elapsed following deposit in the U.S. mail, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to the address indicated in this Agreement. CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attn: Director of Public Works Developer: Otay Project, L.P. 350 W. Ash St., Suite 730 San Diego, CA 92101 Attn: Chuck Cater Fax (619) 234-4088 Otay Ranch Three, LLC 270 Newport Center Dr., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Carl Renezeder H:~HOME~ENGINEER~LANDDEV~OTAYP~NCH~SSIA Vill 5 R31 tme rl doc Fax: (949) 644-7936 A party may change such address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the mariner provided in this paragraph. b. Captions. Captions in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference and do not define, describe or limit the scope or intent of this Agreement or any of its terms. c. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof. Any prior oral or written representations, agreements, understandings, and/or statements shall be of no force and effect. This Agreement is not intended to supersede or amend any other agreement between the parties unless expressly noted. d. Preparation of Agreement. No inference, assumption or presumption shall be drawn from the fact that a party or his attorney prepared and/or drafted this Agreement. It shall be conclusively presumed that both parties participated equally in the preparation and/or drafting this Agreement. e. Recitals; Attachments. Any recitals and Attachments set forth above are incorporated by reference into this Agreement. f. Attorney's Fees. If either party commences litigation for the judicial interpretation, reformation, enforcement or rescission hereof, the prevailing party will 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. g. Olympic Parkway Agreement. The parties do not intend by this Agreement to modify or amend in any way the Olympic Parkway Agreement. To the extent of any inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Olympic Parkway Agreement with regard to obligations specifically set forth in the Olympic Parkway Agreement, the Olympic Parkway Agreement shall control. 45. Previous Agreement. The Developer acknowledges that nothing in this Agreement shall supercede, nullify or otherwise negatively impact the terms of the SSIA No. 3. This Agreement affirms and reflects the terms, conditions and provisions of the SSIA No. 3 and the Tentative Map 96-04 conditions applicable specifically to the Final Map for the Property. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth. [Next 2 Pages Are Signature Pages] H:~HOME~ENGIIq]EER~LANDDEV~OTAYRNCH~SSIA Vill 5 R3I tme ri.doc [PAGE ONE OF TWO SIGNATURE PAGES TO THE VILLAGE 5 NEIGHBORHOOD R-31 OF THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT] CITY OF CHULA VISTA DEVELOPER: OTAY PROJECT, L.P., a California limited partnership Mayor By: Otay Project, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Otay Ranch Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability, Authorized Member Attest: Its:BY: ~~lOt~'7 Susan Bigelow City Clerk Approved as to Form: John M. Kaheny City Attorney H:~HOME\ENGINEER~LANDDEV~OTAYRNCH~SSIA Vill 5 R31 tme ri.doc CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of ~".~-.~ .Z~ ~ ~ ~ ss. On ~x,~, 3/.. z-~/ )ersonally appeared I"'~¢'ersonally known to me I ' proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence i --.~;;~. --M'~,; L~O~AN~ ~O~'f; i to be the person(-s~ whose name(..~ is/ace · r......~um,.~a~'T'a~' C:omm~en#~2N;~4~,~z subscribed to the within instrument and ~ ~..~'~ Noto~y Public - Collfomk3 ~ acknowledged to me that he/s'heCthe3~executed 4 ~ u,,c,.~,~,~ r.,,,-~,,~,.,- '~,'~r~.· ~"~! Son Diego County ~ the same in his/hcr,'t.hc:.,-~ authorized J____'"'_'-_'":-:'_-_"-_':%t capacit,<, , and that by signature(~.)'-on the instrument the person.(.s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(.e-)- acted, executed the instrument. Place Notary Seal Above OPTIONAL Though the information below Is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: ~ ~ / 4* ~ ~ ;3 / Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: . - . =.. ~ Individual Corporate Officer -- Title(s): [ i Partner-- ] Limited i I General [ i Attorney in Fact II Trustee 12! Guardian or Conservator : Other: Signer Is Representing: _ [PAGE TWO OF TWO SIGNATURE PAGES TO THE VILLAGE 5 NEIGHBORHOOD R-31 OF THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT] Otay Ranch Three, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company H:~HOME~ENGINEER~LANDDEV~OTAYRNCH~SSIA vill 5 R32 tme rl.doc LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment "A" Legal description of Property. Attaclunent "A-I" Plat of Property ATTACHMENT "A" ALL OF LOTS 10 AND J OF CHULA VISTA TRACT 96-04 OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 5 "A" MAP NO. 3, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 14147 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ON FEBRUARY 20, 2001. ATTACHMENT A-1 / ;ALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of On ,~¢'J~. ,.~0] before me, ~/(/N(~//~//~Ct''/~. / /Date ' I / ~' ~e and Title of Offlcer ~ , "Jane [~oe, Notary P~li~') personally appeared ~/"/ ]~/ " /~,'¢'~k/~*Z~/"O/'"" , Name(s) of Signer(s) personally known to me J proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person.~ whose name/~(~ subscribed to the within instrurbent and acknowledged to me that~hc/thsy executed the same in (~hcr/tho!r authorized capacity-(.~, and that by ~L--~,~ -- '~A~C;F.~I-~G~I--- i signature(a')"on the instrument the person.,f,8'), or the entity upon behalf of which the person,(4r)' 1 ~ CommT~lon# 1175477 ~ acted, executed the instrument. ~'~j~j~ Notan/Pu~c-Callfo~ ~ -~ ~ Oronge Count/ ,.~h~/Oomm. Exp~es6/l~¢20,~O02m WITNESS my hand and official seal. Place Notary Seal Above ~. ~ S~gnatur~ of Notary Pubhc~ v OPTIONAL Though the uTformation below is not required by law. it may p/ove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ; i Individual Top of thumb here [ ] Corporate Officer-- Title(s): i] Partner t ] Limited ill General I Attorney in Fact [' Trustee [, Guardian or Conservator ] Other: Signer Is Representing: COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 06/05/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting bids; rejecting the lowest bid due to incomplete bid proposal; awarding the contract for the "Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Rehabilitation at Various Locations in the City of Chula Vista, CA (DR-152A)" project to Bert Salas, Inc., in the amount of $78,735.00 SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works--~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X ) At 2:00 p.m. on May 2, 2001, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Rehabilitation, Various Locations, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (DR-152A)" project. This project provides for the replacement of two (2) parallel existing 42-inch x 27-inch corrugated metal pipe arches (CMPA) and a 22-inch x 13-inch CMPA as shown on the attached plats. The double 42" x 27" CMPA segment is located within a parking lot at 1251 Third Avenue and the smaller pipe crosses Moss Street, just east of Third Avenue. These old corrugated metal pipes are deteriorating and in need of replacement. The work includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation, protection and restoration, and traffic control necessary for completion of the project. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Council reject the bid submitted by the apparent lowest bidder, Rutledge Joint Venture, for the "Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Rehabilitation at Various Locations in the City of Chula Vista, CA (DR- 152A)" project. 2. That Council accept bids, award the contract for the "Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Rehabilitation at Various Locations in the City of Chula Vista, CA (DR-152A)" project to the second lowest bidder, Bert Salas, Inc., in the amount of $78,735.00 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: General This project provides for the replacement of a double 42" x 27" CMPA segment, located within the parking lot at 1251 Third Avenue and a 22" x 13" CMPA pipe, which crosses Moss Street, just east of Third Avenue, as shown on the attached plats. The existing CMPA lines are corroded and require replacement. With the construction of this project; previous ones through Autumn Hills (DR-152) and Rohr Elementary School; and future projects, the City of Chula Vista has and will continue to Page 2 Item Meeting Date 06/05/01 take preventative measures against the costly repairs associated with the CMP lines collapsing and lessening the potential for public inconvenience. The bid documents allowed for three different types of replacement pipes to be used, Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC), High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) or Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP). Since these types of pipes have much higher flow capacities than the old CMP pipes, 27" and 15" round pipes will provide sufficient capacity. Both segments of pipe have very little cover and will require concrete encasement for protection. This is probably why both pipes are beginning to collapse in several places. In addition to their severally deteriorated condition, these pipe segments were selected because they were located within areas in which CDBG Funds could be used. As funds become available, CDBG or others, we will continue to line or replace these old CMP pipes. The project work also includes traffic control, protection and restoration of existing improvements, other miscellaneous work, and all labor, material, equipment and transportation necessary for the project. Bidding Process Engineering staff prepared plats and specifications and advertised the project. Staff received and opened bids for the project at 2:00 pm on May 2, 2001. Bids were received f~om ten (10) contractors to perform the work as follows (listed in order of"Bid AmoLmt"): No. Contractor Bid Amount 1 Rutledge Joint Venture $75,640.0( 2 Bert W. Salas, Inc. $78,735.0( 3 Roberts Engineering Contractors $86,953.40 4 Pullman Engineering Inc. $91,127.00! 5 New Century Construction $96,760.00 6 Underground Utilities Inc. $107,420.00 7 DenBoer Engineering & Const. $115,990.00 8 RKC Constructor's Inc. $132,873.00 90ropeza Construction, Inc. $137,739.46 10 MJC Construction Inc. $141,120.00 The original apparent low bid, submitted by Rutledge Joint Venture, is below the engineer's estimate of $122,710.00 by $47,070.00 or 38.4%. However, the bid proposal package was incomplete. Based on the subsequent review of said contractor's incomplete bid proposal by City staff, including City Attorney's Office, City staff recommends that the original low bid, submitted by Rutledge Joint Venture, be rejected by Council. Based on the disqualification of the original lowest bid for the project, the second lowest bid for the project, submitted by Bert W. Salas, Inc., was reviewed by City staff for potential award of the Page 3 Item Meeting Date 06/05/01 contract. The second lowest bid is also below the engineer's estimate of $122,710.00 by $43,975.00 or 35.8%. Staff's bid estimate was based on average unit prices received recently for similar type of work completed during the last three (3) years. Staff has seen a recent trend with bids coming in below the estimate, however, it is unclear as to the eventual impact on our future construction estimates and construction costs. It is staff's opinion that the bid submitted by Bert W. Salas, Inc. is responsive. Engineering staff checked three references provided by Bert W. Salas, Inc. The references were verified and their work has been satisfactory. Their Contractor's License No. 275199 is clear and current. Staff, therefore, recommends awarding the contract to Bert W. Salas, Inc. of Santee, California, in the amount of $78,735.00. Disclosure Statement Attached is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement. Environmental Status The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that the project is exempt pursuant to Section 15302, Class 2 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Replacement of Reconstruction). Prevailing Wage Statement The source of funding for this project is Community Development Block Grant Funds. 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 Department of Housing and Urban Development. Fiscal Impact FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount (Bert W. Salas, Inc.) $78,735.00 B. Contingencies (±20%) $15,265.00 C. Staff Costs (Design, Inspection, Administration) $21,000.00 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $115,000.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $115,000.00 (3310-7999/2651152333-400000) TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $115,000.00 Page 4 Item Meeting Date 06/05/01 The above action of awarding the contract will authorize a total expenditure of$115,000.00 fi.om the budgeted CIP project. After construction, only routine City maintenance will be required. Attachments: A - Plat B - Contractor's Disclosure Statement File: STL252 H:\HOM E\ENGINEERLAGENDA\DR152aA 113.doc STR~'T _~ PROJECT SITE LOCATIOA I I PROJE¢T SI TE Q: \SDSKPROJ\DrI52o \Draw \Final\Or152mO4B. dwg OJ/JO/Ol 04: 48: 5J PM PST PROJECT FILE//DR!52A DRAWN BY: I TITLE: ~PREPARED BY: MLCM CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAR;O INCRASC~ O,4TE: SHEEr ~I CMP STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT'"PPR°vE° BY.. 3/'23/'01 OF 5 SHTS. i JAMES R. HOLMES THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters which will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: I. List the names 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, material supplier. 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with a $1000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity. 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or tmstor of the trust. 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, Consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 46 \\CITYWIDE\SYS\HOME\ENGINEER\ADMIN\CONTRACTSDRI52A.DOC Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to tiffs contract within the past 12 months? Yes__No Xx If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract. 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No XX If Yes, 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 XX If Yes, which Council member? 8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in tile past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes __ No XX If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided? Date: 05/2/01 ~~ Si~natur~fof Contractor/Applicant Robert A. Salaz Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant * Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members. 47 \\CITY WIDE\SYS\HOM E\ENG INEER\ADMIN\CONTRACT\DR 15~A.DOC RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS; REJECTING THE LOWEST BID DUE TO INCOMPLETE BID PROPOSAL; AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE "CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (CMP) REHABILITATION AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA (DR-152A)" PROJECT TO BERT SALAS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,735.00 WHEREAS, on May 2, 2001, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Rehabilitation, Various Locations, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (DR-152A)" project, WHEREAS, the Staff received from ten (10) contractors to perform the work as follows (listed in order of "Bid Amount"): No. Contractor Bid Amount 1 Rutledge Joint Venture $75,640.00 2 Bert W. Salas, Inc. $78,735.00 3 Roberts Engineering Contractors $86,953.40 4 Pullman Engineering Inc. $91,127.00 5 New Century Construction $96,760.00 6 Underground Utilities Inc. $107,420.00 7 DenBoer Engineering & Const. $115,990.00 8 RKC Constructor's Inc. $132,873.00 9 Oropeza Construction, Inc. $137,739.46 10 MJC Construction Inc. $141,120.00 WHEREAS, the original apparent low bid, submitted by Rutledge Joint Venture, is below the engineer's estimate of $122,710.00 by $47,070.00 or 38.4%; however, the bid proposal package was incomplete, failed to include the required Affidavit and appropriately notarized documents, and WHEREAS, based on the subsequent review of said contractor's incomplete bid proposal by City staff, including City Attorney's Office, City staff recommends that the original low bid, submitted by Rutledge Joint Venture, be rejected by Council, and WHEREAS, based on the disqualification of the original lowest bid for the project, the second lowest bid for the project, submitted by Bert W. Salas, Inc., was reviewed by City staff for potential award of the contract, and WHEREAS, the second lowest bid is also below the engineer's estimate of $122,710.00 by $43,975.00 or 35.8%, and WHEREAS, Staff's bid estimate was based on average unit prices received recently for similar type of work completed during the last three (3) years, and WHEREAS, it is staff's opinion that the bid submitted by Bert W. Salas, Inc. is responsive, and WHEREAS, Engineering staff checked three references provided by Bert W. Salas, Inc. and found their work to be satisfactory and Contractor's License No. 275199 is clear and current, WHEREAS, Staff, therefore, recommends awarding the contract to Bert W. Salas, Inc. of Santee, California, in the amount of $78,735.00, and WHEREAS, this project provides for the replacement of two (2) parallel existing 42-inch x 27-inch corrugated metal pipe arches (CMPA) and a 22-inch x 13-inch CMPA as shown on the attached plats, and WHEREAS, the double 42" x 27" CMPA segment is located within a parking lot at 1251 Third Avenue and the smaller pipe crosses Moss Street, just east of Third Avenue, and WHEREAS, the work includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation, protection and restoration, and traffic control necessary for completion of the project, and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that the project is exempt pursuant to Section 15302, Class 2 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Replacement of Reconstruction), and WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is Community Development Block Grant Funds, and WHEREAS, this project is covered by the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts requiring the payment of prevailing wage rates to all laborers and mechanics employed for the work under this project, and WHEREAS, the prevailing wage rates are those determined by the U.S. Department of Labor or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby accepts bids for the "Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Rehabilitation, Various Locations, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (DR-152A)" project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council rejects the lowest bid due to incomplete bid proposal. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council awards the contract to Bert Salas, Inc., in the amount of $78,735.00 for the "Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Rehabilitation at Various Locations in the City of Chula Vista, CA (DR-152A)" Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt J?~ M. ~en/ ' Director of Public Works C~tv Attorne~ J:\Attorney[RESO\Corrugated Metal Pipe Rehabilitation ,doc COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: d~ Meeting Date: 615/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, accepting a $50,000 grant from the County of San Diego for the renovation of the Nature Center's Shark and Ray Exhibit (CIP# GG-176) and authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement. SUBMITTED BY: Nature Center Direct~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~ ~,4 ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes__ No__X) RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the Resolution. The County of San Diego has responded to a request from the Chula Vista Nature Center's Shark and Ray Experience Capital Campaign Committee to assist in the funding of the new exhibit. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None. DISCUSSION: The Nature Center's current shark and ray petting pool is in need of major renovation and the Council approved a CIP project for this purpose (GG-176). Due to the unique nature of the project and its mass appeal, it has been possible to conduct a capital campaign to raise the funds for this project. The fund raising plan for the new exhibit was formulated based upon solicitation of a diverse array of funding sources, including major individual supporters, foundations, corporations, and public entities. The County of San Diego has historically been very much involved in the Nature Center and Supervisor Greg Cox, a member of the Nature Center's governing board, offered to review the funding needs of the project to see if there was an opportunity for the County to participate. On May 15, 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a request by Supervisor Cox to grant $50,000 to the Chula Vista Nature Center for this project. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost for the project is currently estimated at $350,000. At this time, including the acceptance of the County's gift, the project has raised over $260,000. It is anticipated that staff will return to Council in August for award of the contract for the construction and for final appropriation of funds raised. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A $50,000 GRANT FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE NATURE CENTER'S SHARK AND RAY EXHIBIT (CIP# GG-176) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the County of San Diego has responded to a request from the Chula vista Nature Center's Shark and Ray Experience Capital Campaign Committee to assist in the funding of the Shark and Ray Exhibit; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has received notice of the award of grant funds from the County of San Diego in the amount of $50,000 for the renovation of the Chula Vista's Nature Center's Shark and Ray Exhibit (CIP# GG-176). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept a grant in the amount of $50,000 from the County of San Diego for the renovation of the Nature Center's Shark and Ray Exhibit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Dan Beintema J Kaheny Nature Center Director C~ty Attorney J:~Attorney~RESO~GRANT Acceptance NATURE CENTER. doc AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO & Chula Vista Nature Center The County, under authority of Government Code section 26227 and applicable County ordinances, desires to engage Contractor in connection with the herein described program found by the Board of Supervisors to he necessaxy to meet AUDITOR AND CONTROLLER the social needs of the population of the County. Funding Organization#: Contract #: Account: WHEREAS. Contractor possesses certain skills, experience, education Task Option Activity and/or competency to perform the program identified beloxv, which meets the social needs of the population of the Count5,, and County desires to engage Contractor or such program; and Approved for funds and accounts: WILLIAM J. KELLY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors h~s allocated funding set forth in ChiefFinancialOllicer Exhibit A for the program of the Contractor described in Exhibit A; By: t'he County of San Diego hereby enters an agreemeot with Contractor: Chula Vista Nature Center Scope of Services. 'Fha Contractor will protnote and provide a scope of services described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Term of Agreement. Tbe term of this Agreement shall be lbr thc period indicated in thc attached Exhibit "A". Method of Payment. Payments will be made automatically commencing with the County's receipt oft signed copy of this Agreement according to thc folIowing schedule: Grants $50.000 and under - full payment to be distributed upon processing and execution of the contract; Grants over $50,000 - semi-annual payments to be distributed by August 31 and the lbllowing November 30 of each year. In the event a signed copy of this Agreement is not received in sufficient time for processing and execution to meet the above payment schedule, payments may be delayed. During the contract year, but in no event later than two months beyond the contract year, thc Contractor must submit documentation to the County's representative setting forth actual expenditures made in support of the scope of services. Any payments made to contractor which exceed the tolal actual expenditures for thc contract year must be rel'unded to thc County. Reimbursement for expenses incurred in advance of' the payment schedule stated above, will be made upon submission of an invoice by thc Cuntractor to thc County's representative setting forth the actual expenditures. In the cveot that less than all services arc perlbrmed in a proper and timely manner, the Contractor shall be obligated to inlbrm thc County's representative of such, and shall only be paid for the reasonable costs of those services performed during the payment period as determined by tile County's representative. However, the Contractor and the Count),'s representative may agree in writing to extend the period of this Agreement lbr not more than three (3) months to allow the Contractor additional time to perlbrm the services required by this Agreement. The total payments made to Contractor for services performed during thc total period of this Agreement, including any extension, shall not exceed the amount allocated to Contractor as indicated in this Agreement. la the event Contractor receives payment from the County for a service which is later disallowed by the County upon review of the Contractor's documentation of actual expenditures, the Contractor shall promptly refund thc disallowed amount tn the County on request, or at its option, thc County offset the amount disallowed i'¥om any payment duc or to become due to contractor under this Agreement or any other Agreement. In the event this Agreement is terminated by County pursuant to paragraphs 2 or 3 under the terms and conditions on thc reverse side or' tiffs Agrccmenl, the County shall not be required to make an), further payments to the Contractor as of the effective date of termination, irrespective of the amount of services or expenditures made by the Contractor through the termination date. Compensation. The County agrees to pay to thc Contractor thc snm set forth in Exhibit "A" for the period set l'orth in Exhibit "A" which is attachcd hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, and Cootrack*r agrees that said snm shall be full compensation for all services in perforating ibis agreement I'or said period. Administrator of Agreemeot. The Auditor and Controller shall be the County's representative for thc purpose of administering this Agreement. Notice. Any' notice or notices required or permitted Io be given pursuant to this Agreement may be persooally served on the other part), by tile party giving such notice, or may hc served by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: County: Chief Financial Officer County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92~01 Contractor: Daniel Beintema Chula Vista Nature Center 1000 Gunpowder Point Drive Chula Vist~ CA 91910 have rend the above and the Terms and Conditions set l'orth on the back ol' this Agreement and [ accept the allocation and agree thereto: Cnntractor Signature 'fitle ............Date TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITY PROJECT SERVICES AGREEMENT 1 Audit and Inspection of Records. At any time during normal business hours and as often as the County may deem necessary, the Contractor shall make available to the County for examination all of its records with respect to all mattem covered by this Agreement and will permit the County to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and make audits of all invoices, materials, payrolls, records of pemonnel and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. Unless otherwise specified by the County, said records should be made available for examination within San Diego County. Contraclor shall maintain such records in an accessible location and condition for a period &not less than fours years following receipt of tinal payment under this Agreement unless County agrees in writing to an earlier disposition. The State of California or any Federal agency having an interest ul the subject of this agreement shall have the same rights conferred upon County by this Agreement. '~ Termination of Agreement for Cause. Upon breach of this Agreement, County shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, by giving written notice to Contractor &such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least five (5) days before thc effective date of such termination. As of the etl~ctive date of termination, the County shall not be required to make any further payments m Contractor under this Agreement, irrespective of the amount of services or expenditures made by Contractor through the termination date. 3. Termination for Convenience of Count. County may terminate this Agreement, at any time by giving written notice to Contractor of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least thirty (30) days before the effective date Bf such termination. As of the effective date of termination, the County shall not be required to make any further payments to Contractor under this Agreement, irrespective of the amount of services or expenditures made by Contractor through the termination date, 4 Termination for Convenience of Contractor. Contractor may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving written notice to County of such termination and specie'lng the effective date thereof at least sixty (60) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, it is expressly agreed and understood that Contractor at the option &County shall for a minimum period of thirty (30) days aRer giving such notice provide as requested by the administrator of this Agreement. assistance and advice to Contractor's successor tn fanilitate the period of transition caused by such termination, provided that such minimum period of assistance and advice by Contractor to Contractor's successor shall not extend beyond the effective date of the termination. 5. Changes. County may from time to time require changes itl the scope &the see,ices of Contractor to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including increase or decrease in the amount of Contractor's compensation which are mutually agreed upon by and between County and Contractor. shall be ef~bctive when incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement therein. 6 Assignabilit~ The Contractor shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation) without the prior written consent of the County thereto; provided, however, that claims for money due or to become due to Contractor 6-om County under this Agreement may be assigned without such approval. Notice of any such assignment or transtar shall be furnished promptly to County. 7 Interest of Contractor. Contractor covenants that Contractor presently has no interest, including, but not limited to, other projects or independent contracts, and shall not acquire any such interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be pedBrmed under this Agreement. Contractor fmther covenants that in the performance of this Agreement no person having any such interest shall be employed or retained by Contractor under this Agreement. 8. Publication Reproduction and Use of Material. No material produced, in whole or in part, under this Contract shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other Country. The County shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute and otherwise use. in whole or in part, any reports, data or other materials prepared under this contract. All reports, data and other materials prepared under this Contract shall be the property of the County upon completion of this Contract. 9. Insurance and lipid Harmless Agreement. Contraclor agrees to maintain such insurance as will fully protect both Contractor and County fi'om any or all claims under any workmen's compensation act or employer's liability laws, and t¥om any and all claims of whatsoever kind or nature for the damage to property or for personae injury, including death, made by anyone whomsoever which may arise from operations carried on under this Agreement, either by Contractor, any subcontractor or by anyone directly or indirectly engaged or employed by either of them. Contractor shall exonerate, indemnify and hold harmless Cmmty t?om and against, and sball assume full responsibility for payment of, all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under mrenlploymenl thsurance, social security and income tax laws, with respecl to Contractor and Contractor's employees engaged in perIbrmance o~' this Agremnant. County. and its agents and employees shall not be. or be held liable for any liabilities, penalties, or forfeitures, or for any damage to the goods. properties or effects of Contractor, or of any other persons whatsoever, nor for personal injury to or death of them, whether caused by or resulting from any negligant scl or omission of Contractor. The provisions of this paragraph do not relieve the County of County's liability for damages to Contractor caused negligent acts or omissions. Contractor further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless County and County's agents and employees, against and from any and all of the foregoing liabilities, and any and all costs or expenses incurred by County on account of any claim therefore, Contractor agrees to assurae the foregoing obligations and liabilities, by which Contractor shall indemnify and hold County harmless from all claims arising by mason of the work done or by reason of any act or omission of Contraclor. 10 Independent Contractor. It is agreed that County is interested only in the results obtahmd and that Contractor shall perform as an independant contractor with sole control ofthe manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. Contractor shall complete this Agreement according to Contractor's own means and methods of work which shall be in the exclusive charge and control of Contractor and shall not be subject to comrel or supervision by County except as to the results &the work. Contractor is, for all purposes arising out of this agreement, an independent contractor and neither Contraclor nor Contractor's employees shall be deemed an employee of County. It is expressly understood and agreed that Contractor and Contractor's employees shall in no event be entitled to any benefits to which County employees are entitled, including, but not limited to, overtime, any retirement bcnelits, workllleO's conlpeusation benefits, and injury leave or other leave benefits I I Equal Opportunity. Comractor will not discriminate against any employee, or against any applicant tbr such employment because of age, race, color, religiol:. physical handicap, ancestry, sex or national origin. This provision shall include, but not bc limited to, the following: employmant, upgrading, dentation, or transfi:r; recruilment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, hmthding apprenticeship. 12. Personal Perrorotaner. II is expressly understood and agreed thal Colltraclor shall engage or require the services of no other person or firm. by contractor or otherwise, to provide ct assist in providing such services without the express written consent of County, provided, however, that this provision shall not apply lo secretarial, clerical, routine mechanical and similar incidental services needed by Contractor to assist in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall not bire County's employees to perform any portion of tile work ur services provided for herein including secretarial, clerical and similar incidental services except upon thc written approval of County. 13 Governing Law. fbis agr~emem shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of thc State of Calitbmia. 14.Contractor's Employees mid Eqoipment. Contractor agrees that Cmltractor tins secured or will secure at Contractor's own expense all persons, anlp[oyees and equipment required to perform the services required under this Agreement and that all such services will be performed by Contractor, or under Contractor's supervision, by persons authorized by law to perform such services. If any arrangement is made whereby employees of County arc used by Contractor and am subject to Contractor's supervision and control, they shall, while engage itl such work be considered for all purposes, as employees, servants, or agents of the Contractor and not of County, irrespective of party paying them, Contractor shall exonerate, indemnify, and hold harmless County from and against any and all loss, damage or expense, by reason of any act of omission of any employee, servant or agent of Contractor, including those, if any. originally employed by County aud utilized by Contractor. and Contractor agrees to defend, at Cnntractor's own expense, any suit or snlts that may be brouglu against County hy reason of any sucb act or o~nission, County shall not be responsible nor be held liable Ibr any damage to person or property consequent upon the use, misuse, or Ihilure of ally equipment used by Contractor or any of Contractor's employees, even though such equipment be furnished, rented, or loaned to Contractor by County. The acceptance or use of any such equipment by Contractor's employees shall be construed to mean that Contractor accepts full responsibility {'or and agrees to exonerate, indemnify and save harmless County from and against any and all claims for any damage whatsoever rasaltthg l?om the use. misuse, or l~lilure of such equipment, whether such damage be to thc employee or property of Contractor, other contractors. County, or Of other persons. [~qnipulellt includes, but is not limited to. materials, tools or other things. shall comractor be entitled to any compensalion, benefits, reinlbursenj~.~nts or ancillary services other than as herein expressly provided COMMUNITY PROJECTS EXHIBIT A FOR 2000-01 NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Chula Vista Nature Center DATE OF AWARD BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: May 15, 2001 (20) PERIOD OF CONTRACT: July 1, 2000- June 30, 2001 SCOPE OF SERVICE: Renovations for San Diego Bay and Wetland Habitat Preservation Exhibit Shark and Ray Pool. AWARD AMOUNT: $50,000.00 I agree to the Contract terms stated above: Signature Date (610) 531-.5413 AUDITOR AND CONTROLLER (sle) ssi-s413 FAX (619) 535 -5219 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-24:','/8 I=AX (810) 531-521g May 16, 2001 Chula Vista Nature Center Attention: Dan Beintema 1000 Gunpowder Point Drive Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Dan Beintema: Congratulations! Supervisor Greg Cox has made a one-time award of $50,000.00 to your organization for the 2000-2001 budget year. Two copies of your contract (including Exhibit A) are enclosed for your review and approval. Please sign both sets (contract and Exhibit A) and return them to the Office of Financial Planning in the enclosed self-addressed envelope at your earliest convenience. Payments will be made in accordance with the terms of your signed contract. Documentation of contract costs should be forwarded to the Office of Financial Planning soon after expenditure of these funds. Should you have any questions regarding this process, please contact Leticia Arellanes or Michelle Mitchell at (619) 531-5177. JANEL PEHAU Office of Financial Planning, Director OFP:JEP:lma Enclosures COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 615/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, accepting a $6,200 grant from the County of San Diego for the purchase of a utility vehicle for the Chula Vista Nature Center, authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement, and appropriating funds therefore. SUBMITTED BY: Nature Center Directc~'~ City Manager REVIEWED BY: (4/Sths Vote: Yes~X No_) RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the Resolution. The County of San Diego, in an effort to assist the Nature Center in conducting beach clean-ups and general maintenance of the Nature Center property and proximate areas of the refuge, has made available funds for the purchase of a John Deere Gator utility vehicle. BOARDSICOMMISSlONS RECOMMENDATION: None. DISCUSSION: The Nature Center is currently assigned a mini-truck for the purpose of conducting business away from the Center and for moving trash, debris, animals, cages, dirt, plants, etc. There are many areas of the grounds and the refuge which are inaccessible to the truck, and many times the truck may be used for maintenance projects, making it unavailable to admin staff to conduct City business away from the Center. Recognizing some of the challenges faced with limited transportation resources, Supervisor Greg Cox proposed that the County fund the purchase of a John Deere Gator utility vehicle to cover the maintenance needs of the Center. The truck would then be available more often for conventional uses and would reduce use of personal vehicles (and costs) for City business. The County approved a grant of $6,200 to be used in FY 00/01 for this purpose. FISCAL IMPACT: The not-to-be-exceeded cost of the unit delivered to the Nature Center with available discounts is $6,200. There will be minor impacts ($175 - $225 annually) to future operating budgets associated with fuel and maintenance, however, it is anticipated that these additional costs will be offset by the reduction in use of the truck and avoidance of costs for the use of personal vehicles. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A $6,200 GRANT FROM THE COUNTY OF SD~N DIEGO FOR THE PURCHASE OF A UTILITY VEHICLE FOR THE CHULA VISTA NATURE CENTER, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, the County of San Diego, in an effort to assist the Nature Center in conducting beach clean-ups and general maintenance of the Nature Center property and proximate areas of the refuge, has made available funds for the purchase of a John Deere Gator utility vehicle; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept a grant in the amount of $6,200 from the County of San Diego for the purchase of a utility vehicle to assist the Nature Center in conducting beach clean-ups and general maintenance of the Nature Center property and proximate areas of the refuge. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $6,200 is hereby appropriated to the Nature Center's current year operating budget from unanticipated grant revenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Chula vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Dan Beintema J'i~ Nature Center Director C J: \Attorney\RES0\GRANT Acceptance NATURE CENTER. $6000doc .doc AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO & Chula Vista Nature Center The County, under authority of Government Code section 26227 and applicable County ordinances, desires to engage Contractor in connection with the AUDITOR AND CONTROLLER herein described program found by the Board of Supervisors to be necessary to meet the social needs of the population of the County. Funding Organization #: Contract#: Account: WHEREAS, Contractor possesses certain skills, experience, education Task Option Activity and/or competency to perform the program identified below, which meets the social needs of the population of the County, and County desires to engage Contractor or such program; and Approved for funds and accounts: WILLIAM .I. KELLY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has allocated funding set forth in ChiefFinanciaIOfficer Exhibit A for the program of the Contractor described in Exhibit A; By: The County of San Diego hereby enters an agreement with Contractor: Chula Vista Nature Center Scope of Services. The Contractor will promote and provide a scope of services described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be for the period indicated in the attached Exhibit "A". Method of Payment. Payments will be made automatically commencing with the County's receipt of a signed copy of this Agreement according to the following schedule: Grants $50,000 and under - full payment to be distributed upon processing and execution of the contract; Grants over $50,000 - semi-annual payments to be distributed by August 31 and the following November 30 of each year. In the event a signed copy of this Agreement is not received in sufficient time for processing and execution to meet the above payment schedule, payments may be delayed. During the contract year, but in no event later than two months beyond the contract year, the Contractor must submit documentation to the County's representative setting forth actual expenditures made in support of the scope of services. Any payments made to contractor which exceed the total actual expenditures for the contract year must be refunded to the County. Reimbursement for expenses incurred in advance of the payment schedule stated above, will be made upon submission of an invoice by the Contractor to the County's representative setting forth the actual expenditures. In the event that less than all services are performed in a proper and timely manner, the Contractor shall be obligated to inform the County's representative of such, and shall only be paid for the reasonable costs of those services performed during the payment period as determined by the County's representative. However, the Contractor and the County's representative may agree in writing to extend the period of this Agreement for not more than three (3) months to allow the Contractor additional time to perform the services required by this Agreement. The total payments made to Contractor for services performed during the total period of this Agreement, including any extension, shall not exceed the amount allocated to Contractor as indicated in this Agreement. In the event Contractor receives payment from the County for a service which is later disallowed by the County upon review of the Contractor's documentation of actual expenditures, thc Contractor shall promptly refund the disallowed amount to the County on request, or at its option, the County offset the amount disallowed from any payment due or to become due to contractor under this Agreement or any other Agreement. In the event this Agreement is terminated by County pursuant to paragraphs 2 or 3 under the terms and conditions on the reverse side of this Agreement, the County shall not be required to make any further payments to the Contractor as of the effective date of termination, irrespective of the amount of services or expenditures made by the Contractor through the termination date. Compensation. The County agrees to pay to the Contractor the sum set forth in Exhibit "A" for the period set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, and Contractor agrees that said sum shall be full compensation for all services in performiag this agreement for said period. Administrator of Agreement. The Auditor and Controller shall be the County's representative for the purpose of administering this Agreement. Notice. Any notice ur notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement may be personally served on the other party by the party giving such notice, or may be served by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: County: Chie£ Financial Officer County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92101 Contractor: Daniel Beintema Chula Vista Nature Center 1000 Gunpowder Point Drive Chula Vista, CA 91910 I have read the above and the Terms and Conditions set forth on the back of this Agreement and I accept the allocation and agree thereto: Contractor Signature Title Date TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITY PROJECT SERVICES AGREEMENT I. Audit and Inspection of Records. At any time during normal busincss hours and as often as the County .may deem necassary, thc Contractor shall make available to thc County for examination all of its records with respect to all utatters covered by this Agreement and will permit the County to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and make audits of all iovoicas, materials, payrolls, records of personnel and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. Unless otherwise spccificd by thc County, said records should be made available for examination within San Diego County. Contractor shall maintain such records in an accassiblc location and condition for a period of not less than fours years following receipt of final payment under this Agreement unless County agrees in wrlfing.to an earlier disposition. The State of California or any Federal agency having an interest in the subject of this agreement shall have the same rights conferred upon County by this Agreement. 2. Termination of Agreement for Cause. Upon breach of this Agreement, County shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, by giving written notice to Contractor of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least five (5) days before thc effective date of such termination. As of the effective date of termination, the County shall not be required to make any further payments to Contractor under this Agreement, irrespective of the amount of services or expenditures made by Contractor through the termination date. 3. Termination for Convenience of Connty. County may terminate this Agreement, at any time by giving writ~n notice to Contractor of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. As of the effective date of termination, the County shall not be required to make any further payments to Contractor under this Agreement, irrespective of the amount of services or expenditures made by Contractor through the termination date. 4. Termination for Convenience of Contractor. Contractor may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving written notice to County of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least sixty (60) days before the effective date of such termination. ]n that event, it is expressly agreed and understood that Contractor at the option of County shall for a minimum period of thirty (30) days after giving such notice provide as mqaasted by the adminlstramr of this Agreement, assistance and advice to Contractor's successor to facilitate the period of transition caused by such termination, provided that such minimum period of assistance and advice by Contractor to Contractor's successor shall not extend beyond the effectlve date of the termination. 5. Changes. County may from fime to time require changes in the scope of the services of Contractor to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of Contractor's compensation which are mutually agreed upon by and between County and Contractor, shall be effective when incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement therein 6. Assignability. The Contractor shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any imarest in the same (whether by assignment or novafion). without the prior written consent of the County thereto; provided, however, that claims for money due or to become due to Contractor front County under this Agreement may be assigned without saeh approval. Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to County. 7. Interest of Contractor. Contractor covenants that Contractor presently has no interest, including, but not fimited to, other projcct~ or independent contracts, and shall not acquire any such interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of sarvices required to be perthrmed under this Agreement. Contractor further covenanls that in the performance of this Agreement no person having any such 'interest shaft be employed or retained by Contractor under this Agreement. 8. Publication Reproduction and Use of Material. No material produced, in whole or in part, under this Contract shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other Couraty. The County shall hove unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute and otherwise use, in whole or in par~, any reports, data or other materials prepared under this contract. All repons, data and other materials prepared under this Contract shall be the property of the County upon completion of this Contract. 9 Insurance and Hold Itarmless Agreement. Contractor agrees to maintain such insurance as will fully protect both Contractor and County from any or all claims under any workmen's compensation act or employer's liability laws, and from any and all claims of whatsoever kind or nature for the damage to property or for personal injury, including death, made by anyone whomsoever which may arise from operations carried on under this Agreement, either by Contractor, any subcontractor or by anyone directly or indirectly engaged or employed by either of them. Contractor shall exonerate, indemnify and hold harmless County from and against, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of, all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required ander uncmploymant insurance, social security and income tax laws, with respect to Contractor and Contractor's employees engaged in performance of this Agreenteot. County,'and its agents and employees shall not be, or be held liable for any liabilities, penalties, or forfeitures, or for any damage to the goods, properties or effects of Contractor, or of any other persons whatsoever, nor for personal injury to or death of them, whether caused by or resulting from any negligent act or omission of Contracto~, The provisions of this paragrapb do not relieve the County of County's liability for damages to Contractor caused by negligent acts or omissions. Contractor further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless County and County's agents and employees, against and from any and all of the foregoing liabilities, and any and all costs or expenses incurred by County on account of any claim therefore. Contractor agrees to assume the foregoing obligatious and liabilities, by which Contractor shall indemnify and hold County harmless fronl all claims arising by reason of the work done or by reason of any act or omission of Contractor. 10. Independeut Contractor. It is agreed that County is interested only in the results obtained and that Contractor shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control oflhe manner and means of perforralng thc services required under this Agreement, Contractor shall complete this Agreement according to Contractor's own means and methods of work which shall be ia the exclusive charge and control of Contractor and shall not be subject to control or supervision by Courtly except as to the results of the work. Contractor is, for all purposes arising out of this agreement, aa independent contractor and neither Contractor nor Contractor's employees shall be deemed an employee of County. It is expressly understood and agreed that Contractor and Contractor's employeas shall th no event be entitled to any benefits to which County employees are entitled, including, but not limited tn, overtlme, any refireraent benefits. workmen's compensation benefits~ and injury leave or other leave benefits. I IEqual Opportunity. Contractor will ual discriminate againsl any employee, or against any applicant for such employment because of age, race, color, religion, physical handicap, ancestry, sex or national origin~ This provision shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruiultem or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, hlcludhlg apprenticeship. 12 Personal Performance. It is expressly understood and agreed that Contractor shall engage or require the services of no other person or firm, by contractor or otherwise, to provide or assist in providing such services without the express written consent of County, provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to secretarial, clerical, routine mechanical and similar incidental services needed by Contractor to assist in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall not hire County's employees to perform any portion of tile work or services provided for herein including secretarial, clerical and similar incidema} services except upon the written approval of County. 13.Governing Law. This agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of Califomla. I4.Contractor's Employees and Equipment. Contractor agrees that Contractor has secured or will secure at Contractor's own expense all persons, employees equipment required to perform the services required under this Agreement and that all such services will be performed by Contractor, or under Contraclor's supervision, by persons authorized by law to perform such services. If any arrangement is made whereby employees of Coanty are used by Contractor and are subject to Contractor's supervision and control, they shall, while engage in such work be considered for all purposes, as employees, servants, or agents of the Contractor and not of County, irrespective of party paying them. Contractor shall exonerate, indemnify, and hold harmless County from and against any and all loss, damage or expense, by reason of any act of omission of any employee, servant or agent of Contractor, inclading those, if any, originally employed by County and utilized by Contractor, and Contractor agrees to defend, at Contractor's awn expense, any suit or suits th3t may be brought against County by reason of any such act or omission. County shall not be responsible nor be held liable for any damage to person or property consequent upon the use, misuse, or failure of any equipment used by Contractor or any of Contracter's employees, even though such equipment be furnished, rented, or loaned to Contractlc, r by County. The acceptance or use ofany such equipment by Contractor's employees shall be construed to mean that Contractor accepts full responsibility tbr and agrees to exonerate, indemnify and save harmless County from and against any and all claims for any damage whatsoever resulting from the use, misuse, or failure of such equipment, whether such damage be to the employee or property of Contractor, other contractors, County, or of other persons. Equipmem includes, hut is not limited to, materials, tools or other things. 15.Complete Agreement. It is expressly understood and agreed that this Agreement constitutes tile entire agreement between Contractor and County and il/ 110 event shall contraclor be entitled to any compensation, benefits, reimbursements or ancillary scrvicas other than as herein expressly provided COMMUNITY PROJECTS PROGRAM EXHIBIT A FOR 2000-01 NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Chula Vista Nature Center DATE OF AWARD BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: March 13, 2001 (15) PERIOD OF CONTRACT: July 1, 2000- June 30, 2001 SCOPE OF SERVICE: John Deere, "Mule" AWARD AMOUNT: $6,200.00 I agree to the Contract terms stated above: Signature Date auonoa s co~o~n (619) ~1-~13 AUDITOR AND CONTROLLER FAX (619) S3t-~19 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SAN DIEGO, CALI~RNIA 92101-24~ F~ (619) ~1-5219 April 26, 2001 Chula Vista Nature Center Attention: Daniel Beintema 1000 Gunpowder Point Drive Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Daniel Beintema: Congratulations! Supervisor Greg Cox has made a one-time award of $6,200.00 to your organization for the 2000-2001 budget year. Two copies of your contract (including Exhibit A) are enclosed for your review and approval. Please sign both sets (contract and Exhibit A) and return them to the Office of Financial Planning in the enclosed self-addressed envelope at your earliest convenience. Payments will be made in accordance with the terms of your signed contract. Documentation of contract costs should be forwarded to the Office of Financial Planning soon after expenditure of these funds. Should you have any questions regarding this process, please contact Leticia Arellanes or Michelle Mitchell at (619) 531-5177. JANEL PEHAU Office of Financial Planning, Director OFP:CPG:Ima Enclosures CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 06/05/01 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ADOPTING RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ESTABLISH A PROPERTY-BASED BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR DOWNTOWN CHULA VISTA SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ]-~'~ REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER ~ 4/5THS VOTE: YES ~ NO ~X~ BACKGROUND A petition drive to establish support for creation of a Property-Based Business Improvement District (PBID) for Downtown Chula Vista was conducted during April and May by the Downtown Business Association (DBA.) The petition drive was successful in gaining the signatures of over fi~ percent of affected property owners within the proposed District. The City acted on May 1, 2001 to support the establishment of the PBID and to sign the petition for all City and Agency owned parcels within the District. The Resolution of Intent will formally begin the process of creating the PBID which will then be subject to a vote of all affected property owners, pursuant to Proposition 218. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Resolution adopting the Resolution of Intent to Establish a Property-Based Business Improvement District for Downtown Chula Vista. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable. The proposed Property-Based Business Improvement District (PBID) for Downtown Chula Vista is being proposed to help promote and improve the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of Chub Vista's historic core. An extensive discussion of the benefits of the proposed District was reviewed by the Council at their meeting of May 1, 2001. Pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, the next step for the City is the adoption of a Resolution of Intent to form the District. This action is predicated on the success of the petition drive. The petition drive requires that property owners representing fifty percent of the total assessment proposed to be levied ($321,800) support the District formation. This threshold has been reached with over $162,000 of PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 04/18/00 assessed valuation supporting the formation of the District as of the date of this report. A final tally will be available later in June. The next step in the process will be a formal vote by all affected properly owners pursuant to Proposition 218. Ballots will be sent out on June 8'h along with the formal Notice of Public Hearing to all properly owners in the proposed district. The ballots will be opened and counted following at the public hearing scheduled for July 24, 2001. At the public hearing, fifty percent of the assessed valuation returning ballots must support formation of the PBID for the district to be officially formed. If this goal is reached, the PBID will come into effect on January 1, 2002. (If necessary, a separate action to disband the existing Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District will be presented to Council shortly after the PBID hearing in July.) On-going administration of the PBID, if successfully adopted, will be managed by the Community Development Department with technical assistance from the Engineering Department. The Community Development Department will also provide on-going oversight of the Downtown Business Association and appointed Executive Board, which will manage the day to day affairs of the PBID. FISCAL IMPACT None with this action. ATTACHMENTS Engineer's Report J:\COMMD EV~STAF F.RE P\06-05-01 \lntentcouncilagendastatement.doc Downtown Chula Vista Property Based - Business Improvement District Engineer' s Report May 21, 2001 Prepared for: City Council City of Chula Vista, San Diego Coun~ Prepared by: Terrance E. Lowell & Associates, Inc. 1528 Eureka Road, Suite 100 Roseville, CA 95661 (916) 786-0685 T RLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATES .............................................. 1 ENGINEER'S STATEMENT ...................................... 2 ENGINEER'S REPORT: ................................................. EXHIBIT A: De ................................................. EXHIBIT B: Es ................................................. EXHIBIT C: Me ................................................. EXHIBIT D: As Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 1 of 16 CE RTI F I CATE S The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as directed by the City Council. Dated: TERRANCE E. LOWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Engineer of Work By I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California, on the day of , 2001. SUSAN BIGELOW, City Clerk, City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California By Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 2 of 16 ENGINEER ~ S STATEMENT This report is prepared, as directed by the City Council, in relation to the Downtown Chula Vista Property-Based Business Improvement District pursuant to Section 36600 et. seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994") and pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218). The Downtown Chula Vista Property-Based Business Improvement District ("PBID"} is designed to improve and benefit properties in the downtown Chula Vista area from E Street to I Street and from Church Avenue to Landis Avenue. Every property will receive benefit from the PBID by receiving enhanced maintenance programs and economic development activities. Only properties within the PBID shall receive the direct benefit of the proposed improvements and activities. It is determined that each property will benefit from the proposed improvements and activities. A detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided is set forth in Exhibit A. The duration of the proposed PBID is five (5) years and an estimated budget for the PBID improvements and activities is set forth in Exhibit B. The budget reflects a potential for an annual increase in the assessment, which may not exceed 5% per year, as determined by the PBID advisory board. Funding for the PBID improvements and activities shall be derived from a property based assessment of each benefitted parcel in the PBID. A detailed description of the methodology for determining the benefit assessment for each parcel is set forth in Exhibit C. This report includes the following attached exhibits: EXHIBIT A: A detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided. EXHIBITB: The estimate of the cost of the improvements and activities. EXHIB~TC: A statement of the method by which the undersigned determined the amount proposed to be assessed against each parcel, based on benefits to be derived by each parcel, respectively, from the improvements and activities. Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 3 of 16 EXHIBIT D: An assessment roll, showing the amount proposed to be specially assessed against each parcel of real property within this assessment district. Respectfully submitted, Terrance E. Lowell, P.E. Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 4 of 16 EXHIBIT A: DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES As determined by area property and business owners, the top priorities for improvements and activities within the Downtown Chula Vista PBID boundary include: , Economic development, marketing and parking management activities to convey a positive business image and attract new businesses, jobs and investment. , District-wide maintenance, including graffiti removal, periodic sidewalk power washing and litter removal. , Third Avenue enhanced maintenance, privatizing the City's existing landscape maintenance district that takes care of landscaping, sidewalk power washing, litter removal and lighting. Based upon these findings, four different improvement and activity centers are recommended for the Downtown Chula Vista PBID. The following narrative provides recommendations for the first operating year of the PBID. Program activities may be amended in subsequent years within the following general categories. Final programs and budgets will be subject to the review and approval of the PBID Advisory Board. Economic Development, Marketing & Parking Manag~ment Economic development, marketing and parking management activities will aim to improve the overall business image of the district with the goal of attracting and retaining businesses, jobs and investment. While annual work programs and budgets will be developed by the PBID Advisory Board, programs will be selected from a variety of options that include the following: Economic Development Design and production of investor marketing packages to assist real estate brokers and proper~y owners in business recruitment efforts. · Creation and maintenance of a downtown database with a variety of downtown market and real estate information. , Counseling, financing referrals and business support to start locally-owned independent businesses. · Trouble-shooting and permitting liaison services to assist property and business owners to invest in downtown. Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 5 of 16 , Other business retention and recruitment activities. Marketing , Targeted advertising and image campaigns. , Publication and wide distribution of the Downtown Map and Directory. , Seasonal banners and decorations. Supplemental security and/or "ambassadors" to create a safer and more inviting downtown environment. Market research to identify and better serve consumer markets. Cormmunications, including publication of a periodic newsletter and creation of a downtown web site. PBID ratepayer surveys to measure overall satisfaction with programs. Media relations activities to project a positive business image in local, regional and national media. Other image enhancement and marketing activities. Parking Management , Creation of a parking database to identify parking resources for new or expanding businesses. , Research on options to expanding and/or better managing downtown's parking supply. , Creation of free parking days, a parking meter token program or other methods for marketing parking along with special events and seasonal promotions. , Other parking management activities. Program success will be measured by increased sales revenue, building occupancy, restaurant volume, positive media exposure and periodic surveys of resident attitudes toward Downtown. Economic development, marketing and parking m~nagement activities are budgeted for 52.0% of funds raised from PBID assessments. Maintenance The Downtown Chula Vista PBID will finance a downtown-wide maintenance program intended to keep sidewalks clean, reduce litter and combat graffiti. The PBID will assume responsibility of the City' s existing landscape maintenance district along Third Avenue and evaluate options for contracting with private firms for maintenance activities. While the PBID Advisory Board Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 6 of 16 will make the final determination for maintenance programs, anticipated activities include: District-WideMaintenance Ail properties within the PBID will receive the following services: Graffiti removal with a goal of 24-hour response upon report. , Bi-annual power washing of all sidewalks within the PBID. Weekly litter removal. Cleaning after special events. Third Avenue EnhancedMaintenance In addition to the preceding services, properties along Third Avenue south of E Street and north of H Street will receive the following enhanced maintenance services: , Power washing of sidewalks an additional 4 times per year. , Daily landscaping maintenance and litter removal. , Electricity for enhanced lighting and irrigation for landscaping. Maintenance activities are anticipated to account for 22.0% of the PBID operating budget. PBID Operations and Reserve Administrative support is proposed to be provided by the Downtown Business Association, an existing non-profit organization, and funds are allocated to office and support services such as bookkeeping, office equipment and professional development and training for the staff and PBID Advisory Board. Operations costs are estimated at 21.3% of the PBID budget. In districts with comparable budgets, operations costs typically range from 20% to 25%. An operating reserve is also budgeted as a contingency for any payment delinquencies and/or unforeseen budget adjustments. The PBID rese~¥e accounts for 4.8% of the total budget. Subsequent budgets will aim to maintain an operating reserve of approximately 5% of the total budget. Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 7 of 16 Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 8 of 16 EXHIBIT B: ESTIMATE OF COST The following table shows the projected PBID budget for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. I ! £mprovements & Activities ITotal Budget I% of Total Economic Development, Marketing & Parking $ 167,188 52.0% Management Maintenance: District-Wide 31,000 9.6% Maintenance: Third Ave 39,900 12.4% Enhanced PBID Operations 68,388 21.3% PBID Reserve 15,324 4.8 Total $ 321,800 100.0% BudgetNotations 1. Total program revenue may be adjusted each year by no more than 5%. Actual annual increases will range from 0% to 5% and will be subject to the annual review and approval of the Downtown Chula Vista PBID Advisory Board and its zone committees. 2. Revenues for specific activities /i.e. economic development, marketing, parking management, district-wide maintenance and PBID operations) may be reallocated among activities from year to year based upon district needs and budgets developed by the Downtown Chula Vista PBID Advisory Board. Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 9 of 16 EXHIBIT C: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT Background The Downtown Chula Vista Business Association is petitioning the City of Chula Vista to form a property based Business Improvement District to finance the proposed improvements and activities ("Improvements") outlined above in Exhibit A. These Improvements will extend or are above those improvements the City of Chula Vista currently provides and will continue to provide in this area. The property owners in the PBID area will bear the cost of the proposed Improvements through an assessment which will be calculated based on the special benefit each parcel receives from the proposed Improvements. PBID Boundary The PBID area is approximately a 15 block area of downtown Chula Vista generally located along Third Avenue. It is bounded by E Street to the north, I Street to the south, Church Avenue to the east and Landis Avenue to the west. The underlying principle is that the assessment area should include all properties which will derive enhanced benefits from the services provided, and which impose additional costs on the downtown environment. General The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 and Proposition 218 require that assessments be levied according to the special benefit each parcel receives from the improvements. Proposition 218 added to the state constitution Article XIIID Section 4(a) which states in part: "The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement...No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel... Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit." Determining the proportionate share of special benefit among the parcels of real property, including the government owned Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 10 of 16 parcels, within the proposed assessment district which benefit from the proposed Improvements is the result of a four-step process: 1) defining the proposed Improvements; 2) identifying how each parcel specially benefits from the proposed Improvements; 3) determining the amount of the special benefit each parcel receives from the proposed Improvements; and 4} apportioning the cost of the proposed Improvements to each parcel based on the special benefit that each parcel receives from the proposed Improvements. Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 11 of 16 Assessment Method The proposed Improvements as outlined in Exhibit A will provide a higher level of service than the City provides with City funds to those parcels in the PBID area. Therefore, every parcel in the PBID that benefits from the Improvements should pay its fair share of the costs based on that parcel's special benefit. The proposed Improvements will provide enhanced economic development and marketing programs, street maintenance programs, and program management. The assessment method uses both linear street frontage plus the area of the parcel. The greater the square footage the higher demand for the Improvements, thus a higher benefit level. There are several reasons why the assessment methodology uses these factors: 1) the benefit from the proposed Improvements is expected to be provided throughout the PBID; 2) the proposed Improvements are intended to enhance the overall value of the ?BID by providing a cleaner environment; and 3) linear street frontage and parcel size indicate the parcel's highest and best use of the property. The greater the street frontage and larger the parcel size the more business or retail use the parcel can have. Smaller size parcels benefit to a lesser degree than larger size parcels. Assessment Calculation As discussed in Exhibit A, there are four activities proposed for the Downtown Chula Vista PBID; economic development and marketing, district-wide maintenance, Third Avenue enhanced maintenance, and PBID operations and reserves. The PBID operations and reserve expense is allocated to the other three activities based on each activities budget percentage of the total. The table below segregates the PBID operations and reserve budget, $83,713, into the other three activities. Activity % Before Operation Activity Budget Operation s Total s Allocatio Budget n Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 12 of 6 Economic $167,188. 70.20% $58,783.0 $225,970. Development, 00 0 00 Marketing and Parking District-Wide $31,000.0 13.00% $10,900.0 $41,900.0 Maintenance 0 0 0 Third Avenue $39,900.0 16.80% $14,030.0 $53,930.0 Enhanced 0 0 0 Maintenance Total $238,088. 100.00% $83,713.0 $321,800. 00 0 00 Economic Develo~ment~ Marketing and Parking Management Since this activity is designed to provide a uniform benefit to every parcel in the district and is intended to enhance value throughout the district by attracting new investment, lot size is the assessment factor used in calculating this program. Since the properties within the District consist of business and retail uses, the amount of business and retail use is a function of the size of the parcel. The larger the parcel the more business and retail use the parcel can have, i.e., the size of the parcel determines the size of the business or retail establishment on the parcel. Smaller size parcels benefit to a lesser degree than larger size parcels. Therefore, each business and retail parcel receives special benefits from this activity in relationship to the parcel size and its assessment is calculated based on the total parcel size. Therefore, to calculate each parcel's assessment for this activity, divide the budget amount of $225,970 by 2,939,693, the total number of lot square feet in the District, which equals $0.077 per lot square foot. Then multiply the $0.077 assessment per lot square foot by the total lot square footage for each parcel. For example if a parcel has 10,000 square feet, its assessment for this activity is $770.00 (10,000 x $0.077). Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 13 of 16 District-Wide Maintenance Since this activity is designed to provide a uniform benefit to every parcel in the district and is intended to enhance the landscaping and sidewalks that run along the frontage of the properties, linear street frontage is the assessment factor used in calculating this activity. This reflects that the longer the linear street frontage the greater the special benefit from the proposed activities is conferred on that parcel.. A parcel with more linear street frontage receives greater benefit from the proposed maintenance activities. Therefore, to calculate each parcel's assessment for this activity, divide the budget amount of $41,900 by 26,429, the total number of linear frontage in the District, which equals $1.59 per linear foot. Then multiply the $1.59 assessment per linear foot by the total linear feet for each parcel. For example if a parcel has 50 linear feet, its assessment for this activity is $79.50 (50 x $1.59). Third Avenue Enhanced Maintenance Since this activity is designed to provide a higher level of maintenance service to all parcels that front Third Avenue between E Street and H Street, linear street frontage is the assessment factor used in calculating this activity. Just as with the District-Wide Maintenance, the longer the linear street frontage the greater the special benefit from the proposed activities is conferred on that parcel. A parcel with more linear street frontage receives greater benefit from the proposed maintenance activities. Therefore, to calculate each parcel's assessment for this activity, divide the budget amount of $53,930 by 6,971, the total number of linear frontage on Third Avenue, which equals $7.76 per linear foot. Then multiply the $7.76 assessment per linear foot by the total linear feet for each parcel. For example if a parcel has 50 linear feet, its assessment for this activity is $388.00 (50 x $7.76). Annual Assessment Adjustments cPI Adjustment For the initial five years of the PBID, annual assessments may be adjusted by the PBID Advisory Beard and approved by the City Council for annual changes in the San Diego Consumer Price Index (CPI} for all urban consumers, or 5%, whichever is less. Actual Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 14 of 16 annual adjustments may range from 0% to 5%. In any event, assessments will not exceed the levels illustrated by the table on page 14. Vacant Unimproved Land For vacant unimproved land within the district, assessments will be calculated at 50% of the assessment for improved lots. This adjustment accounts for the lack of income production and utility provided by vacant unimproved lots. When unimproved lots are improved with parking and/or a structure and as evidenced by the issuance of a building permit, then the full assessment will be placed on the improved property as of the following tax year. Residential Uses - 4 Units or Less For the purposes of the PBID, buildings with exclusively residential uses with four (4) units or less will pay only for maintenance services. Economic development, marketing and parking management activities will not benefit exclusively residential properties with 4 units or less. Budget Adjustment Any annual budget surplus or deficit will be rolled into the following year's ?BID budget. Assessments will be set accordingly, within the constraints of the CPI adjustment, to adjust for surpluses or deficits that are carried forward. Note that the PBID Operating Reserve will be maintained at approximately 5% of the PBID operating budget. EXHIBIT D: ASSESSMENT ROLL The following table lists every parcel in the PBID by their respective assessor's parcel number, owner name, and assessment amount. APN i 5662321200 CHARLTON ANTHONY A JR&DEBORAH L&CHARLTON JEANETT . $615.01 5662321300 20%#KNODT LIVING TRUST06-14-00*NSNS80%#KNODT FA ._ ~ $1,444.43 5662321500 25%#CHARLTON ANTHONY A JR&DEBORAH L&CHARLTON JEA $3,559.82 5662402800 SOUTHLAND CORP THE . $1,239.40 5662403000 HOM EXEMPT TRUST 12-17-74 $4,832.58 5680431400 LANDIS PROPERTY ASSOCIATES $2,369.72 5680431500 GIDDINGS ENTERPRISES INC $541_80 5680431600 GIDDINGS ENTERPRISES INC $562 99 Down~own Chula Vista Bus~ness Improvemen~ District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Rep©r~ Page 15 of 16 ~ PROPOSED APN OWNER NAME f AssESSMEN T 5680431700 CONTRERAS MANUEL S&GEORGINA R $525.45 5680431800 ALEXANDER LEROY&JULISSA $77.68 5680431900 PASIMIO CAROLA $76.10 5680432000 RAMIREZ JAIME&OLIVIA $600.35 5680432100 RAMIREZ JAIME&OLIVIA $546.44 5680432200 MORRELL RAY-ETTA L TR $1,040.15 5680440100 LUSCOMB ALTA P TRUST $660.21 5680440200 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $576.60 5680440300 RIOS ANDRES H $561.45 5680440400 MCKILLICAN ADAM $80.86 5680440500 JOHNSTON RAYMOND FAMILY REVOCABLE INTERVlVOS TRU $560.65 5680440600 GENIDO DELILAH T*SWNS#VICENTE MARIBEL D $540.74 5680440700 SCOTT-BLAIR MARGARET $72.93 5680440800 MITCHELL JOHN T TR&MITCHELL NAOMI R TR $537.56 5680440900 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $460.49 5680441000 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $1.160.74 5680441100 CITY OF CHU LA VISTA $1,201.63 5680441200 DWIGHT CORYDON G&KATHLEEN E REVOCABLE TRUST 09-1 $1.013.33 5680441300 TAMER ANNIE T LIVING TRUST 04-20-94 $833.41 5680441400 BEAMAN JON D $885.21 5680441500 LOPEZ ANA M $934.48 5680441600 GOMEZ MANUEL&MARIA FAMILY TRUST 04-09-91 $924.27 5680441700 HUNTINGTON JANE E TRUST 04-15-94 $448.09 5680441800 UPHAM PETER W&ESTHER C TRS $1 166.04 5680441900 UPHAM PETER W&ESTHER C TRS $825.12 5680442000 PHILIP HOFFMAN AND EZRA HANONO $944.44 5680442100 BOTTE CARMEL R&GEORGIE H TRS $933.38 5680442200 FOWLER GREGORY $876.42i 5680442300 CHARLTON JEANETTE 1998 REVOCABLE TRUST 02-19-98 $1 798.98, 5680710100 UNION OIL CO OF CALIFORNIA $1 017.63 5680710200 DISNEY VERNAL 1990 TRUST $822.71 5680710300 KURUVADI VlNOD S&SAILAJA $908.09 5680710400 BO]-FE-CARMEL R&GEORGIE H TRS $444.31 5680710500 WENIG HERBERT FAMILY TRUST 04-15-98 $1 156.66, 5680710600 WENIG HERBERT FAMILY TRUST 04-15-98 $444.93 5680710700 rWENIG HERBERT FAMILY TRUST 04-15-98 . _$~09.32 5680710800 TANAKA TERRY T&NAOMI TRUST 04-01-94 j $523.90' '5680710900 '.TANAI~ TERRY T&NAOMI TRUST 04-01-94 $540.20 5680711200 WENIG HERBERT FAMILY TRUST 04-15-98 I $860.69 5680711300 iWILLOUGHBY FLOYD M&AMY L TRUST 09-18-97 _ ~ $908.03] 5680711400 ~GRISTMILL BAKESHOP . $921.34. 5680711500 ~GONZALEZ HECTOR C _ $864.29, 5680711600 BANFIELD GINGER $1,242.70 5680711700 ~WlLSON FAMILY TRUST 12-06-77 $1,164.98' 5680711800 CITY OF CHULA VISTA I $742.90 Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 En_gi~er~s Rep~r~t ................... ~ge 16 of 16 PROPOSED APN OWNER NAME ASSESSMEN T 5680711900 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $694.66 5680712000 ,GRANT MICHAEL H $507.00 5680712100 ;CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $501.22 5680712200 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $529.56 5680712300 CAMPBELL FAMILY TRUST 08-24-00 $509.44 5680712400 GALE LIVING REVOCABLE TRUST 02-26-99 . $1,207.30 5680720300 PAPPAS GUS TR $542.22 5680720400 MONTELONGO ABEL&AILEEN 1991 FAMILY TRUST 03-06-9 $553.38 5680720500 ESCARCEGA LEO&MARIA $577.60 5680720600 MINEAR CLARA A TRUST 04-07-98 $511.52 5680720700 MINEAR CLARA A TRUST 04-07-98 $69.76 5680720800 SANCHEZ LUIS F&ANAMARIA P $543.63 5680720900 RULLAN FAMILY TRUST 11-15-90 $575.01 5680721000 GUERRERO RAFAEL&CAROLINA $564.21 5680721100 MONTEGNA ERIC T $581.40 5680722200 :NELLUM $726.94 5680722300 MACIE RICHARD F&MONICA $293.30 5680722600 PAPPAS GUS TR $473.46 5680722800 NAVARRO LINDA R $223.84 5681510100 $2,101.26 5681510200 IDM LEASING TRUST NO 1 $68.17 5681510300 SPECTRUM LIVING TRUST 05-10-96 $76.10 5681510800 E3ATES CHARLES N TR $76.10 5681510900 CHRISTENSEN RAYMOND C $80.86 5681511000 CHRISTENSEN LIVING TRUST 12-27-89 $567.39 5681511100 PIEKNIK REVOCABLE TRUST 11-07-94 $565.12 5681511200 KUEBLER ALLAN J $72.93i 5681512200 ONOUCHI ORIMONO SHO CO LTD $2.490.851 5681512300 RULLAN FAMILY TRUST 11-15-90 $2.503.65' 5681520100 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $498.19 5681520200 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $560.68 5681520300 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $544.29 5681520400 HARPER GILBERTO B&CARIDAD I $601.11 5681520600 FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST SCIENTIST CHULA VISTA $653.76 5681520700 50%#PENICHE FERNAN DO MMSO50 Yo#PENICHE ARMANDO J $415.19 5681520800 BORGERDING INVESTMENT CO $959.49 5681520900 MBWPARTNERS L P $920.82 5681521000 FLEET RESERVE ASSN CHULA VISTA BRANCH 61 $459.24 5681521100 HENDRICKS PAUL J $441.14 5681521300 ALSIP FAMILY TRUST $830.26 5681521600 BOTTE CARMEL R&GEORGIE H TRS $942.87 5681521700 SCHNEIDER JULIUS HTR $979.61 5681521800 ROSS SANTINA FAMILY TRUST 07-03-90 $990.96 5681521900 NORMAN DON E TRUST 05-06-92 $942.44 5681522000 MOESER ZELVA P TR $936.33 Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Repor~ Page 17 of 16 APN ~OWNER NAME I ASSESSMEN T 5681522200 MEXICAN MEDICAL INC $1.343.79 5681522300 _CITY OF CHULA VISTA _ $544.57 5681522400 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $524.09 5681522500 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $400.34 5681522600 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $313.90 5681522700 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $239.73 5681522800 D M LEASING DIVISION TRUST NO 1 $712.40 5681522900 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $542.85 5681523000 DENNISON LIVING TRUST 08-29-91 $733.57 5681523100 STERN RICHARD E TR&STERN ELAINE K TR $934.79 5681610300 ROYAL HIGHLANDERS THE $528.55 5681610400 MURO RAFAEL&RAQUEL TRS $850.331 5681610500 ARCHIGA MARIA A S $320.84: 5681610600 KURTZ DONALD K&ELLEN M $566.84 5681610700 PARKS GAYLORD LTR $471.51 5681610900 SANDBURG EDWIN L $480.77 5681611000 MCMAINS ROBERT&KAREN $863.02 5681611100 SHAMOUN FAMILY TRUST 10-23-96 $865.34 5681611200 GIDDINGS ENTERPRISES INC $862.81 5681611300 BENDER EDGARDO M&MOCTEZUMA-BENDER LISA $430.74 5681612200 WARD MALCOLM D TR $80.86 5681612300 WlLLARDSON FAMILY TRUST 11-22-91 $76.10 5681612400 WILLARDSON FAMILY TRUST 11-22-91 $87.20 5681612500 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $1,237.40 5681612600 ROYAL HIGHLANDERS THE $1,140.64 5681612700 OHLAU R DALE&REBECCAA $430.58 5681612800 OHLAU R DALE&REBECCAA $877.81 5681613200 CHULAVISTA MEDICAL ENTERPRISES $506.59 5681613300 CHULA VISTA MEDICAL ENTERPRISES $512.45 5681613400 ROHR FEDERAL CREDIT UNION $2,675.09 5681613500 STARKEY INVESTMENT CO $1,016.49 5681613600 IRVING RAWDIN INC $446.16 5681613700 ROSSI DAVID E&PENELOPE L $434.88 5681620100 PROVENCE WINIFRED E TR $285.37 5681620200 RULLAN FAMILY TRUST 11-15-90 $599.14 5681620300 TORTORA PETER $612.82 5681620400 LOPEZ-MORENO GUSTAVO $573.60 5681620500 AUSTRIA-SAGANA FAMILY TRUST 12-18-95 $82.441 5681620600 CARR GARY B&JANICE G $565.60 5681620700 YAMADA LIVING REVOCABLE TRUST $389.00 5681620800 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ' $627.65 5681620900 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $537.22 5681621000 BLISS ROBERT J $609.50 5681621100 KUSHNIR YAROSLAV M D INC $1,245.62 5682702000 CALLENDER DONALD W TR $1,568.99 Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Repor~ ............ Page 18 of 16 I PROPOSED APN OWNER NAME ASSESSMEN T 5682702100 58.07%#THIRD AVENUE INVESTMENTS L L C*CONS10.474 _ $7,167.87 5682702200 .CINEMASTER LUXARY THEATERS INC $4,265.42 5682702300 THIRD AVENUE INVESTMENTS L L C ET AL $1,977.25 5682702700 GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANTS INC $880.26 5682702900 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $11,723.54 5682703000 F~ARK CENTRE $768.96 5683004400 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $6,290.84 5683004600 LAUROG $4,967.23 5683330100 MONEY THOMAS G&SHERRY $1.606.41 5683330200 GEORGE MUNTHER T&SUSAN E $459.87 5683330300 MEDINA ALFREDO A&LIGIA M $414.93 5683330400 BECICH JOHN F&HELEN N TRS $840.39 5683330500 CHAPMAN ALBERT E $437.37 5683330600 CHAPMAN ALBERT E $438,58 5683330700 THOMPSON SYDNEY H&BETTY J $447.79 5683330800 NARVAEZ RODOLFO&MARIA C ' $691.48 5683330900 COMMUNITY CONGREGATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORP $2,738.40 5683331000 COMMUNITY CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH UNITED CHURCH OF $3,181.971 5683331100 CITY OF CHULA VISTA $5.406.29 5683340100 FERRANTELL FAMILY TRUST 01-09-90 $1 894.04, 5683340200 FERRANTELL FAMILY TRUST 01-09-90 $478.70~ 5683340300 PECKHAM BRUCE R $389.48 5683340400 RABAY MICHEL N&GRETA H TRS $1 781.69 5683340500 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $745.54 5683340600 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $538.83 5683340700 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $571.14 5683340800 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $565.56 5683341000 FIRST SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH OF CHULA VISTA $76.10 5683500200 CITY OF CHULAVISTA $734.09 5683500300 CITY OF CHULAVISTA $732.99 5683500600 COTA ROBERT E LIVING TRUST 09-09-94 $823.83 5683500700 DESSER PETER F TR $953.30 5683500800 MADSEN FAMILY TRUST 09-07-94 $80.86 5683500900 MADSEN FAMILY TRUST 09-07-94 $179.15 5683501600 GOVE DWIGHT AGENCY INC $734.90 5683501700 ROCKWELL FRANKA&LAURA R $723.54 5683501800 AJ R PARTNERS L P $617.~31 5683501900 A J R PARTNERS L P $1,836.69 5683502000 BOYER ALBERTC&ELISABETH L $406.36 5683502100 FERRER JOSEPH N&DELIAC $927.09 5683502300 ARMBRUST MICHAEL R&LINDA L $327.64 5683502500 A J R PARTNERS L P $880.81 5683503700 FRENO CAROL E TR $1.563.47 5683503900 CHASAN FAMILY TRUST 11-11-99 $1,429.55 5683504000 CHASAN FAMILY TRUST 11-11-99 $1,364.21 Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 19 of 16 OWNER NAME SE MEN 5683504100 A J R PARTNERS L P $164.49 5683504200 A J R PARTNERS L P . $88.70 5683510100 MONEY THOMAS G&SHERRY K $879.07 5683510200 SAN DIEGO BAJA RADIO ADVERTISING LTD $500.94 5683510300 MONEY THOMAS G $875.43 5683510400 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY . $709.35 5683510500 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $282.14 5683510600 FIRST SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH OF CHULA VISTA $1 382.92 5683510700 LANG SYLVIA K $79.27 5684101000 _COX COMMUNICATIONS SAN DIEGO INC . $788.91 5684101100 COX CABLE SAN DIEGO INC $391.95 5684102000 .CHRISMATT CORP . $3,244.38~ 5684102900 CRISTOBAL CLEMENTE S&EUFEMIA A $2,096.70 5684103700 PACIFIC BELL . $6,575.02 5684200100 G L S $1,947.37 5684200200 CASTILLO CARMEN L $897.27 5684200300 BRADLEY DRY CLEANERS $~94.88 5684200400 MARIOTA RENEW $436.04 5684200500 50%#CHASE CARL A*MWSO50%#CHASE CHRISTINE O $476.22' 5684200600 50%#CHASE CARL A*MWSO50%#CHASE CHRISTINE O $707.13 5684200700 MARQUEZ JOHN S TR&MARQUEZ CAROLE G TR $695.32 5684200800 JANUS ANTHONY JR TR $77.68 5684200900 MANALO RICHARD R $77.68 5684201000 WEDDLETON CHESLEY B&DORRIS Q REVOCABLE TRUST $77.68 5684201100 FARRIS ANSON W&PATRIClA J $80.86 5684201200 RICHARDS JOAN S $63.42 5684201400 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT $3,353.24 5684201500 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT $2,359.04 5684203100 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT $1,177.69 5684502800 TANOS RUDOLFO&GUADALUPE $1,154.14 5684502900 TYLER STATION/COMPUTER GRAPHICS ' $890.46 5684503000 J D L ENTERPRISES L L C ET AL $913.76 5684503100 .MALCOLM CAROLYN A N $1,131.34 5684503200 .SHIBUYA YOSHINDO&BETTY T TRUST 06-16-82 $1,033.46 5684503300 MELENDEZ JESUS A&ELIDA R $3,258.06 5684503400 GATEWAY CHULA VISTA L L C $734.44 5684503500 GATEWAY CHULA VISTA L L C $973.99 5684503600 THIRD AVENUE LAND CO $1,018.84 5684503700 THIRD AVENUE LAND CO $1,012.98 5684503800 GATEWAY CHULA VISTA L L C $1,019.34 5684503900 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $1,413.77 5684504000 BUR JET INC $2,246.28 5684504100 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $167.43 5684504200 CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $148.09 5684504300 SAN DIEGO CREDIT UNION $926.391 Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's R~epg~ page 20 of 16 *OWNER NAME PROPOSED APN ASSESFSMEN 5684504400 GATEWAY CHULA VISTA L L C $725.38 $130.3'7 5684504600 B P G LLC $136.22 5684504700 B P G LLC $400.16 5684504800 B P G LLC $444.26 5684504900 B P G LLC $1 964.75 5685111900 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT $739.93- 5685112000 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT $732.94 5685112100 HARRIS LOIS L TR $2,932.90 5685123700 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN DIEGO $1,513.10 5685123900 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN DIEGO $5,919.33 5685124600 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN DIEGO $5.581.88 5730400100 NEWS BAJA INC $555.42 5730400200 NEWS BAJA INC $461,31 5730400300 NEWS BAJA INC $422.59 5730400400 NEWS BAJA INC $499.17 5730401900 SAN DIEGO HOSPITALASSN $2,449.65 5730610100 BEEN FAMILY TRUST 07-07-88 $662.09 5730620100 CHAPMAN GEORGE E&BARBARAA $698.79 5730622500 SCHULLER RICHARD E&DOLORES P TRS $679.10 5730630100 GOODVlN BROTHERS $829.68t 5730630800 GIDDINGS ENTERPRISES INC $1,246.08 5731003600 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO $51.682.60 5731003700 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY $1.819.31 5731100100 GIDDINGS ENTERPRISES $669.90 5731100200 LAWRENCE PAUL F $576.64 5731100300 MASTERS MAURICE E&BERNIETA TRS $554.37 5731102400 VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS POST 2111 $1,769.94 TOTALS $321,800 Downtown Chula Vista Business Improvement District May 21, 2001 Engineer's Report Page 21 of 16 kl:~1096Veport, w RESOLUTION NO. 2001- RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO FORM A BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994 WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (California Streets and Highway Code Section 33600 et seq.)(the "PBID Law") authorizes the City of Chula Vista to form one or more business improvement districts ( a "BID") within Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista wishes to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of the business districts within Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the formation of a BID within Chula Vista will further the City Council's goals of creating jobs, assisting new businesses and supporting the existing business district within the City; and WHEREAS, a petition signed by property owners in the proposed BID who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessment proposed to be levied has been submitted to supporting the formation of a BID; and WHEREAS, the proposed BID will be located in downtown Chula Vista and would include the area from E Street to I Street and from Church Avenue to Landis Avenue; and WHEREAS, the services to be provided in the proposed BID will include economic development, marketing and parking management; district wide maintenance; and Third Avenue enhanced maintenance; and WHEREAS, the estimated costs for the first year of operation of the BID is Three Hundred Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($321,800) which cost may be increased in future years a maximum of five percent (5%) annually; WHEREAS, a more detailed description of the location, services and costs of operation of the proposed BID are set forth in the draft management plan on file with the City Clerk and incorporated in this Resolution by this reference; and WHEREAS, a noticed public hearing will be held by the City Council to receive public input on the proposed BID on July 24, 2001 at 6:00 P.M. at City Council Chambers located in the Public Facilities Building at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby authorize the City Manager to initiate the proceedings to form a BID in conformance with the PBID Law and California Government Code Section 53753; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED the public hearing will be held by the City Council to receive public input on the proposed BID on July 24, 2001 at 6:00 P.M. at City Council Chambers located in the Public Facilities Building at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Director of Community Development Cit~ ~ Q,~'~ J:\CO MMDEV\RESOS\34OD01 !.DOC 1235\01\145165. t CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item I~ Meeting Date: 6/05/01 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-01-07; Consideration of City-initiated request for amendments and additions to the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations for San Mignel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA), to add Floor Area Ratio regulations and amend Lot Coverage regulations. The San Miguel Ranch project site is 743.1 acres located east and north o£ Proctor Valley Rd., south of Sweetwater Reservoir and Mother Miguel Mountain, and west of the Rolling Hills Ranch area. RESOLUTION: Adopting an Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 regarding the proposed amendments and additions to the PC District Regulations for the San Miguel Ranch SPA. ORDINANCE: Approving amendments and additions to the PC District Regulations £or the San Mignel Ranch SPA to add Floor Area Ratio regulations with Maximum ]~uilding Areas, and amend Lot Coverage regulations. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~/¢~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: No X ) When the SPA Plan and PC District Regulations were originally adopted by the Council in October 1999 (Ordinance 2799), Lot Coverage Regulations which address the percent of lot area that can be covered by structures were included in the PC District Regulations, but specific Floor Area Ratio (FAR) regulations were not. This is a City-initiated clean-up amendment to add FAR standards for San Miguel Ranch, similar to FARs which are used in other planned communities in Eastern Chula Vista. The developer, NNP-Trimark, agrees with the proposed amendments and worked with staff in their preparation. On October 19, 1999, the City Council previously considered and certified Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) 97-02 for the San Miguel Ranch SPA and PC District Regulations. The Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an Initial Study IS-01-030 and an Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 (see attachment E) in accordance with the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has determined that the proposed amendments will not have a significant impact on the environment. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Find that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and adopt the Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and Page 2, Item Meeting Date: 6/05/01 2. Adopt and place on first reading the Ordinance approving the amendments and additions to the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations for the San Miguel Ranch SPA in accordance with the findings contained therein. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Plann'mg Commission held a public hearing on this item on May 23, 2001, and voted 5-0-2 to recommend that the City Council adopt the Addendum and approved the proposed PC District Regulations Amendments. BACKGROUND: On October 19, 1999, the City Council approved the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (see locator, Attachment A) and associated regulatory documents, including the Planned Community District Regulations under Ordinance 2799. These documents established the land use distribution and pattern, density and character of development, development goals and objectives, and development standards to guide the future planning and construction of the San Miguel Ranch project. When the SPA Plan and PC District Regulations were originally adopted, Lot Coverage Regulations which address the percent of lot area covered by structures were included in the PC District Regulations Development Standards, but specific Floor Area Ratio (FAR) regulations were not. The developer, NNP-Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC (NNP-Trimark) had not intended to include FAR standards in the PC District Regulations, and Staff inadvertently did not require inclusion of the standards. This amendment affects residential development only and therefore applies to only the residential land use districts in the San Miguel Ranch project. These areas are depicted on the Land Use Districts Map and Table shown on Attachments C and D. DISCUSSION: Floor Area Ratio is defined in Municipal Code Section 19.04.097 as: "The numerical value obtained by dividing the total area of all the floors of a building or buildings included within the surrounding walls, by the total area of the premises". Staff finds that FAR's are an important component of the PC District Regulations because they limit the permitted square footage of new residences by applying a ratio that sets a ceiling on building area based on the lot size. The FAR's work in conjunction with other PC District Regulations such as lot coverage, setback and height regulations, and together with Design Guidelines help to control the design, mass and bulk of residences. Staff initiated this application to add FAR's in order to maintain consistency with all the other Planned Communities in the City. Staff reviewed the FAR values in the Municipal Code, and those of other Planned Communities including Rolling Hills Ranch, Sunbow, Eastlake and Otay Ranch, and has prepared a proposal for San Miguel Ranch which is comparable. Staff has also worked with Trimark to finalize these regulations and they concur with the proposed Page 3, Item Meeting Date: 6/05/01 amendments. Staff recommends that the San Miguel Ranch PC District Regulations be amended as proposed herein. Summary of Requested Amendments to the SMR Spa, Vol. 2 - PC District Regulations: The following is a summary of the proposed amendments and additions to the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community District Regulations. Also included as Attachment D is a table describing the residential land use districts to which these regulations apply. For the full text of the amendments, please refer to Attachment B (Exhibit 2 of the City Council Ordinance): 1. The Table of Contents section entitled "Tables" at page TOC-3 is proposed to be amended to add specific references to Table 2-3A, the revised Development Standards, Residential Districts Table on page 13A, and new Table 2-3B, the Maximum Building Area Table on page 14B. 2. Amends the Development Standards Table 2-3 by adding Table 2-3A which includes FAR regulations, and a new footnote "p" that requires that Maximum Building Area be determined by a table entitled "Maximum Building Area Table 2-3B". Footnote "p" would also require that the maximum building square footage be equivalent to the FAR value, or the maximum building area value, whichever is less. We also propose amendments to decrease the existing lot coverage regulations in two neighborhoods (as shown below), to compliment the new FAR regulations. Finally, an exemption is proposed so that homeowners could add up to a 300 square foot open patio by right (see Table 2-3A excerpt below, deletions in strikeout/additions in underline/bold): Land Use District SFE SF1 SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SFA Min. Lot Area (square feet) 20,000/15,000a 7,000 6,000b 5,000b 4,500b 4,000b SP Maximum Lot Coverage 35 45 S0 45 ~5 50 55 SP SP (percent) Floor Area Ratio p .45 .50 .55 .60 .60 SP SP SP= Regulations to be determined prior to approval of Application for Site Plan/Design Review. Add text of Footnote "P" to new page 14A: "The allowable building area for construction of dwellings, or any remodeling or additions to dwellings for each lot shall be as determined in the Maximum Building Area Table 2-3B below. The maximum building area for single family detached, attached, and multi-family residential products, garages, and other accessory structures shall be the square footage listed or that permitted by the percentage of lot area, whichever is less. Homeowner additions shall be allowed only where consistent with these standards. A 300 square foot open patio (covered but open on three sides) shall be permitted on each single-family residential lot and shall be exempt from inclusion in this calculation. All residential development proposals are sub.iect to review Page 4, Item Meeting Date: 6/05/01 for consistency with the San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines, Residential Design Guidelines Sections 4.5 (Single Family) or 4.6 (Multi-Family)." 3. Adds new page 14B containing Table 2-3B: Table 2-3B -"Maximum Building Area" lists the Floor Area Ratio values for each land use district and corresponding maximum permitted building areas. ANALYSIS: Staff sought to achieve two important goals when developing the proposed PC District Regulations amendments: (1) Provide reasonable limits to building area, which in conjunction with other PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines in the SPA will help control bulk/mass of homes, and ensure that size of homes on larger lots will be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. This will be implemented by the following measures: · In the smaller lots in each district, the maximum building area will be controlled by the FAR because the "whichever is less" provision will ensure that the FAR, not the Maximum Building Area controls the building square footage. The Maximum Building Area value will effectively limit the potential for excessive building area on the larger lots by providing a cap or ceiling on building size. Staff found that this is necessary because there is a wide range of lot sizes within most of the San Miguel Ranch land use districts, and there is a need to ensure that excessive building area is not permitted on the larger lots which could result in large homes which are out of character with the majority of homes in the neighborhood. · All residential development is subject to review and compliance with the San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines which will address the bulk/mass of residences. (2) To maintain consistency with FAR's in similar Planned Communities, while allowing builders to provide competitively-sized residential products: Staff worked with NNP-Trimark and carefully reviewed their preliminary proposed product sizes by neighborhood in conjunction with the approved lot sizes shown on the San Miguel Ranch Tentative Map, to help refine the FAR and Maximum Building Area recommendations. Staff compared NNP-Trimark's data with FAR's from other approved residential development projects and should allow San Miguel Ranch to be competitive with other projects for the following reasons: · The proposed FAR's are consistent with other Planned Communities such as neighboring Rolling Hills Ranch and Sunbow. The concept of regulation of the Page 5, Item Meeting Date: 6/05/01 · Staff reviewed maps and data submitted by NNP-Trimark and observed a pattern of rows of smaller lots in Neighborhoods E, H and I which could accommodate only one of NNP-Trimark's proposed models. This was an issue for NNP- Trimark relative to market segmentation, because they need flexibility to vary their products along the street. The regulations for the SF2, SF3 and SF4 land use districts were written so that the FAR's can be increased only for those specific of lots identified in Table 2-3B, allowing improved flexibility to vary products in these areas. The Maximum Building Area values for the SF4 Land Use District, vary from 3100 s.f. in Neighborhood E to 3500 s.f. in Neighborhood G, due to different average lot sizes in the two neighborhoods. · Staff utilized Trimark's largest proposed model as the maximum building area value for each land use district, so that they will be able to provide their largest proposed product on the larger lots in each neighborhood. CONCLUSION The proposed FAR's are consistent with those of other approved Planned Communities in the City such as Rolling Hills Ranch and Sunbow. The concept of regulation of maximum building areas based on the FAR or maximum building area, whichever is less, is consistent with the R-1 zone in the Municipal Code. This provision allows the FAR to control building area on smaller lots and sets a cap on the building area which will act to limit excessive building area on larger lots. Trimark has reviewed the proposed PC District Regulations amendments and supports the staff recommendation. For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends approval of the proposed PC District Regulations amendment, and Addendum to FSEIR 97-02. FISCAL IMPACT: This PC District Regulations amendment is included within the scope of the Staffing Agreement with Trimark for the San Miguel Ranch project. All costs associated with the project are covered by the existing deposit account established by the Staffing Agreement. Attachments: A. Locator Map B. Exhibit 2 of City Council Ordinance C. Land Use District Map D. Description of Land Use Districts Table E. Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 ATTACHMENT A BONITA SUNNYSIDE PBOJECT LOCATION ESTANCIA COU~Y OF SAN DIEGO CANYON EASTLAKE CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: LOCATOR ..OJECT City of Chula Vista  ^..uc^.~: San MiQuel Ranch PROJECT North of Proctor Valley Rd Request: To approve amendments and additions to the ADDRESS: & West of Rolling Hills Ranch San Miguel Ranch planned community district regulations (zoning) to add floor area ratio development standards and SCALE: FILE NUMBER: amend building coverage development standards. k NORTH No Scale PCM-01-07 Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 1 of 4 TABLE of CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER/SECTION PAGE 9.4 Parking Development Standards ...................................................... 63 9.4.1 General Requirements .......................................................... 63 9.4.2 Special Requirements ........................................................... 64 9.5 Performance Standards .................................................................. 65 Chapter X ADMINISTRATION .................................................................... 67 10.1 Purpose .................................................................................... 67 10.2 Standard Procedures ..................................................................... 67 10.3 Administrative Review ................................................................... 67 10.4 Site Plan and Architectural Approval .................................................. 68 10.5 Conditional Use Permit Review ......................................................... 68 10.6 Other Provisions ........................................................................... 69 FIGURES PAGE Figure 2-1 SPA Land Use District Plan ............................................................... 3 Figure 2-2 Measuring Locations for Building Setbacks ........................................... 15 Figure 2-3 Measurements for Minimum Lot Area and Setbacks for Lots with Internal Slopes .............................................................................. 16 Figure 2-4 Measurement of Split Side Yard Requirements ....................................... 17 TABLES PAGE Table 2-1 Chart of SPA Land Use Districts ......................................................... 5 Table 2-2 Permitted Use Matrix-Residential Districts ............................................ 10 Table 2-3 Development Standards - Residential Districts ....................................... 13 Table 2-3A Development Standards - Residential Districts (Rev. 6/05/01) ................ 13A Table 2-3B Maximum Building Area ............................................................. 14B Table 2-4 Permitted Use Matrix-Commercial District ............................................ 22 Table 2-5 Development Standards - Commercial Districts ...................................... 28 Table 2-6 Permitted Use Matrix - Community Purpose Facility District ...................... 30 Table 2-7 Development Standards - Community Purpose Facility District ....................32 Table 2-8 Temporary Uses ............................................................................ 38 Table 2-9 Off-Street Parking Requirements ......................................................... 61 Table 2-10 Parking Table Design Standards ......................................................... 64 San Miguel Ranch Spa Plan Volume 2 - PC District Regulations NNP Trimark Pacific San Miguel LLC June 5, 2001 Page TOC-3 Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 2 of 4 Development Standards Table 2-3A (Revised 6/05/01) Land Use District SFE SF1 SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SFA MF1 Min. Lot Area (square feet) 20,000/ 7,000 6,000 ~ 5,000 b 4,500 b 4,000 b SP N/A 15,000 ~ Min. Lot Width (feet) c Measured 100 d 60 55 ~ 50 * 50 * SP SP N/A Knuckle or cul-de-sac 40 35 35 35 35 SP SP N/A Frontage Flag lot frontage 20 20 20 20 20 SP SP N/A Min. Lot Depth (feet)¢ 120 100 90 90 80 SP SP N/A Maximum lot coverage 35 45 _.e~n 45 $$-50 55 SP SP SP (percent) Floor Area .45 .50 .55 .60 .60 SP SP SP Front Yard Minimum Setback r To house 25 20 15 15 l 5 SP SP SP To direct entry garage 25 20 g 20 ~ 20 ~ 20 g SP SP SP To side entry garage 25 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP To porch 20 17 17 l 7 15 SP SP SP Side Yard Minimum Setbacks (feet) t ~' To adjacent residential lot 15/10 i 10/5 ~ 10/5 i 5/5 5/5 SP SP SP To adjacent street (exterior 20 10 10 10 10 SP SP SP side yard) Rear Yard Minimum Setback (feet) ~ ~' To housej 25 k 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP To garage with minimum 25j 15 5 5 5 SP SP SP 30-foot driveway Building Height Maximum 28 ltl/ 28 ftl/ 28 ft i/ 28 ft:/ 28 fi9 28 ftc/ 28 ftc/ 45 feet/ (feet/# stories) 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories 2 garage 2 garage 2 garage 2 assigned spaces, 1.5-1BR Parking Required (Off- 2 garage 2 garage 2 garage spaces" spaces" spaces" min. 1 covered. 2.0-2BR Street spaces per Unit) ~' spaces spaces spaces Guest- 0.33/ 2.5-3BR+ Unit° Guest- 0.33/ Unit° San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Volume 2 - PC District Regulations NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC 13A June 5, 2001 Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 3 of 4 Table 2-3A Notes: a. Within the SFE Districts, including Planning Areas K and L, the standard minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet, however, up to 25% of the lots may be a minimum of 15,000 square feet, provided that the overall average lot size within Planning Areas K and L is not less than 20,000 square feet. b. Minimum lot area applies to the graded pad area of the lot (exclusive of slopes) in the SF3, SF4 and SF5 Districts. Minimum pad area within the SF2 District shah be 5500 square feet. c. Lot widths and depths are typical minimums but may vary slightly with irregularly shaped lots and site specific conditions. Such variations are subject to approval of a variance, except where the variance requirements can be fulfilled by site plan review required by other provisions of these regulations. Minimums such as lot width and depth may not be used in tandem where they would result in lot area which does not meet the minimum lot area requirement. d. The minimum lot width in SFE areas may be reduced to 90 feet for lots which are less than 20,000 square feet as allowed by Note "a" above. e. For lots with minimum widths of 55 feet or less, the minimum width standard shall apply to the level pad area (exclusive of any side slope within the lot) and for purposes of this provision, the minimum width may be measured at the building line at the front yard setback. f. Architectural features, such as eaves, awnings, chimneys, niches up to 12 feet in length, balconies, steps, stairways, or bay windows may project .not more than four feet into any required front or rear yard area, and not more than two feet into any required side yard. g. May be reduced to 18 feet with use of roll-up garage dour, except that in no case shall the distance to the nearest edge of sidewalk be less than 20 feet. h. Building setbacks shall be measured per Figure 2-3, which includes the following provisions: The minimum level area within any side yard shall be 5 feet to top or toe of slope or base of wall for lots with internal slopes. The maximum height of a retaining wall in a side yard is 3 feet. The maximum height of a retaining wall in a rear yard is 5 feet, and where a retaining wall is greater than 3 feet high, a minimum 4- foot horizontal separation is required between the retaining wall and a freestanding fence or wall. · The rear yard setback shall be based on the level pad area, measured from the top or toe of slopes for lots with internal slopes. i. Where there are slopes within the side yard of a lot, building setbacks shall be measured per Figure 2-4. j. In situations where the lot configuration has irregular angles, or otherwise results in an odd- shaped lot or building pad, these minimums may be reduced subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Building. k. The minimum rear yard setback is increased to 50 feet for all lots in Planning Area L whose property line(s) abut the SPA boundary of San Miguel Ranch. 1. Building Height may be increased to 35 feet with Site Plan approval. m. Parking standards for Senior Citizen or "affordable" residential development may be reduced from those specified in the District in which it will be located. Such a reduction shall be at the discretion of the City Council through the Conditional Use Permit procedure (CVMC 19.14.080), and subject to a parking study prepared by a registered traffic engineer to ensure adequate parking will be provided. n. Guest parking is encouraged to be provided for single family products, in addition to onsite driveway spaces, either on the street where width allows, or in designated parking bays. o. Required guest parking spaces shall be marked and clearly identified as guest parking. The guest parking spaces shall not be permitted to be assigned to individual dwelling units. "p." "The allowable building area for construction of dwellinRs~ or any remodeling or additions to dwellings for each lot shall be as determined in table 2-3B below. The maximum building area for single family detached and attached products, garages, and other accessory, structures shall be the square footage listed or that permitted by the percentage of lot area, whichever is less. Homeowner additions shall be allowed only where consistent with these standards. A 300 square foot open patio (covered but open on three sides) shall be permitted on each residential lot and shall be exempt from inclusion in this calculation. All residential development proposals are subiect to review for consistency with the San Miguel Ranch DesiRn Guidelines, Residential Design Guidelines Section 4.5 (Single Family) or Section 4.6 (Multi-Family)." San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Volume 2 PC DistrictRegulations NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC 14A June 5, 2001 Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 4 of 4 Table 2-3B: Maximum Building Area San Floor Area Maximum Miguel Ratio Building Area Ranch (F.A.I~) (Sq. Ft.) District SFE .45 N/A* SF1 .50 4500 SF2 .55** 4300 SF3 .60** 4000 SF4 .60** 3100(E)*** 3SO0 (a) SF5 SP SP SFA SP SP MF SP SP Table notes: * Maximum allowable building area will be regulated by coverage and setback regulations in the SFE Land Use District. ** The maximum allowable F.A.R.'s in the SF2~ SF3 and SF4 Districts are as follows. Lots numbers are as shown on Chula Vista Tract 99-04, approved 2/29/00 {Tentative Map PCS- 99-04): SF2:.60 for lots 1-21~ 38-40~ and 43-51 in Neighborhood I. SF3:.65 for lots 6-8, 11-15, and 37-41 in Neighborhood H. SF4:.65 for lots 109-119 in Neighborhood E. *** In the SF4 District~ the Maximum allowable building area shall be 3100 square feet in Neighborhood E and 3500 square feet in Neighborhood G . SP - Standards to be determined concurrently with Site Plan and Architectural approval. San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Volume 2 - PC District Regulations NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC 14B June 5, 2001 Description of Residential Land Use Districts Table Land Use Approved Dwelling Land Use Summary Description District Planning Area(s) Units Symbol -Name SFE - L: 73 L, K Single-Family Detached Homes on large lots. Standard Single Family K: 84 minimum lot size is 20,000 s.f., except that up to 25% of the Estate total number of lots, may be a minimum of 15,000 square feet (s.f.), if an average lot size of 20,000 s.f. is maintained. SF! - J Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot size of 7,000 162 s.f. Single Family One SF2 - 1 107 Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot size of 6,000 Single Family s.f. and minimum pad size of 5,500 s.f. Two SF3 F: 46 Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot and pad size F, H of 5,000 s.f. Single Family H: 131 Three E: 144 SF4 - E, G Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot and pad size H: 131 of 4,500 s.f. Single Family Four SF5 - D 121' Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot and pad size Single Family of 4,000 s.f. attached homes or townhomes. Five Single Family attached units such as townhomes or SFA- B 219 * condominiums. Single Family Attached Single Family attached units such as townhomes and C 105' condominiums or high density single-family detached units such as patio homes, zero-lot-line, courtyard, or cluster units, or detached condominiums. MF= A 129' Multi-family housing dwelling units for sale or rent with a Multi-Family density not to exceed 18 units per gross acre. TOTAL DWELLING 1,394 UNITS · Development in these Land Use Districts requires approval of a Site Plan/Archltectural Review application and actual dwelling unit yield may be less than the amount shown. ATTACHMENT D ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENT.&L IMPACT REPORT EIR-97-02 PROJECT NAAVIE: Amendment to the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community (PC) District Regulations Ordinance PROJECT LOCATION: 743-acre San Miguel Ranch South Parcel generally located east and north of Bonita Meadows, west of Rolling Hills Ranch and south of the Sweetwater Reservoir, 1,852-acre San Miguel Ranch North Parcel and the SDG&E Miguel Substation within the City of Chula Vista' s Sphere of Influence. PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department CASE NO: Case No. IS-01-030 DATE: April, 2001 I. BACKGROUND The San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) and Planned Community (PC) District Regulations was approved on October 19, 1999 (Resolution No. 19631). The PC District Regulations establish the Development Standards for San Miguel Ranch. The PC District Regulations were adopted pursuant to Title 19, Zoning, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and are intended to: · Ensure that the development within San Miguel Ranch is consistent with and implements the approved General Development Plan; · Implement the City's General Plan for the Eastern Territories; · Promote the orderly planning 'and long-term sequential development of San Miguel Ranch to the benefit of the surrounding community; and · Provide standards for the compatibility of land uses within the project and to the surrounding areas. These regulations were established for the purpose of promoting and protecting the public health, safety and welfare for the people of Chula Vista; to safeguard and enhance the appearance and quality of development of San Miguel Ranch; and to provide the social, physical and economic advantages resulting from comprehensive and orderly planned_use of land resources. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Miguel Ranch SPA and Tentative Maps (EIR 97-02) was also certified on the same date. The San Miguel Ranch EIR acknowledges that the PC zone will govern future development of the project site when the site is annexed to the City of Chula Vista. The approved PC District Regulations did not include certain provisions regarding Floor Area Ratios (FAR). The property owner, NNP-Trimark Pacific - San Miguel LLC, intends to sell portions of the subject project site to merchant builders. A Rezone is required to add FAR and EIR-97-02 Addendum #2 1 04/26/01 12. / amend the maximum lot coverage development standards to the PC District Regulations for San Miguel Ranch. II. THF. PROPOSED PC DISTRICT A~IENDMENT .The proposed San Miguel Ranch PC Distridt Regulations (zoning) Ordinance amendment would add FAR .development stalldard~ alld maximum building area values wh~re none were previously adopted; amend the approved maximum lot coverage standards, and would amend' the-Table of Contents to refei'ence the newly added development standards table and maximdrri building area table.?The maJximum building area for the single-familY (SF) land use districts (SFE; SF1, SF2, SF3, and SF4) would be defined, and. maximum building areas for the- SFS, SFA and multi- family (MF) land use districts would be dete~,.[ned by approval of a future site plan. The specific FARs~ maximum' building areas (sqnare feet), and lot coverage would2 be'~identified in the, amended San Miguel Rm~ch: PC.~ District Regulations.~ ' The, Pr0posec~' amendm'ents~would 'affect the text of the San Miguel Ranch' Sectional Planhing Area (SPA) Vol. 2 -, PC District Regulations. A redlined copy of the existing regulation is attached. The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (§ 15162) establishes the conditions under which a subsequent E[R 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 ligJat 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 si~maificant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified si~[mificant 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 si~mfifica:nt environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified siLmificant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance Which was not knoTM and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was prepare& B. If changes to a project or its circum~ances occur or new information becomes available after preparation of an EI~ the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR' ifrequlred under subsection A. Otherwise the lead agency shall detem~ine whether to prepm:e a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum or no further documentation (Guidelines § 15162). EIR-97-02 Addendum #2 2 04/26,'01 /2 Section t51 64 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that: A. The lead' agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EI[P, 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 pubhc review but can: be included in or attached to the final EIR. C. The decision-making body shall consider ~he 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~ EIb. the, lead: agency's required fmdings on the'p~:bject;~ or elsewhere in'~e fei:O~:d; '~The' e~laniitloffi~ausi be supported by substantial evidence. This addendum has been prepared _to pursuant to the requirements of Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed amendments to the existing San Miguel Ranch PC District ' Regulations Ordinance represent refinements to the development regulations and in some cases are more restrictive. None Of the amendments would result in a physical change to the environment that has not already been addressed in the SEIR for San Miguel Ranch SPA and TM (EIR 97-02). Therefore, in accordance ~x~ith Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Ci.ty has prepared the following addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the San Miauel Ranch SPA and TM (EIR-97-02). III. ANALYSIS As discussed previously, the proposed arfienctment further refines and is more restrictive than the existing development standards for San Miguel Ranch. The proposed development standards would not increase the approved number of dwelling units, and therefore would not result in an increase in population. Thus, there would be no impact on utilities, services or recreational needs that are primarily based on population. The-proposed amendment would also have no affect on the physical-environment beyond that which was analyzed in the previous EIR because the amendment relates to development standards and does not change the approved development area_ In fact. the proposed amend,~ent may have a positive ~ffect with respect to visual quality of residential development because the bulk and scale of structures and maximum allowable area for building coverage within residential lots would be regulated. ' ' ' An Environmental Checklist Form was completed to determine if the proposed amendments to the San Miguel Ranch PC District Regulations would change any of the analyses contained in EIR-97-02. The conclusion is that previously identified environment impacts would not be intensified as a result of the amendments, nor would any new impacts result. A copy of the checklist is attached. EIR-97-02 Addendum #2 3 04/26/01 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 lmp~ict Report adequate under CEQA. ' ~ Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi F. nvironmental Review Coordinator Attaehmealts: - Re~l. tln¢ of proposed text ~m,~ndm~n~ to PIg Distri~ Regahifi~ns Environmental Checklist Form References: City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan San Miguel Ranch SPA and TM SEIR (EIR 97-02) E1R-97-02 Addendum #2 4 04/26/01 Case No. IS-01-030 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOl:~l 1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista : 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Claula Vista ~ 276 Fourth Avenue Chnla Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Same as above ~' · 4. Name of Proposal:' San Mlguel Ranch Plann~ed Commnnity (PC) District Regulations Amendment 5. Date of Checklist: April, 2001 Polenfially Potentially Signifim at Lt~s than Significant UnI~ Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact ]mpact I. LA2N~D USE .4J~D PLA/~ING. V~ould the proposaJ: a) Conflict with general plan designation or Fl [] [] [] zoning? b) Conflict with applicable enviroranental plans or [] [] [] [] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect a~m-icultural resources or operations (e.g., [] r-1 [] [] impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical atx angcnnent of aa [] [] [] [] establi.nhed, comm~mity (including a low-/a¢ome ' or rninolity eornmmlity)? Comments:.. The proposed project is an amendment to the existing zoning regulations for San Miguel Ranch. The proposed amendment further refines and is more restrictive than the existing development sLtandards for San Miguel Ranch. H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] [] [] [] population projections? b) Induce substantial gro~h 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: ~,'rhe proposed amendments would not increase the approved number of dweillng units and would the~refore not result in ~u increase in population. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or ~pose people to poten~al impacts involving: a) ~ Unstable earth conditions or changes in [] [] [] [] geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacemenL% compaction or [] [] [] [] overcovcring of the soil? ' c) - Change in topography or ground surface relief [] [] [] [] features? d) The destruction, coveting or modification of any [] [] [] [] unique geologic or physical £earures? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, [] [] [] [] either on or offthe site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion o£beach [] [] [] [] sands, or changes m siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the charnel ora river or stream or the bed o£th~ ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic [] [] [] [] baT~rds such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar ba?~rds? Comments:v The proposed amendment relates to development stan~ds that would generally be more restrictive tl~n'allowed by the current PC District Regulations; The proposed amendment would have no affect on ~he physical environment beyond that?hich was analyzed in the IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Cl~anges in absorption rates, drainage patterns, [] [] [] [] or the xate and amount of surface runoff?. b) Exposure of people or property to water related [] [] [] [] ha?~rds 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)? 2 d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] [] [] . [] water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction [] 1'3 [] [] 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) Impact~ to groundwater quality? [] [] [] [] i) Alterations to the course or flow of:flood [] [] [] [] waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water [] [] [] [] othem,ise available for public water supplies? Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was anal)zed in the EIR. V. .&IR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contr/bute 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 re~onalty? d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] [] e) Create a substantial in'ease in stationary or [] [] [] [] non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development'standards that would generally be more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment would have no' affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analYZed in the EI2R. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. WouM the proposal result in: 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 barriei-s for pedestrians or bicycli§ts? [] ~ . Il" [] [] f) Conflict~ with adopted policies supporting [] [] [] [] alternative transportation (c.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? · g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic iratJacts? [] ~ [] ' El [] h) A "large project" under the Congestion [] I3. _ [] [] Management Program? (An 'equivalent of 2400 or mom average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations, The proposed amendment would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the EIR. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Fi/ould the proposal rexult in impacts to: 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 [] IZl [] [] pool)? . e) Wildlife ~spersal or migration corr/dors? [] [] [] f)' Affect regional habitat preservation planning El [] Fl. [] efforts? Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations._ The proposed amendment would have no affect on the Physical environment beyond that which was analyzed id-th6 EIR~ VIIL ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with. adopted energy conservation [] [] [] [] plans? 4 b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] [] [] inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] [] [] [] protection, will this project imp.act this protection? Comments: ~ The proposed amendment relates to deVelOpment standard~ that would generally be · more restrictive thanallow~d b~'tl~efiffrent P(~ D~$ti'i~t Re~Ulafi~-!,The~"-"; l~i:~pO~d amendment would have no affect on the ph~sic~l,~ e~, ,V~l'.~ o~ment beyond ithat'-Whiell was analyzed in the Em. IX. ttAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: ~) A risk of accidental explosion or rele~e of [] [] [] [] hazardous substances 0fi~lfiding; but not limited to: pelroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b~ Posm'ble interference with an en~ergency [] [] [] ' [] response plan 6f 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? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable [] [] [] [] brush, ~ass, or lrees? Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be more restrictive than allowed by the cn .rrent PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? [] [] [] [] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] [] Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regnlafi0ns. _ The proposed amendment would have no affect on the physical euxironment beyond that which was analyzed in the XI. pLrBI JC SERVICES. Would the proposal lun~e an effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areax: a) Fire protection? [] [] [] [] b) Poticeprotection? [] [] . [] [] c) Schools?" [] [] [] [] d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] [] [] [] roads? e) Other governmental services? [] [-1 [] [] Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be more restri~tl.e than aUowed by the Current PC Dht[;ct R~gu!ati6as~'~-The proposed amendment would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that Which was analyzed in the EI~ XIIi' :, Threshbld,~ Will the propOSal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? A~ descn-b~l below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the se~m. Threshold a) Fire/t~S __ O F1 [] [] The 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 .... Comments: The proposed amendment would not increase dwelling units over what was analyzed in the Eltl. Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon the demand for Fire and Emergency Medical Ser~4ces beyond what was analyzed in the EIR. The proposed amendment would not affect the City's Threshold Standards. b) Police · [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that police ~mits must respond tO 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minums or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls 0£4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls wilhin 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. Comments: The proposed amendment would not increase dwelling nnits over what was anal.vzed in the EIR. Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon the demand for Police Services beyond what was analyzed in the EIR. The proposed amendment would not affect the City's Threshold Standard~ c) Traffic [] [] [] [] The Tlueshold Smudards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Sen4ce (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) 'iD" may occur' during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west ofi-805 are not to operate at a LOS below'their 1987 LOS.- No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" dm4ng the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted fi-om this Standard. Comments: The proposed amendment would not increase dwelling units over what was analyzed in the EI1L Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon truffle generation beyond what was analyzed in the EIR. The proposed amendment would not affect the City's Threshold Standards. /2 -22 d) Parkx, Recreation [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population. Comments: The proposed amendment wo. uld not increase dwelling units over what was analyzed ia the E!R~~ Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon,the acreage requirement for recreational facilities beyond What was analyzed in the EI~~ The PropOsed amendment would not affect the City's Threshold Standards. e) Drainage: [] [] [] [] :' The Threshold Standards require that storm wat~ flows and volumes not exceed !' " City Engineering, Standards.: Individual:--projects- will~! pr~Vi~.i~'hecessa~ '~' improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s5 and Cit~ Eng~n~'ering Standards. Comments: The proposed amendment would not increase dwelling units over _what was analyzed.in the EI1L Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon storm water flows and volumes beyond what was analyzed in the EIR. The proposed amendment would not fiff~t the City's Threshold Standards. f) Sewer [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City En~neering Standards. Individual projects w~ll provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Comments: The proposed amendment would not increase dwelling units over what was analyzed in the EI1L Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon sewage flows and volumes beyond what was analyzed in the EIR.. The proposed amendment would not affect the Threshold Standards. g) Water [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and tmo~rnission facilities are constructed concurrently with plan, ned growth and that water quality standards-are not jeopardized during growth and construction: Applicants mayalso be required to participate in whatever water eonservafign or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building pc, wit issuance. Comments: -The proposed amendment would not increase the development area-or number of dwelling units over what was analyzed in the EI1L Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon water storage, treatment or transmission facilities beyond what was.analyzed in the EI1L The proposed amendm, ent addresses development Standards and thiis would not'affect the Water quality. As such, the proposed amendment would not affect the City's Threshold Standards.. XTIT. UTILITEES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial altefations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? [] [] [] [] b) Communications systems? [] [] [] [] c) Local or regional water treatment or dislxibution [] I-I [] [] facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? [] [] [] [] e) Storm water, drainage? [] [] [] [] f) Solid waste disposal? [] ' [] ' [] [] Comments: The proposed amendment addresses development standards for San Miguel Ranch and would:, not~ increase dwelling units over~ what, was-analyzed in': the~EIIL ', TrusS.the.-uroDosed amendment Would have no affeCt uPon. the need for or demand UP6n theSe Utili~ ~ic~ septices beyond What was a~nalYZed inth~ EI1L ~ XTv'.i AESTl~ETICS. Would the proposal: a) ObstrUct any scenic vista or view open to the [] [] [] [] public or will the proposal result in ire 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 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) Reduce an additional mount of spill li~t? [] [] [] [] Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be more restrictive tha? allowed by the current PC Di~lxlct Regulations. There would be no impact on the physical'environment from the proposed amendment~The re~ttlctions on FAR and maximum building coverage could have a positive effect on visual resources by restricting the maximum building area, bulk and building coverage on residential lots. - XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposaL' a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or [] [] [] [] the deshuction 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? 8 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 resources? . Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development stnndar, ds'tila{_~Ould generally be '- more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations~The propp.~ ~damendment : ' would have no affect on the phymeal envn'onment beYond that whi!:li,~as.~;iil tileEIR:. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the [] [] _ [] [] -prop'bsal result in the alterati-on ofe or the destruction of paleontological resourcex ? Comments: The proposed amendment relates to.development standards that would generally be more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the EIR. X%q2. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or [] [] [] [] re~onal parks or other recreational facilities? b) Aff~ct existing recreational opportunities? [] [] [] [] c) Interfere w/th recreation parks & recreation [] [] [] [] plans or programs? Comments: The proposed amendment would not increase dwelling nnits Over what was analyzed in the El:IL Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon the demand for recreational facilities or opportunities beyond what was analyzed in the EIR. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: . a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially red.ucc 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 comm~mity, reduce the number or restrict the range ora r~u'e or endangered plant or animal oreliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? .. 9 Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the. EIR. b) Does the project have the potentihl to achieve [] [] [] [] short-team, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals7 Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development ~dards.thatwould generally be more restrictive than allowed by;the cnrrent PC- District Regnlations:¢The proposed amendment would have no affect On the physical-envir0nment.be~bnd th~f%hich Was analy~ed in the EIR. c) Does the project have impa~ta'r?t are Fl' [] [] [] individfially limited, bUt ~ul~fi/)~ly considerable? ("Cumulatively ¢onsiderablet' means that the incremental'effects of a'pr0j ect are considerable when viewed in connection . w/th the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the EIR. d) Does the project have environmental effect [] [] [] [] which will cause substantial adverse effects on human'beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The proposed amendment r61a. tes to development standards that would generally be more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the EIR. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION_MEASURES: The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, conskucfion or 0peralioa of the project: No mitifmtion measures are required for the proposed rezone other than those already required by the EGL XX. AGREEMENT TO 12V[PLEIVIENT MITIGATION 1VFI~.ASURES By si~ning the line(s)provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Opm-ator(s) stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company'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 posting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with the 10 County Clerk shall indicate the .Applicants' andb, or Operator's desire that the project be held in abeyance without approval and that Applicant(s) ands'or Operator(s) shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. Not Applicable Printed Name and Title of Authorized Rqxisentative of signatnl-e of AUthorized Representative of Date Property ~ Nme Printed Name and Title of Operatort ' if different from Property Owner -- ~gna~re of~uthorized Represeattative of Date ~(~v~tor if different from Property Owner XXI. ENVIRO~N~FAL FACTORS POTENTI.a~LLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, in¥olving at least one /mpact that is a "Potentially Si~nificant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Land Use and Planning [] Transportation/Circulation [] Public Sm'ices [] Population and Housing [] Biolo~cal Resources [] Utilities and Scrcice Systems [] Geophysical [] Energy and Mineral Resources [] Aesthetics [] Water [] H~7~rds ' [] Cultural Resources [] Air Quality [] Noise [] Recreation [] Mandatory Findings of Significance 31JO'l_ DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a si_mfificant effect on the environment, [] and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fred 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 /2 measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED INrEGATIVE 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 "potenfially significant impacts" or ~otenfially 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 slal~d~rds arid (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIIL including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this dete,~,~ination. Environmental Rev4ew Coordinator City of Chula Vista EXHIBIT ORDINANCE NO. PAGE BONITASUNNYSIDE PROJECT LOCATION ; ESTANCIA COUNTf'OF SAN OIEGO ROLLING HILLS R EASTLAKE CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT City of Chula Vista PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT:  San Miguel Ranch PROJECT North of Proctor Valley Rd Request: To approve amendments and additions to the ADDRESS: & West of Rolling Hills Ranch San Miguel Ranch planned community district regulations SCALE: FILE NUMBER: (zoning) to add floor area ratio development standards and NORTH No Scale PCM-01-07 amend building coverage development standards. Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 1 of 4 TABLE of CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER/SECTION PAGE 9.4 Parking Development Standards ...................................................... 63 9.4.1 General Requirements .......................................................... 63 9.4.2 Special Requirements ........................................................... 64 9.5 Performance Standards .................................................................. 65 Chapter X ADMINISTRATION .................................................................... 67 10.1 Purpose .................................................................................... 67 10.2 Standard Procedures ..................................................................... 67 10.3 Administrative Review ................................................................... 67 10.4 Site Plan and Architectural Approval .................................................. 68 10.5 Conditional Use Permit Review ......................................................... 68 10.6 Other Provisions ........................................................................... 69 FIGURES PAGE Figure 2-1 SPA Land Use District Plan ............................................................... 3 Figure 2-2 Measuring Locations for Building Setbacks ........................................... 15 Figure 2-3 Measurements for Minimum Lot Area and Setbacks for Lots with Internal Slopes .............................................................................. 16 Figure 2-4 Measurement of Split Side Yard Requirements ....................................... 17 TABLES PAGE Table 2-1 Chart of SPA Land Use Districts ......................................................... 5 Table 2-2 Permitted Use Matrix-Residential Districts ............................................ 10 Table 2-3 Development Standards - Residential Districts ....................................... 13 Table 2-3A Development Standards - Residential Districts (Rev. 6105101) ................ 13A Table 2-3B Maximum Building Area ............................................................. 14B Table 2-4 Permitted Use Matrix-Commercial District ............................................ 22 Table 2-5 Development Standards - Commercial Districts ...................................... 28 Table 2-6 Permitted Use Matrix - Community Purpose Facility District ......................30 Table 2-7 Development Standards - Community Purpose Facility District .................... 32 Table 2-8 Temporary Uses ........................................................................... ,38 Table 2-9 Off-Street Parking Requirements ......................................................... 61 Table 2-10 Parking Table Design Standards ......................................................... 64 San Miguel Ranch Spa Plan Volume 2 - PC District Regulations NNP - Trimark Pacific San Miguel LLC June 5, 2001 Page TOC-3 Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 2 of 4 Development Standards Table 2-3A (Revised 6/05/01) Land Use District SFE SF1 SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SFA MF1 Min. Lot Area (square feet) 20,000/ 7,000 6,000 b 5,000 b 4,500 ~ 4,000 b SP N/A 15,000 ~ Min. Lot Width (feet) c Measured 100 a 60 55 c 50 c 50 c SP SP N/A Knuckle or cul-de-sac 40 35 35 35 35 SP SP N/A Frontage Flag lot frontage 20 20 20 20 20 SP SP N/A Min. Lot Depth (feet)c 120 ll30 90 90 80 SP SP N/A Maximum lot coverage 35 45 ~ 45 55 50 55 SP SP SP (percent) Floor Area .45 .50 .55 .60 .60 SP SP SP Front Yard Minimum Setback f To house 25 20 l 5 [ 5 15 SP SP SP To direct entry garage 25 20 ~ 20 ~ 20 g 20 g SP SP SP To side entry garage 25 20 15 15 15 SP aP SP To porch 20 l 7 17 17 15 SP SP SP Side Yard Minimum Setbacks (feet) *' h To adjacent residential lot l 5/I 0 i 10/5 i 10/5 i 5/5 5/5 SP SP SP To adjacent street (exterior 20 10 10 I0 10 SP SP SP side yard) Rear Yard Minimum Setback (feet)c ~ To house I 25 k 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP To garage with minimum 25~ 15 5 5 5 SP SP SP 30-foot driveway Building Height Maximum 28 ftl/ 28 ftc/ 28 ft ~/ 28 ftc/ 28 ttV 28 ftc/ 28 ftc/ 45 leery (feetY# stories) 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories 2 garage 2 garage 2 garage 2 assigned spaces, 1.5-1BR Parking Required (Off- 2 garage 2 garage 2 garage spaces ~ spaces a spaces" min. 1 covered. 2.0-2BR Street spaces per Unit) ~ spaces spaces spaces Guest- 0.33/ 2.5-3BR+ Unit* Guest- 0.33/ Unit* San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Volume 2 - PC District Regulations NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC 13A June 5, 2001 Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 3 of 4 Table 2-3A Notes: a. Within the SFE Districts, including Planning Areas K and L, the standard minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet, however, up to 25% of the lots may be a minimum of 15,000 square feet, provided that the overall average lot size within Planning Areas K and L is not less than 20,000 square feet. b. Minimum lot area applies to the graded pad area of the lot (exclusive of slopes) in the SF3, SF4 and SF5 Districts. Minimum pad area within the SF2 District shall be 5500 square feet. c. Lot widths and depths are typical minimums but may vary slightly with irregularly shaped lots and site specific conditions. Such variations are subject to approval of a variance, except where the variance requirements can be fulfilled by site plan review required by other provisions of these regulations. Minimums such as lot width and depth may not be used in tandem where they would result in lot area which does not meet the minimum lot area requirement. d. The minimum lot width in SFE areas may be reduced to 90 feet for lots which are less than 20,000 square feet as allowed by Note "a" above. e. For lots with minimum widths of 55 feet or less, the minimum width standard shall apply to the level pad area (exclusive of any side slope within the lot) and for purposes of this provision, the minimum width may be measured at the building line at the front yard setback. f. Architectural features, such as eaves, awnings, chimneys, niches up to 12 feet in length, balconies, steps, stairways, or bay windows may project not more than four feet into any required front or rear yard area, and not more than two feet into any required side yard. g. May be reduced to 18 feet with use of roll-up garage door, except that in no case shall the distance to the nearest edge of sidewalk be less than 20 feet. h. Building setbacks shall be measured per Figure 2-3, which includes the following provisions: · The minimum level area within any side yard shall be 5 feet to top or toe of slope or base of wall for lots with internal slopes. The maximum height of a retaining wall in a side yard is 3 feet. The maximum height of a retaining wall in a rear yard is 5 feet, and where a retaining wall is greater than 3 feet high, a minimum 4- foot horizontal separation is required between the retaining wall and a freestanding fence or wall. · The rear yard setback shall be based on the level pad area, measured from the top or toe of slopes for lots with internal slopes. i. Where there are slopes within the side yard of a lot, building setbacks shall be measured per Figure 2-4. j. In situations where the lot configuration has irregular angles, or otherwise results in an odd- shaped lot or building pad, these minimums may be reduced subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Building. k. The minimum rear yard setback is increased to 50 feet for all lots in Planning Area L whose property line(s) abut the SPA boundary of San Miguel Ranch. 1. Building Height may be increased to 35 feet with Site Plan approval. m. Parking standards for Senior Citizen or "affordable' residential development may be reduced from those specified in the District in which it will be located. Such a reduction shall be at the discretion of the City Council through the Conditional Use Permit procedure (CVMC 19.14.080), and subject to a parking study prepared by a registered traffic engineer to ensure adequate parking will be provided. n. Guest parking is encouraged to be provided for single family products, in addition to onsite driveway spaces, either on the street where width allows, or in designated parking bays. o. Required guest parking spaces shall be marked and clearly identified as guest parking. The guest parking spaces shall not be permitted to be assigned to individual dwelling units. "p." "The allowable building area for construction of dwellings, or any remodeling or additions to dwellings for each lot shall be as determined in table 2-3B below. The maximum building area for single family detached and attached products~ garages, and other accessory, structures shall be the square footage listed or that permitted by the percentage of lot area, whichever is less. Homeowner additions shall be allowed only where consistent with these standards. A 300 square foot open patio (covered but open on three sides) shall be permitted on each residential lot and shall be exempt from inclusion in this calculation. All residential development proposals are sublect to review for consistency with the San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines, Residential Design Guidelines Section 4.5 (Single Family) or Section 4.6 (Multi-Family)." San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Volume 2 - PC District Regulations NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC 14A June 5, 2001 Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 4 of 4 Table 2-3B: Maximum Building Area San Floor Area Maximum ~ Ratio Building Area Ranch (F.A.R.) (Sq. Ft.) District SFE .45 N/A* SF1 .50 4500 SF2 .55** 4300 SF3 .60** 4000 SF4 .60** 3100(E)*** 350O (~) SF5 SP S~' SFA SP SP MF SP SP Table notes: * Maximum allowable building area will be regulated by coverage and setback regulations in the SFE Land Use District. ** The maximum allowable F.A.R.'s in the SF2~ SF3 and SF4 Districts are as follows. Lots numbers are as shown on Chula Vista Tract 99-04~ approved 2/29/00 (Tentative Map PCS- 99-04): SF2:.60 for lots 1-21, 38-40~ and 43-51 in Neighborhood I. SF3:.65 for lots 6-8~ 11-15, and 37-41 in Neighborhood H. SF4:.65 for lots 109-119 in Neighborhood E. *** In the SF4 District, the Maximum allowable building area shall be 3100 square feet in Neighborhood E and 3500 square feet in Neighborhood G . SP - Standards to be determined concurrently with Site Plan and Architectural approval. San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Volume 2 - PC District Regulations NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC 14B June 5, 2001 12 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 97-02 REGARDING AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, ADDRESSING FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LOT COVERAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; CITY OF CHULA VISTA. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Resolution are diagrammatically represented in Exhibit 1, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and hereto incorporated herein by this Resolution, and commonly known as the San ' Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area, and for the purpose of General description herein consists of 743.1 acres located east and north of Proctor Valley Rd., south of Sweetwater Reservoir and the SDG&E Miguel Substation, and west of Rolling Hills Ranch ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, on November 13, 2000, a duly verified application requesting amendments and additions to the Planned Community District Regulations of the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan was filed by the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department (Applicant) and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of a prior Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan including Planned Community (PC) District Regulations previously approved by City Council Resolution 19631 and Ordinance No. 2799 on October 19, 1999; and, WHEREAS, the Planned Community District Regulations are established by City Council Ordinance 2799, pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 19.48 Planned Community Zone, and are applicable to the San Miguel Ranch SPA Land Use Plan; and, WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of a Third-tier, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) EIR-97-02 Resolution Page 2 previously certified by City Council Resolution 19630 on October 19, 1999; and WHEREAS, this Third-tier FSE1R incorporates by reference two prior EIRs: the original Rancho San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan FEIR-90-02, certified by the City Council on March 23, 1993; and the San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment / General Development Plan Amendment FSEIR-95-04, certified by the City Council on December 17, 1996; as well as their associated Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; and, D. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on May 23, 2001, and voted 5-0-2 to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed Amendments and Additions to the SPA Plan - Planned Community District Regulations for 743.1 acres known as San Miguel Ranch. The proceedings and all evidence introduce before the Planning Commission at the public heating on this project held on May 23, 2001, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and, E. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the heating on the Project applications and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the Project Site at least ten days prior to the hearing. WHEREAS, the hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista at the time and place as advertised on June 5, 2001, on the project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, before the City Council; and, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: II. FINAL SUBSEQUENT EIR-97-02 AND ADDENDUM TO FSEIR-97-02 REVIEVqED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS On October 19, 1999, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista reviewed, analyzed, considered, approved and certified third-tier FSEIR-97-02; and The Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 which Resolution Page 3 specifically addresses the amendments and additions to the Planned Community District Regulations and has determined that the proposed changes would not result in significant impacts pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and therefore found that the revisions would result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the EIR adequate under CEQA. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council hereby certifies that the Addendum to FSEIR-97-02 has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State E1R Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council exercised their independent review and judgment with respect to the Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 in the form presented and has determined that said document was prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. V. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to the their terms, the City shall have the right tO revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of shall future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigate or compel their compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by Developer or successor in interest by the City approval of this Resolution. VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon 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 the Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the city so determines in its sole discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be revoked and no further in force or in effect. Resolution Page 4 Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter John Kaheny Director of Planning City Attorney H:\attomey~san-mig\smr-far-cc-rs.doc EXHIBIT- 1 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE BONITA SUNNYSIDE: PROJECT LOCATION ESTANCIA ~ COUNTYOF SAN DIEGO EASTLAKE~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: LOCATOR PROJECT City of Chula Vista O APPLICAN'I~ San Mi~luel Ranch PROJECT North of Proctor Valley Rd Request: To approve amendments and additions to the ADDRESS: & West of Rolling Hills Ranch San Miguel Ranch planned community district regulations (zoning) to add floor area ratio development standards and SCALE: FILE NUMBER: amend building coverage development standards. · NORTH No Scale PCM-01-07 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING ORDINANCE 2799 AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT REGULATIONS. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Ordinance are diagrammatically represented in Exhibit 1 attached hereto, and for the purpose of general description consist of a 743.1 acre area north and east of Proctor Valley Rd., south of Sweetwater Reservoir and the SDG&E Miguel Substation, and west of Rolling Hills Ranch, commonly known as the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community ("Project Site"); and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on November 13, 2000, the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department (" Applicant") filed an application requesting approval of amendments and additions to the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for the San Miguel Ranch Project Site ("Project") to establish Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards, hereto incorporated as Exhibit 2; and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the Project site has been the subject matter of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 19631 on October 19, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Project site has been the subject matter of City Council Ordinance 2799 adopting Planned Community District Regulations, approved on October 19, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Project site has been the subject matter of a third-tier Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 97-02 (FSEIR 97-02) for the above SPA previously certified by City Council Resolution No. 19630 on October 19, 1999; and D. Planning Commission Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said project on May 23, 2001, and voted 5-0-2 to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Community District Regulations text in accordance with the findings listed below. The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on May 23, 2001, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. Ordinance No. Page 2 E. City Council Record on Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on June 5, 2001 on the Project, and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at which this ordinance was introduced for first reading ( June 5,2001), the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved Resolution No. __ by which it certified an Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 for the San Miguel Ranch Project subject to the findings and conditions contained therein. II NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: A. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council certified by Resolution No.__ an Addendum to the FSEIR-97-02 in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. B. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council exercised their independent review and judgement with respect to the Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 in the form presented, and has determined that said document was prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. C. FINDINGS FOR P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby finds that the findings and determinations set forth in Ordinance 2799 continue to be true and correct, and the proposed amendments and additions San Miguel Ranch Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and public necessity, convenience, the general welfare and good zoning practice support the proposed documents. D. APPROVAL OF ZONING REGULATIONS The City Council does hereby approve the amendments and additions to the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community District Regulations which add Floor Area Ratio standards for San Miguel Ranch as represented in Exhibit 2. Ordinance No. Page 3 · III. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its 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 resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. 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 M. Kaheny Director of Planning City Attorney PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of ChulaVista, California, this 5th day of June, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk H:~ATTORNEY\SAN-MIG\SMR-FAR-CC-ORD.DOC) ~ EXHIBIT- 1 ~.~ ORDINANCE NO. --- PAGE BONITASUNNYSIDE PBOJECT LOCATION ~ ESTANCIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ROLLINO HILL1 EASTLAKE CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: LOCATOR PROJECT City of Chula Vista  ^PP,,C~T: San MiQuel Ranch PROJECT North of Proctor Valley Rd Request: To approve amendments and additions to the ADDRESS: & West of Rolling Hills Ranch San Miguel Ranch planned community disfl'ict regulations (zoning) to add floor ama ratio development standards and SCALE: FILE NUMBER: amend building coverage development standards. NORTH No Scale PCM-01-07 Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 1 of 4 TABLE of CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER/SECTION PAGE 9.4 Parking Development Standards ...................................................... 63 9.4.1 General Requirements .......................................................... 63 9.4.2 Special Requirements ........................................................... 64 9.5 Performance Standards .................................................................. 65 Chapter X ADMINISTRATION .................................................................... 67 10.1 Purpose .................................................................................... 67 10.2 Standard Procedures ..................................................................... 67 10.3 Administrative Review ................................................................... 67 10.4 Site Plan and Architectural Approval .................................................. 68 10.5 Conditional Use Permit Review ......................................................... 68 10.6 Other Provisions ........................................................................... 69 FIGURES PAGE Figure 2-1 SPA Land Use District Plan ............................................................... 3 Figure 2-2 Measuring Locations for Building Setbacks ........................................... 15 Figure 2-3 Measurements for Minimum Lot Area and Setbacks for Lots with Internal Slopes .............................................................................. 16 Figure 2-4 Measurement of Split Side Yard Requirements ....................................... 17 TABLES PAGE Table 2-1 Chart of SPA Land Use Districts ......................................................... 5 Table 2-2 Permitted Use Matrix-Residential Districts ............................................ 10 Table 2-3 Development Standards - Residential Districts ....................................... 13 Table 2-3A Development Standards - Residential Districts (Rev. 6/05/01) ................ 13A Table 2-3B Maximum Building Area ............................................................. 14B Table 2-4 Permitted Use Matrix-Commercial District ............................................ 22 Table 2-5 Development Standards - Commercial Districts ...................................... 28 Table 2-6 Permitted Use Matrix - Community Purpose Facility District ...................... 30 Table 2-7 Development Standards - Community Purpose Facility District ....................32 Table 2-8 Temporary Uses ............................................................................ 38 Table 2-9 Off-Street Parking Requirements ......................................................... 61 Table 2-10 Parking Table Design Standards ......................................................... 64 San Miguel Ranch Spa Plan Volume 2 PC District Regulations NNP - Trimark Pacific San Miguel LLC June 5, 2001 Page TOC-3 Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 2 of 4 Development Standards Table 2-3A (Revised 6/05/01) Land Use District SFE SF 1 SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SFA MF 1 Min. Lot Area (square feet) 20,000/ 7,000 6,000 b 5,000 b 4,500 b 4,000 b SP N/A 15,000 ~ Min. Lot Width (feet) c Measured 100 a 60 55 c 50 * 50 c SP SP N/A Knuckle or cul-de-sac 40 35 35 35 35 SP SP N/A Frontage Flag lot frontage 20 20 20 20 20 SP SP N/A Min. Lot Depth (feet)c 120 100 90 90 80 SP SP N/A Maximum lot coverage 35 45 5n~ ~. 5 ~-5-50 55 SP SP SP (percent) Floor Area .45 .50 .55 .60 .60 SP SP SP Front Yard Minimum Setback f TO house 25 20 l 5 15 15 SP SP SP To direct entry garage 25 20 ~ 20 ~ 20 ~ 20 ~ SP SP SP To side ent~ garage 25 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP To porch 20 17 17 17 15 SP SP SP Side Yard Minimum Setbacks (feet) c h To adjacent residential lot 15/I 0 i 10/5 i 10/5 i 5/5 5/5 SP SP SP To adjacent street (exterior 20 10 10 I 0 10 SP SP SP side yard) Rear Yard Minimum Setback (feet) ' To house ~ 25 k 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP To garage with minimum 25j 15 5 5 5 SP SP SP 30-foot driveway Building Height Maximum 28 ftc/ 28 ftc/ 28 ft ~/ 28 ftc/ 28 ft~/ 28 l~t/ 28 ftc/ 45 feet~ (feet/# stories) 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories 2 garage 2 garage 2 garage 2 assigned spaces, 1.5-1BR Parking Required (Off- 2 garage 2 garage 2 garage spaces ~ spaces" spaces~ min. 1 covered. 2.0-2BR Street spaces per Unit) m spaces spaces spaces Guest- 0.33/ 2.5-3BR+ Unit° Guest- 0.33/ Unit~ San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Volume 2 - PC District Regulations NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC 13A June 5, 2001 Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 3 of 4 Table 2-3A Notes: a. Within the SFE Districts, including Planning Areas K and L, the standard minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet, however, up to 25% of the lots may be a minimum of 15,000 square feet, provided that the overall average lot size within Planning Areas K and L is not less than 20,000 square feet. b. Minimum lot area applies to the graded pad area of the lot (exclusive of slopes) in the SF3, SF4 and SF5 Districts. Minimum pad area within the SF2 District shall be 5500 square feet. c. Lot widths and depths are typical minimums but may vary slightly with irregularly shaped lots and site specific conditions. Such variations are subject to approval of a variance, except where the variance requirements can be fulfilled by site plan review required by other provisions of these regulations. Minimums such as lot width and depth may not be used in tandem where they would result in lot area which does not meet the minimum lot area requirement. d. The minimum lot width in SFE areas may be reduced to 90 feet for lots which are less than 20,000 square feet as allowed by Note "a" above. e. For lots with minimum widths of 55 feet or less, the minimum width standard shall apply to the level pad area (exclusive of any side slope within the lot) and for purposes of this provision, the minimum width may be measured at the building line at the front yard setback. f. Amhitecturat features, such as eaves, awnings, chimneys, niches up to 12 feet in length, balconies, steps, stairways, or bay windows may project not more than four feet into any required front or rear yard area, and not more than two feet into any required side yard. g. May be reduced to 18 feet with use of roll-up garage door, except that in no case shall the distance to the nearest edge of sidewalk be less than 20 feet. h. Building setbacks shall be measured per Figure 2-3, which includes the following provisions: The minimum level area within any side yard shall be 5 feet to top or toe of slope or base of wall for lots with intemal slopes. The maximum height of a retaining wall in a side yard is 3 feet. The maximum height of a retaining wall in a rear yard is 5 feet, and where a retaining wall is greater than 3 feet high, a minimum 4- foot horizontal separation is required between the retaining wall and a freestanding fence or wall. The rear yard setback shall be based on the level pad area, measured from the top or toe of slopes for lots with internal slopes. i. Where there are slopes within the side yard of a lot, building setbacks shall be measured per Figure 2-4. j. In situations where the lot configuration has irregular angles, or otherwise results in an odd- shaped lot or building pad, these minimums may be reduced subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Building. k. The minimum rear yard setback is increased to 50 feet for all lots in Planning Ama L whose property line(s) abut the SPA boundary of San Miguel Ranch. 1. Building Height may be increased to 35 feet with Site Plan approval. m Parking standards for Senior Citizen or "affordable" residential development may be reduced from those specified in the District in which it will be located. Such a reduction shall be at the discretion of the City Council through the Conditional Use Permit procedure (CVMC 19.14.080), and subject to a parking study prepared by a registered traffic engineer to ensure adequate parking will be provided. n. Guest parking is encouraged to be provided for single family products, in addition to onsite driveway spaces, either on the street where width allows, or in designated parking bays. o. Required guest parking spaces shall be marked and clearly identified as guest parking. The guest parking spaces shall not be permitted to be assigned to individual dwelling units. "p." "The allowable building area for construction of dwellings, or any remodeling or additions to dwellings for each lot shall be as determined in table 2-3B below. The maximum building area for single family detached and attached products, garages, and other accessory, structures shall be the square footage listed or that permitted by the percentage of lot area~ whichever is less. Homeowner additions shall be allowed only where consistent with these standards. A 300 square foot open patio (covered but open on three sides) shall be permitted on each residential lot and shall be exempt from inclusion in this calculation. All residential development proposals are sub.iect to review for consistency with the San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines, Residential Design Guidelines Section 4.5 (Single Family) or Section 4.6 (Multi-Family)." San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Volume 2 - PC District Regulations NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC 14A June 5, 2001 Ordinance No. Exhibit 2 Page 4 of 4 Table 2~3B: Maximum Building Area San Floor Area Maximum ~ Ratio Building Area Ranch (F.A.R~) (Sq. Ft.) District SFE .45 SF1 .50 4500 SF2 .55** 4300 SF3 .60** 4000 SF4 .60** 3100 (E)*** 35oo (G) SF5 SP SP SFA SP SP MF SP SP Table notes: * Maximum allo~vable building area will be regulated by coverage and setback regulations in the SIZE Land Use District. ** The maximum allowable F.A.R.'s in the SF2, SF3 and SF4 Districts are as follows. Lots numbers are as shown on Chula Vista Tract 99-04~ approved 2/29/00 (Tentative Map PCS- 99-04): SF2:.60 for lots 1-21, 38-40, and 43-51 in Neighborhood L SF3:.65 for lots 6-8, 11-15, and 37-41 in Neighborhood H. SF4:.65 for lots 109-119 in Neio~hborhood E. *** In the SF4 DistricL the Maximum allowable building area shall be 3100 square feet in Neighborhood E and 3500 square feet in Neighborhood G . SP - Standards to be determined concurrently with Site Plan and Architectural approval. San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Volume 2 - PC District Regulations NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC 14B June 5, 2001 0 May 24, 2001 MEMO TO: City Clerk ,~L~[~ FROM: Patty Wasp 5UB~'ECT: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENTS Please schedule the following ratifications under Mayor's Comments for the next Council meeting: ~, Helen Stokes and Susan Corrillo to the Commission on Aging; and Doug Reid, Resource Conservation Commission Thank You. Cc: Mayor Horton Armando Buelna Patricia 5alvacion THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL INITIATIVE A joint project involving the Substance Abuse Summit VI and the Chula Vista Coordinating Council Chula Vista's Neighborhood Council Initiative is a dtywide team of residents that are working together to discover the assets, interests and needs of thek neighbors, stimulate volunteerism, create more caring relationships among residents and business owners, and generally improve community well being. Vision The City of Chula Vista becomes "home" to a generation of residents that are healthy, self- sufficient, involved in civics and good to one another. Mission To ensure and enhance resident voice and leadership with regard to issues affecting community well being. (e.g. environmental quality, safety and security, access to health care services) Objeetives · To complete five adopt-a-block projects that serve as the foundation for future work in Chula Vista communities · To increase resident knowledge and awareness of community resources · To increase the capacity of community residents to mobilize community assets and advocate for community needs · To organize community residents around action plans that address co~imion issues and con~eTllS · To engage local businesses in economic and community development partnerships To learn more about the NCI and howto get involved, please contact: DANA RICHARDSON HEATHER NEMOUR MANAGER, COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECT COORDINATOR PARADISE VALLEY HOSPITAL NEW DIRECTIONS FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER (619) 472-4607 (619) 691-5301 ENERGY READING GUIDE History/Politics Energy and the Making of Modern .California; James C. Williams, The University of Akron Press; 1997. Science/Global Warming Farewell Fossil Fuels: Reviewin~ America's Enerz~ Policy; Sidney Borowitz; Plenum Trade, 1999. Global Climate Chan~e and California: Potential Imuacts and Responses; Joseph B. Knox, ed.; University of California Press, 1991. Environment/Politics The Heat is On~ The High Stakes Battle ,over Earth's Threatened Climate: Ross Gelbspan, Addison- Wesley;1997. Earth Odyssey.; A.round the World in Search of Our Environmental Future; Mark Hertsgaard; Broadway Books, 1999. WEB SITES The Energy Foundation: www,ef, org The American Lung Association: Www.lungusa. org The Environmental Protection Agency: www. eva.eov The California Air Resources Board: www.arb.ca.l~ov ~h ....i.~ ~.t ~h~'"~'~' °~ 2001 l~ we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a 409 Palm Ave., Suite 100, Imperial Beach, CA 91932-1121 Tel: (619)429 7946 MEMORANDUM TO: Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency at their June 5, 2001, 4 p.m. meeting FROM: William E. Claycomb, President SUBJECT: RAMCO, INC. 62 Megawatt Peaker Power Plant If Governor Gray Davis had any backbone, this 62 MW peaker power plant wouldn't be shoved down our throats after just 21 days of review. There is no electricity shortage. The power generators and marketers - - Enron, Duke, Reliant and more - - withheld power from the market and during the last year raised our electricity bills by $5.7 billion and put Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison at loss by $8.2 billion since June 2000. (The San Diego Union-Tri'bune, Friday, June I, 2001, p A3, attached) at least five lawsuits, including one filed by San Francisco are seeking damages from power wholesalers on behalf of all Californians." The California Public Utilities Commission "With the help of former utility workers has been poring through power plant documents to prove that some facilities shut down unnecessarily -- sometimes at the direction of Houston energy traders to diminish supply and drive up prices." A lawsuit could be filed by the end of June. California Attorney General Bill Lockyear should have completed his investigation of market manipulation maybe by the end of July. Whatever else they prove, they won't have trouble proving that the power suppliers violated the Federal law which says that prices must NOT be "unjust and unreasonable." If Governor Davis finds the backbone he could solve this crisis by taking over the power plants instead of just threatening to do it. They could then be run the way they should be while we consider all the alternatives to burning up our natural gas supply which can be used to manufacture 25,000 different products including the shirts on our backs and the rugs on our floors. As for paying for the power plants, we could pay what we think they're worth and let them sue us to prove we were wrong. (We think that's what Michael Aguirre said in this chamber last Tues., June 29th). We attach a Jan. 21, 2001, Cert. Mail, Return Receipt Requested) SAVE OUR BAY, INC. letter to Gov Davis telling him to be brave as Harry Truman was in the late 1940's. The Gov never answered fm'thest along. - ' P._/~W~ ~[~'~ , ~.~ ~ ~e help of foyer u~F worke~ ~ed. ~ ~ t~--I~ to ~st ~ ~e ~ves~on, ~e PUC ~ be~ ~ ~o~h ~wer p~t d~ ~ ~ II-e~'a~0rS effo~ m prove ~t ~me ~fies shut dom ~e~ -- ~me~ at ~e ~on of Houston ener~ ~e~ moffim~ ~e ~ket over ~e ~met -- ~ ~ supp~ ~d Ooised to sue ~r prices ~ed, ~e p~ ~ped up production to reap b~ pmfi~, ~der ~e ~eo~ ~ be~ ~v~a~d by ~e PUC ~d ~s , wholesalers sEE Power~ A4 of ele ricity POWER .- Comssion to approve ~e. they're close ,., ~a's elecffici~ price sh~ks beg., reCam~ t0proving case ..: ' ~y ~ey ~ do~ ~ pm~ how power whol* '" '* ~e ~p 8~ Offi~al~ whor ..... ~d m ~ ~on~o~ ~em ~v~d a ~s ~at h~ ~ cu~ . G~ Cohen, m'~e PUC's gen', .; mmerm~sby~.7b~on~d~d~edu~fi~ e~ co~, ~d ~e ~ But~d~em~' M~ h~e 1o~. co~d ~e a ci~ s~t ~t ~ py a~ut ~ ~ o C~o~a h~e~ ~d re.mm ~e d~ whole~e~ by ~e end of'ffi~ ~e co~s~o~,,h~ ro te~ed m ~cover ~me of,~t money ~om mon~. ~c~er expecm' t~ .q~ · e ~wer whole.em who have ~hed h on ~ap ~ ~s ~ves~afion ~ ~0n plan~ ' '"'" fiOn fdr ~t~)n~a ~e ~s. n~ mon~, at ~e ~esL Towed ~at end, ~e C~o~a ~b~c U~- Bo~ ~e PUC ~d ~ ~ ~p. ties Com~ssion, ~omey ~ ~e.~ves~ ~e~ C~ffomia Blec~ci~ Over- e~ u~ ~dus~ We~ ~s*~ d~fiOD~ s~ht Bo~d ~e ~ ~ prove accumulate sensitive sup~J~ ~ outmf-sm~ whol~e~ ~e~ ~d de~d ~omfion ~"'a m ~nsm~ who ly ~mp~d ~e ~ket ~ ~ible ~ohfion of ~fi~st ~ mb~s on~ u~W,b~ create ~d~ supp~ sho~- hws. ~.s~ ~es ~at ~ve ~ven whol~ Pow~ whole~ ~Y ~ do~ ~ con~Qon~.~ ~e elecffid~ prices as ~h htom ~e way off b~ ~ ~eR as 81,~ ~r mega~ ho~. 8111 pro~s. ~dus~ offi~ ~ ~e ~ ~ offic~ ~c~ Before C~omia's power koc~ysr ~-~at ~e p~ ,~Y'~ off a n~ pm~ ~.~ woes beg~ in June 2~, w~ch' ~ 30 m ~ y~ .o~. w~' consme~ who..s~ whole~e prices on ~e s~t ~ket r~ely shut do~ lor le~ ~ ~ ~ c~d above $1~ ~r megawa~ ho~. merit re~ md ~aln~ge. ~ Diegq C~om's ~e ~ h~ foxed ~o "No one ~ o~ ~du~ who ~t u~e .by s~ ~ves~a~e co~ ~ look ~m back on produ~on ~ a co~ ~ ~e ~e;~e · e ~egafions of m~t,~onduct. ~d at ~fi~r m ~e more m~n~ ~t y~,.~ lmst five s~, ~du~ one ~ed by ~ Fro- It just do~'~ ~n, ~ le~t ~b~ ~t 0n ~ek n~ b~X d~o CiW ~m~ ~ ~e, ~e ~e~ not on p~et ~,' ~d' ~' Ofi~na~,' ~e ~ ~'~ dm~es from ~wer whole~e~ on beh~ of ,~ke~, ~five ~. ~me ~e.~d.of~s~; ~ C~o~s. , , of ~e W~mm Pow~ ~in~ But now ~e ~ ~e ve~ le~ ~e ~ves~am~ ~y ~ey Fo~, a Me~o P~kJ.~ ap~. on ~ show ~at ~e whol~e~ ~olamd fede~ ~oup. ;''~ d~ ~e star, la~ ~st ~just ~d ~nable elec~c- ~ o~er power develo~ ; ity pdces, men~ - ' "I don't ~ ~e~ ~e go~ m be ve~ h~d inTo avoid ~ ~ c~s to ~e," ~d ~en Clemen~, chief con~ removed ~om i~ ~, s~i~ ~ator for ~ F~ci~o. ~d~ ~ke~ ~o~; o~ ~e ~wer whole~e~ ~y ~ey have done d~s ~d ~ ~ ~ ~e noffi~ ~o~, ~ ~at ~ ~e behzg e~ gove~ent ~ ~ mined ~ ~goa~ for ~e shodcon~s of ~e ~en~ ~t moffiWm mosV a 1~ dere~fion hw ~pted by C~o~a of ~e ~'s ~w~ ~d q~ _ la~em ~d ~e mo u~fies, Parc Gas ~d ~ a ~ ~o~ ~> El~ffic ~d ~u~em C~om E&son, ~at sion org~fion. have re~d a comb~ ~.2 b~on ~ lo~s since June 2~. · Complete items 1,2, and 3, Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. "; Print your name and address on the reverse ! ~' ''!''! I' SO that we can return the card to you. C Signature · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, X ~ Agent or on the front if space permits. ~ Addressee 1 Adicle Addressed to: B s de ve~ address diflerent from item le ~ Yes ~ /~~., ~ If YES, enter de,ive~ address below: ~No ¢ Certified Mail B Express Mail I0.0O ~ i¢;~ * 4 Restricted De~ivew? (Extr~ Fee) U Yes -~% ~,-~- ,~¢~ ' .S Form 38' ', Ju,y1999 Bomest,cReturnReoerpt L ' '%0:'"% ¢¢x/¢ Il Honorable Gray Davis - .,,,,.~] ............... ~ /J 2001 State Capitol Certified Mail ~¢0oo Sacramento, CA 95814 Return Receipt Requested Dear Gov. Davis The time has come! The solution is at hand! British Petroleum has described a plan to build a photovoltaic solar panel factory for ~ million that would manufacture 500 MW per year of solar panels. You could build it. It would reduce the cost of solar panels to about ~ which is 20% of what they now cost. ~ ~~ ~ Elkem (Norway) and AstroPower (Delaware) have agreed to the~¢J'2~¢61 future establishment, in Norway, of a jointly owned manufacturing venture that will supply low-cost silicon feedstock to the global solar power industry. Eileen Smith told the California PUC in September, 2000, that photovoltaic grade silicon costs only 10% of the cost of silicon now used in solar panels. You must ask your Energy Commission to combine these two break-throughs to see how low we car] drive the cost of solar panel electricity. Meanwhile Enron Corp., Reliant Energy, Southern Co. and Sempra, maybe more, are all probably holding back generating plants to keep their obscene profits rolling in. When Harry Truman was president and the railroad workers went on strike, he called out the National Guard and took over the railroads to keep the workers on the job and the trains running. Governor Davis, the profiteering energy company executives are threatening the public health and safety with their rolling blackouts. You should follow Truman's examplet take Over the power plants and beqin investiqations with the goal of bringing criminal charges _against the execs. You would probably be guaranteed a second term. Sincerely William E. Clayco~b, President £HUIA VISTA June 5, 2001 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael Meacham, S~cial Operations Manager~<::~ VIA: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager SUBJECT: List of recent or proposed permits for power facilities from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District Attached for your review and information is a list of twenty-seven electricity generating facilities that have recently been proposed for the San Diego region. The list of proposed facilities would generate a total of 953.2 megawatts of additional power within San Diego County. Approximately, 761 megawatts are proposed for the South Bay, and 106.7 megawatts of that amount are proposed for Chula Vista. Seventeen of the twenty-seven facilities listed are dedicated use power generating facilities. The power generated at those sites is typically designed to provide reliability and be used on site. The remaining ten sites are traditional facilities that generate power to sell. Six of those ten sites, or approximately 80% of the total power generating capacity, are permitted or proposed for the Otay area. The list and the calculations above do not include the 706-megawatt South Bay facility. Please feel free to contact the Special Operations Manager at extension 5870 if you have any questions. Attachment Peak Load Power Plant Phase II 3497 Main Street Redevelopment Agency of the City Chula Vista June 2001 1 Existing Power Plant Existing Plant · 44 MW Electrical Generator City Review Process · Operated by natural gas-fired · Special Use Permit turbine · Environmental Review · Selective Catalytic Reduction · Owner Participation Agreement Equipment · On-site electrical substation · Design Review Committee & Planning Commission review · 4,800 hrs. per year of maximum operation · Redevelopment Agency Approval, with conditions (9/26/00} · Nearing Completion Proposed Power Plant Expansion CA Energy Commission Process · 62 MW Electrical Generator · Governor Executive Order invoked · Operated by natural gas-fired turbine; Dry emergency siting procedures Low NOx burners · Expedited 21-day review process · Selective Catalytic Emissions Reduction · Project exempt from CEQA Equipment - June 2002 installation · State has authority over land use · Silencers will reduce noise levels to City standard · Site visit & public hearing- 5/29/01 · Hours of operation will follow emission · Final public hearin§ - 6/11/01 in threshold standards Sacramento 2 Project Disadvantailes · Cumulative impacts are not currently known due to CEi~A exemption · Inefficient natural gas consumption when there is a limited supply · Environment Impact Inequities - Concerns re~ardin§ relaxed environmental restrictions in favor of electrical generation - Chula Vista and Otay to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden · Public Convenience and Necessity - Project will not be completed for "2001 Summer Emergency" Mexico Project Benefits Recommended Conditions · Applicant and CEC agreed to comply with · Compliance with Phase I conditions City imposed conditions/OPA requirements · Build sound wall around the entire · The project is expected to §enerate: per/meter of the site to buffer sound effects - $90,000 in RDA tax increment revenue · Term of CEC approval for 3 yrs.; reduce the - $120,000 in utility taxes to the City NOx emissions to 2 PPM if approved for a · Peaker plants are a top priority in the longer period of time Governor's Enerl~y Plan · Penalties for 2001 emission standard violations should be paid to the City for · May encourage CEC cooperation on the $outhbay air pollution mitigation projects South Bay Plant redevelopment project · The SCR be installed as soon as possible · City support would allow the City to serve as · Reinstate the City as the Chief Building the CEC's designated Chief Building Officer Official Recommendation · City/A§ency recommend that CEC decline to certify the RAMCO power plant expansion application · Adopt Resolution directing staff to communicate the City's position and concerns regardin§ the project, consistent with City Council deliberations and instructions